Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Tuesday 01 February 2005 04:14 pm, Greg London wrote:
> drew Roberts said:
> > What if we push for a change in the copyright law? Something like this:
> >
> > " Unless otherwise stated, all works are automatically copyrighted under
> > a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license."
>
> why not Public Domain instead of CC-BY-SA?

We had that and it was changed.
>
> Copyright is meant to promote the progress of the arts and sciences
> by allowing people to create new proprietary forks, get the exclusive
> rights to those works, and make some money to pay for the time/energy
> they used to create the work in the first place (plus some profit margin).
>
> This part of the system isn't broken.

It is broken because right now the default is all rights reserved, not public 
domain.
>
> defaulting everything to share-alike, first of all, will have a lot
> of overhead due to the attribution requirements. Second of all,
> it prevents proprietary forks and disables the entire system meant
> to promote science and arts.

True, I would prefer CC-SA, but I think that is actually no longer an option. 
IIRC, there is some language to apply to have this result though.
>
> The part that is broken in the system is the rights and durations.
> Fix that, and you'll fix a LOT of problems.

Default to all rights reserved is broken. Default to CC-SA or CC-BY-SA is way 
less broken and perhaps even better then default public domain.

If better, why, if worse, why?

I certainly agree that the duration is a big problem. Who is pushing for 
longer durations? Would they continue to push for longer durations if default 
was CC-SA? If default was public domain?

all the best,

drew