Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 14 July 2005 02:47 am, Ron Kaminsky wrote:
> (I hope this will thread properly - it's a test of Thunderbird
> at the same time; sorry if it/I fail)
>
> On Wednesday 13 July 2005 05:35 pm, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> > Also, you would want your estate to somehow recover the money spent
> > on this arrangement if there was no copyright on the work when your
> > estate went to get their copy of the work. After all, if the work is
> > no longer under copyright, your estate needs no permission to do
> > anything with the work. Hence, paying for that permission was a
> > total waste of money.
>
> Yes, you have a point --- on the face of it, (1) is superfluous
> since the copyright will expire. Unfortunately, given the current
> way things are going, no one is sure _when_ it will expire. Having
> an explicit date would enable a third-party preservation agent
> to have a "guaranteed date of release", otherwise its costs are
> open-ended.

Got you, i did not pick up on this part of what you desire, but it is a good 
idea if you can get such a license. I kind of doubt many of the big players 
will sell you fixed date licenses though.

>
> On Wed Jul 13 19:11:46 EDT 2005 drew Roberts wrote:
> > I think you are missing what is concerns are and what he wants to
> > do.
> >
> > He is concerned that when copyright on the work runs out, there will
> > be no copies of the work in existance anywhere.
>
> Yes, and I am also concerned that the preservation process might be
> legislated out of existence during the period until the release date.
>
> > He wants th right to make copies now in order to ensure the
> > existance of such copies when copytights to run out on the work.
> >
> > I think I have that right.
>
> Yes, I believe we currently have that right.

Sorry, poor choice of words. I intended to be understood as saying - 'I think 
I have that correct."

> In most countries. But as 
> Carole King ponders "will you still love me tomorrow" --- there is no
> guarantee that that particular fair-use right will be not be
> legislated away during the preservation period.

If the right does exist now, you are certainly correct that it can vanish 
tomorrow.

all the best,

drew
>
> I've heard that in the UK it is illegal now to copy a DVD even for
> one's own personal use. Even *with* fair use, AFAIK you do _not_ have
> the right to transfer your copy to a third-party preservation agent.
> And given the long term of copyright, most people would need to use
> such an agent (is it legal to transfer your fair-use copies to your
> estate? It wouldn't matter if the "first sale" media was still
> available and technically readable, but we're talking about
> preservation, here).
>
> Another stumbling block to preservation (in the US) is the DMCA, which
> explicitly forbids a third-party preservation agent from unprotecting
> DRM protected works. (Can even an artist's explicit license get around
> this?) It's unlikely that a work with unbroken DRM will be usable when
> its copyright expires, unless steps are taken during its _commercially
> viable life_ to preserve it, and unprotecting it is the first step.
>
> If I want to preserve a work, I would greatly prefer to be able to
> rely on a license granted to me (which would appear to a non-lawyer
> type like me to resemble a contract), since I would suspect that
> legislation which would retroactively revoke an explicit license
> granted to me might not even be constitutional (or unenforceable for
> some other reason). I would assume any third-party preservation agents
> would be even more interested in an explicit license.
>
> An additional reason which might make such a license interesting is
> that I rather doubt any large commercial content provider is going to
> agree to give you any such license on any work, and then it is
> possible to advertise that "company X doesn't think it's worth $N to
> preserve work Y". Although if it already isn't clear to someone how
> selfish and petty most of these content providers are, I'm not sure
> that will help.
>
> Ron
> _______________________________________________
> 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