Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 06 April 2005 04:07 pm, Greg London wrote:
> drew Roberts said:
> > There does need to be some better way to express NC, but I don't know if
> > it going to be possible.
>
> It seemed pretty friggen clear to me before.

I am not exactly saying it wasn't clear, just that I didn't like the 
implications of that clarity and so would not build on or distribute NC 
works. Nor would I release any of my own works as NC. I might do so if it was 
non-profit. (Not that I think the game should be changed mid-stream if that 
is what is going on.)

The unclear things are a bit deeper. As I said, I seem to recall that 
copyright law was amended in my adult life to hold you copying some local 
American (say CC BY-NC) songs for me and me copying some local Baamian (say 
CC BY-NC) songs for you and us exchanging the copies as a transaction for 
commercial advantage. If that is correct, NC just seems to dangerous to play 
with.

NC can or can't?

Music teacher teach a student to play an NC song?
School teacher assign an NC poem for homework?
Busker perform an NC song in a mall? (Where he needs permission from the mall 
operators to do so?
Me make copies of NC works on CD for a friend if he does not have a burner 
and 
I make him pay for the CD's?

"Money changes hands, you break the license."

If indeed you are in the clear so long as no money changes hands, that is one 
thing. If it is money, money's worth, something of value, then it becomes a 
different game when you turn loose the lawyers.

all the best,

drew