Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Mark Havenner" <laveaux AT poorteacher.com>]

This post is pretty ... er, long-winded, my apologies in advance. I've given
a lot of thought to this very concept in recent years (regarding electronic
vs. hard copy) and it is, in fact, the driving factor behind some of my
hobbies. I believe that e-publishing is the path of the future and although
those in my generation and older may not want PDFs instead of actual books,
those younger than us don't care.

I've experienced the e-book transition first hand in my online schooling. At
the University of Phoenix almost every resource is now online. I haven't had
to order a textbook in three years. I've found that it, actually, ain't so
bad to have a PDF instead of a text book. I can search it, I can email it, I
can print certain parts for research, I can copy and paste certain parts of
it, and I can archive it for later use. Once I got over the mental
prohibitive notion that I needed the actual book, I found it to be much more
effective to have the PDF.

Another industry I've seen transition to e-publishing is Role Playing Games.
Over the last five years, the industry widdled down two about three key book
publishers and everyone else went completely electronic. Now consumers can
buy books for US $5 on what used to cost US $45 and publishers are making up
for it in volume. Additionally, consumers are no longer limited to the whims
of three key players, instead, anyone and their mother can publish. While
this means there is a lot of junk out there, it also means there is a great
deal more variety and the stakes are higher for quality. Consumers are good
at picking out the junk and so publishers are forced to do better.

It's not just in niche markets like education or games, e-publishing has
nearly taken over the newspaper business and is quickly attacking the
newsstand business. Newspaper subscriptions are at an all time low and
online news sources are at an all time high. In the US, politically divided
extremes have made standard national news sources obsolete. Most informed
news readers cannot get unbiased news from regular sources and are forced to
plug into international or independent news only available online.
Additionally, the American fast-paced culture and internet-driven lifestyle
leads people away from the cup o'joe and crossword days of yesteryear.

The newsstand industry (of which I am a member) has not yet been affected by
this phenomena, but it is only a matter of time. The amount of e-published
magazines and newsletters is rapidly increasing and when folks can get the
same information online and at no cost, the need for magazines dwindles.

I know what some people say, and I am one of them . . .: that is all well
and good, but I -have- to have the hard copy to really enjoy the
book/magazine/newspaper. While that may true for people of a certain age and
older, the younger people are not affected by this nostalgic concept. If it
only took two years for me to convert to e-books as a standard in education,
what if you were raised to never own a book?

Sony, for one, thinks this is a good idea. They are soon producing a
flatscreen monitor for the exclusive use of e-book reading. The screen is
manufactured so that it can be read in direct sunlight. Who else is hopping
on board? Adobe has shifted the many of its resources to support Acrobat,
the leading e-book program, dropping support in its previously competitive
graphic design market. Google is currently undergoing a project where it is
converting -entire libraries- to electronic format so it can be "googled" at
anyone's leisure. 

As was true with some game markets and online education institutions, more
niche markets will soon go this way. The distribution channel is limited
only to an organization's imagination. There is little to no overhead.
Versions can be easily updated and upgraded. What is lost in per-item
profits is made up for in volume and lost publishing expenses. More money
can be positioned into marketing and support systems.

I believe it would be a dire mistake to ignore this trend. For better or for
worst, books, newspapers and magazines while may not be going extinct, will
certainly be left only in the hands of the nostalgic as soon as a generation
from now.

How does this apply to Creative Commons? I am using CC for an experimental
project. I have created an online science fiction setting that is all open
content. The expectation is that people will use this content for fiction,
games, etc.

The following is an article written for that project on how CC can apply to
the writing industry:

As a writer, game designer, and avid fiction reader I've found frustration
in the science fiction genre. After being involved in hundreds of settings,
worlds, universes, and civilizations they all began to look the same. At the
end of the day if you take away the fancy names and politics you have the
same exact stuff.

So, when confronted with the task of creating my own setting I was forced to
ask, "Really what is so different about my idea that it is better or worst
than the 2 million others?"

It then occurred to me... why compete? Instead of having two million
different settings with two million competitive markets, why not have two
million using the same setting but adapted to their needs with one market?

Who would share their setting with others and allow others to use original
ideas? Why not? Now it's communal territory where all ideas are adaptable,
improvable and accessible. I am talking about applying open-source concepts
to the realm of fictional settings.

So here is the concept: a fully functional science fiction setting that is
completely adaptable and expandable by anyone who wants to use it. The only
string attached is that if someone uses the content, he or she must cite the
original author and apply the same open-source license to their changes.

You can take anything with the Basilicus name, protected by the
Attribution-ShareAlike License by Creative Commons, and redistribute it,
change it, expand it, alter it, adapt it, make a movie out of it or whatever
you want to do however you want to do it. The more the universe is added to,
the more detailed the content becomes, the larger the market for sales is,
and the more widespread the brand.

What? So you mean I can take exactly what is written here and publish it for
a profit?

Absolutely, but that is not the intent of the license. To be legal, you must
cite whomever wrote the item you are republishing and so that is
counter-productive. No one will buy something they can get somewhere else
for cheaper or for free and you will not have credibility by simply
regurgitating existing work with nothing new to offer.

The beauty of this system is that you must up the ante to sell the product
and contribute something new and interesting for it to be profitable. The
more you contribute the more extensive and successful the market becomes.

Can I take this content and make a movie out of it without asking
permission?

Sure, in fact contributions like that are some of the major intentions of
the license. You must attribute the content material to the original author
and you must also apply the license to your movie. This means that someone
can make a sequel to your movie without getting your permission.

To use this content I have to allow others to use mine??

That is the whole point of the license. What you are losing in potential
royalties you are gaining in market size, accessibility and name
recognition. Someone else has taken your work and marketed it to a
previously untapped market and you didn't pay a dime.

