Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 07 March 2005 08:19 am, Rob Myers wrote:
> On Monday, March 07, 2005, at 12:58PM, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> 
wrote:
> >On Monday 07 March 2005 07:20 am, Greg London wrote:
> >> It would fit.  I don't understand why an author
> >> would do it, and I really don't want to get into
> >> a debate about "art for arts sake" versus
> >> "argument ad lazarum", but it would fit.
> >> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#lazarum
>
> "Art for art sake" is an aesthetic argument, not a financial one, so
> argument ad lazarum doesn't really fit. Like "software libre", "l'art pour
> l'art" doesn't stop you from charging for your work: it just guides the
> ethics of the creation of your work. The idea of the "starving artist" is a
> much better fit, and is indeed bogus.

Please note, I was not making a case for the proposition itself, just that 
some people may hold such ideas to be true and thus will be motivated by 
them.

So, this brings up a possibly deeper question.

Should CC be in the business of using motivations as we find them? Or should 
CC be in the business of shaping peoples motivations to fit what we believe 
are valid motivations?
>
> Since most artists/writers/musicians don't make a living from their primary
> work as the public would understand it (paintings/novels/CDs), auto-NC
> might help build a community (or market, depending on how you look at it)
> for the work they do that *does* allow them to make a living But they'd
> have trouble accepting fees for shows, readings, etc. so possibly not :-) .

This is one of the biggest problems I have with NC as it stands. For 
instance, 
could a band play an NC cover in a club where the band is not paid? Also, 
they may be just too dangerous to touch. Correct me if I ma wrong, but hasn't 
the law changed over the last ten years or so so that now, say, trading CDs 
for no money but with the "expectation" of future trades, is now considered 
commercial?
>
> This is a different case from fan culture, where fans are always downstream
> of the original work and so will be sharing and sharing alike with
> downstream users.
>
> >I just think the world is full of a wide variety of people who can have a
> > wide variety of motivations, some of which we may consider oddball, but
> > which still motivate them.
>
> I'm slightly disturbed that being motivated by something other than money
> is considered oddball. The richest people I know are motivated by a love of
> business, for example. ;-)

You read that wrong. There was no intention to mean that all motivations 
other 
than money are oddball, but rather that there are some motivatins which we 
might consider oddball but that would motivate the particular author none the 
less.
>
> >As an aside, if I license a work, CC BY-NC, what licenses can be put on
> >derivatives? CC BY-NC and CC BY-NC-ND?
>
> Possibly a relicensing matrix on the CC site would be a useful resource?
>
It might just be at that.

all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22