Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 30 April 2005 11:11 pm, wiki_tomos wrote:
> Hello. Just some quick thoughts. Just for the sake of clarity, I present
> three arguments.
>
>
> Argument 1: NonCommercial and NoMonetaryExchange face similar set of
> questions/troubles.

Agreed, very similar, but not identical. In other words, to use your term 
from 
beliw, the line can be drawn in a different place for each.
>
> I can name some of the questions, though hardly have a good grasp of the
> whole scope.
>
> 1) Is non-monetary gain acceptable?

If you define no monetary gain as the line, then gain, other than monetary 
would be acceptable.
>
> There are gift certificate, frequent flyer miles, postage, and other things
> that are of relatively stable value. Some has clear indication of how much
> the value is, others (flyer miles) don't.
>
> What if people ask specific things - a TV station offering CC-NC'd TV
> program in exchange for two blank DVD's, a non-profit organization offering
> CC-NC'd CD for anyone who collect 500 signatures for a certain cause, and
> so on.
>
> 2) Is indirect benefit okay?
>
> Can a work be offered as a "free bonus for anybody who purchases $50.00 or
> more"?
>
> Can a copyshop sell paper and binding service to a customer in exchange for
> free printing of a CC-NC/NME'd booklet?

Even now, someone often benefits monetarily from CC-NC exchanges, just not 
the 
parties on the ends of the exchange. If I print a copy of a CC-NC work and 
give it to you, the people I buy the paper from get money, the people I buy 
my toner from get money, the people I bought my computer and printer from get 
money, my ISP gets money, my electricity copmany gets money, my government 
gets money (property tax, duties and stamp taxes.) It is just that I don't 
get any and you don't give any to me.
>
> Can a free offer used in advertisement to lure customers to the store?
>
> Can there be a cover charge to an event where some CC-NC/NME works are
> offered for free?
>
> Can a marketing company offer to give you a free copy in exchange for
> their personal information that the company can sell in turn?
>
> Can a company ask people to watch advertisements in order to receive a
> free copy?
>
> -=-=-
>
> Argument 2: There is a trade-off between having clear license restrictions
> and having effective license restrictions.
>
> Thinking about the above possibilities, I wonder if it is possible at all
> to draw a very clear and simple line between what's acceptable and
> what's not when it comes to NonCommercial or NonMonetaryExchange license.
> If there is a line, it may be with some loopholes. (e.g. Prohibiting only
> monetary compensation is not quite effective to stop profit-making from a
> work.)
>
> Where is the best balance, if there is a trade-off?
>
> Left unclear, the court will interpret the license and draw a line. I am
> not necessarily sure if that is a good idea. There is one clear benefit:
> the court will consider specifics of individual cases, and try to draw a
> reasonable line. But lawsuit costs money, some artists may find it
> financially too costly to enforce his license against seeming violator if
> the intent license is unclear.

Also, some artists will not base their work on an NC and some people who 
would 
gladly distribute NC works will not due so as they cannot afford to be sued.

Wherever we draw the line (lines if it is decided more than one is 
needed/wanted) they should be clear.
>
> -=-=-
>
> Argument 3: CC-NC license unclarity is not a big deal in a grand scheme of
> things.
>
> I wonder if the license unclarity really matters that much.
>
> After all, CC-NC'd works are usually available online for free. If a
> company tries to benefit indirectly by offering the work, their competitors
> may be able to do the same, and individuals can simply go online to get the
> same content without purchasing anything.
>
> So the CC-NC'd work may effectively remain non-commercial.

Oh, I think the lack of clarity is a big deal in the long run. I am not sure 
your last example speaks to the lack of clarity in any case. If anything, 
does it speak to the lack of need for NC in the first place? Does it indicate 
SA might be all that is necessary. After all, one of the big items of FUD 
thrown at the GPL is that you can't make money selling GPLed programs. (I 
don't buy that by the way.) So, if people spreading the FUD actually believe 
their own words, they must then believe that you can't make money selling CC 
BY-SA works. (I think you can.)
>
>
>
> Hope this could provoke some thoughts.

One of the confusions come up in that NC does not specify what NC applies to.

Transaction             Project         Overall         Entity

Entity: individual, sole proprietorship, limited liability corporation, 
business corporation, not-for-profit corporation, ngo, government, public 
benevolent institution, co-op, etc. Is NC intended, and does NC allow certain 
of these entities to do things with the works that others can't?

Overall: Is the effect to the entity overall a gain/loss. Monetarily, other? 
Is the intention important, or just the outcome?

Project: Does the project lose, break even, gain? Monetarily, other? 
Intentions again?

Transaction: Does this particular transfer from giver to receiver  lose, 
break 
even, gain? Monetarily, other? Intentions again?

And, in each of these above, does money going from the giver to the receiver 
change things? For the transaction itself, for a related matter, at the same 
or a different time, overall?

CC, please at least state your intentions in creating the license. That is, 
tell us how you wanted it to work, even if you offer no legal opinion that 
the license does indeed work that way.

A FAQ, as I believe someone else has mentiooned before, would be helpful.

all the best,

drew