Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Matt Burrows" <mburrows2 AT earthlink.net>]

It's important as a matter of practicality and efficiency.

If a licensee has an exclusive agreement with Real, etc. which requires use
of only encumbered media, then, according to the CC license, that licensee
would not be able to use the work in question (under the CC license).

In order to accommodate this, I proposed an out - i.e., if an exclusive deal
exists, then that would be an exception.  I would raise this to the level of
"important" in anticipation (a hunch)  that there are/will be a significant
amount of encumbered media which would otherwise not be able to use works
per the CC license at issue.  If my hunch is wrong, fine, then the argument
drops out.  If my hunch is right, then the CC license should address it and
try to work around this as much as possible - in order to remain inclusive.

Re abuse, it really becomes a factual matter (which, ultimately, would need
to be decided by a third party - e.g., a court).  The question would be
simply whether, at the time of the use, the licensee was subject to an
agreement which required them to exclusively use a certain media (e.g.,
Real) to the exclusion of all other media.  As a practical matter, would
something like this be litigated? - doubtful.  This, therefore, could
increase likelihood of abuse (as you suggest).    Then again, the same could
be said of other portions of the CC license.  The risk of abuse, IMO, is
outweighed by the benefit of encouraging CC licensing involving encumbered
media.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "drew Roberts" <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
To: "Matt Burrows" <mburrows2 AT earthlink.net>; "Discussion on the Creative
Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion


> On Tuesday 24 May 2005 07:47 pm, Matt Burrows wrote:
> > I would add to the proposal below, the concept that you are not required
to
> > add the unencumbered version if prohibited by a third party agreement
(eg,
> > w/ RealMedia) in existence whenever the license is exercised.   This
would
> > address situations where a licensee has an exclusive deal with a third
> > party, such as Real.
>
> Why exactly do you think this is important, and how might you word it to
> prevent abuse?
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden AT twcny.rr.com>
> > Sent: May 24, 2005 3:37 PM
> > To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > Subject: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
> >
> > Another thought.  As the DRM clause is currently written, it prohibits
> > encumbered distribution (e.g. RealMedia).  If the DRM clause is
rewritten
> > so that you must provide an unencumbered version alongside every
encumbered
> > version, it would instead mean that, for instance, if you provided
> > RealMedia you would *also* have to provide Ogg.
> >
> > This might be an easier sell to the proprietary-format shops: "You don't
> > have to drop RealMedia, you just have to add this extra format.  Which
is
> > free." This is probably a better way of getting a foot in the door,
anyway.
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> -- 
> http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22
>