Development of Creative Commons licenses

[wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp>]

----- Original Message -----
From: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts 
<cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:51:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Intended Meaning of "Non-Commercial"

>Yes, but could the copyshop legally make a copy. Could a stationers legally 
>sell the paper to print the book? C ould an ink manufacturer legally sell 
>the 
>ink to print it? These may seem like stupid questions, but I assure you I am 
>serious. I was just informed (and very possibly correctly) that a store 
>could 
>not sell blank CDs to copy the work onto under certain conditions.

This sounds like a question of "Is ISP liable for the contents that their 
users 
post without the ISP's knowledge?" In the U.S., ISP liability issue has been 
handled according to a specific law, with its own set of court cases. So 
I cannot generalize that issue to here. This question also sounds a bit like 
a question of P2P service provider liability. Are Grokster or Napster liable 
for the infringement their users made? 

IF the logic behind these issues is of any relevance, I would speculate that, 
for example, some of the vendors of products (say printer inks) could be 
found not liable because they have no prior knowledge of actual infringement, 
their products have legitimate uses, there is no way to reasonably prevent 
users from the infringement, etc. Well, it seems the line between liable and 
not 
liable is now under dispute, and the upcoming Supreme Court decision or new 
legislation may change some of it. 

Best Regards, 

Tomos