As the creator of the content you benefit because you can now capitalize on
a larger market in any you want and as an adapter you benefit by plugging
into an already large brand appealing to markets you would otherwise be
competing with.

Take this for example: Company A creates a video game with this content and
sells it to a bunch of Company A's fans as well as an additional market of
the content's fans.

Company B makes a sequel to Company A's game. Company A gets access now to
Company B's fans and Company B gets access now to Company A and existing
fans.

The more people that contribute in an open source situation the stronger the
product and brand becomes and at the same time the growth of the market is
exponential. Instead of competing with a billion other sci-fi video games
(as an example) you are capitalizing on the fact that there are a billion
others. It is a cooperative economy of scale.

How do I make money if I don't own the idea?

Simply come up with something newer, better and more interesting than what
was done before and market it as such. You have instant access to an
existing market of fans, all you have to do is plug in your new and
interesting idea. This benefits the community and you as a vendor.

Also, there is indirect capital to be gained. Remember that you are
attributed for your own ideas. There will be people peddling your name every
time they take your idea and run with it. Vicariously you will reach markets
you didn't even know existed.

What's the point?

There are several. One is to allow competition to benefit all parties.
Another is to promote freedom of ideas. Most importantly, though, the point
is to create the largest and most detailed fictional universe ever created.

What does this mean for me as a customer?

If you are buying this brand's product, you are buying a conglomeration of
ideas that are far more extensive and thought out than if the product were
solely made by one person. Because of the open source nature of the
products, it is a self-contained quality assurance program. Since the only
way to sell the product is to make it newer and better than existing product
you will be given higher quality products than you would without the brand.

-----Original Message-----
From: cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of drew Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 05:53 AM
To: Takemoto; Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
Subject: Re: Un-bound licence as GNU of written word


On Wednesday 13 July 2005 01:46 am, Takemoto wrote:
> Dear Cc-licence users.
>
> The following is the result of quite a lot of musing on this issue but 
> I still have a long way to go.
>
> Why is the open source software licence so successful?
>
> I am an open source software user and author. Like many others, I have 
> been impressed with the developments in that field for some time. The 
> application of the GNU licence has helped (some at least) developers 
> and users alike.
>
> It seems to me that softare and open source go so well together 
> because of the low costs of distribution.
>
> In the case of software there is little advantage to be gained by 
> having the box. All that one needs is the code, and the code itself is 
> transferred through the ether, free of charge if one has access to the 
> Internet.
>
> Hence if someone releases some software as open source, and especially 
> if the developer retains copyright of the name of the software, then 
> there is very little advantage to be gained by distributing the 
> software through  any other means than by access to the developers 
> site. Even if others develop a new site, then it has no intrinsic 
> advantage (it is just another
> URL) and one intrinsic disadvantange (it is older, and presumably less
well
> known).
> This means that the developer may gain
> 1) Publicity
> 2) Support
> 3) Bug reports
> 4) Co-developers
> 5) Requests for customisation
>
> I think that it is the zero cost of distribution, and the concomitant 
> lack of advantage in alternative methods of distribution, that means 
> that the there tends to be a sole, source distribution centre, 
> resulting in the benefits above.
>
> In the case of written works however, readers are still inclinded to 
> favour books. I prefer to read a book made of paper than a book from 
> my television screen. This is very different to the case of software 
> (where no one really wants the box).

There is some truth to this and I can personally attest to it in that I
prefer 
to read my books (novels)  in a bound edition, however, for certain types of

books, I want some sort of binding that can lay flat. However, I think that 
we have not yet really begun to discover the benefits of having all of our 
books in digital form and searchable and indexable.

Since purely paper books would not have this searchable and indexable, the 
original site would have some advantages and the paper book would have some 
advantages.

Also, depending on the nature of the book, the site might be more up to
date.

Also, someone wanting to make a derivative work or corrections/additions
would 
find the digital version to be an advantage.

>
> Hence if someone were to release a textbook open source (and there are 
> people doing this at wikibooks) then there is a strong possibility 
> that end users will not come back to the website, but rather print the 
> book and even sell it since distribution of the printed word (unlike 
> software) is still better served by books than the Net .

To me, one of the big advantages of the GPL is its copyleft nature. Think 
BY-SA. It would be interesting to see which printers will bother printing 
copyleft books. Would most traditional publishing houses want to handle such

titles?
>
> It seems to me that the binding of a book, that holds together many 
> items of information on a related topic is akin to a super URL. It 
> binds things together, and also brings porability, bringing the 
> information to the information retrievale devices (eyes) for which the 
> information was designed.
>
> So long as people have an urge to possess things that are lumped 
> together other than by virtue of being at the same URL, i.e. as long 
> as people have an urge to posses books, then "open source" "creative 
> commons" type licences will have less benefit for authors than their 
> counter parts in software.
>
> I suggest therefore that the creative commons create a futher licence 
> that attempts to emulate the situation pertaining in the software 
> field to the area of the written word.
>
> This might be a un-bound licence, giving the users the right to use, 
> print out, change, and even sell the materials so long as they do not 
> put it in a binding (other than in the third world, perhaps). As long 
> as people are not allowed to create another compilation-to-beat the 
> original compilation, i.e. as long as they are not allowed to create a 
> book which might beat the original URL, by binding the information 
> there available, then users would, as in the case of software, be 
> encouraged to return to the homepage to print out the information. And 
> if they return to the URL then the creator is likely to incur the 
> sorts of benefits availabel to GNU software programmers.
>
> Is there a licence like this already?
>
> Tim
>
> Timothy Takemoto
>
More later, gotta get my son ready for school.

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses