Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Thread break: BY-SA performance and forbidding "bootlegging"?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Thread break: BY-SA performance and forbidding "bootlegging"?
  • Date: 21 Nov 2005 01:26:14 +0900

drew Roberts wrote:

>If indeed, the performers could not prohibit such recording but a venue
>owner
>may be able to under certain circumstances, I would like to start a
>discussion on how this "loophole" might be closed.

The simplest measure I can think of is to include a term like this:
"You may not knowingly choose a distributor, publisher,
or other party that the recipient deals with in receiving the
Work who alter or restrict the terms of this License or
the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder."

Um..my wordings above are of course not precise and not at all guaranteed to
work -
I am not a lawyer.

I was thinking if this could be a big loophole. I have a mixed feeling.

What is the likely motivation of the venue owner in this hypothetical example
to prohibit recording? I suppose he wants to have an exclusive access to
recording.
He perhaps wants to record the performance, combine it with advertisement,
and
sell it for a fee. But if he wants to do that, he has to follow license
terms, which
does not allow him to impose recording prohibition on the venue's audiences.

Another example - Microsoft and Real Networks become popular content
distributors,
with DRM, and their service packages do not include any option in which CC'd
contents
are properly managed. Some of the rights granted in the licenses, such as
distributing
through file-sharing software, are made impossible to exercise. When a
content provider
- a person or a company - provides some CC'd works over those distributors
services,
and thereby the recipients cannot exercise some of the rights, does that mean
that the
content provider is in breach of the license terms? Or is the content
provider in full
compliance with the license, because the DRM stuff is done only by the third
party
(the distributors) whose conducts are beyond the control of the content
provider?

Could something like this happen?


>I do not see how it would be mandatory to allow "board" recording though as
>things stand. I think if we felt this is an issuer to be forced, it would
>require specific changes to the license.

I was not very sure about this part, indeed. (Not that I was confident about
other parts, but I was aware of extra set of assumptions for this part).

For one thing, what is the relation between the band and the sound engineers
in
this example?

1) The band could include sound engineers and other tour stuff members.
2) The sound engineers are hired by the band to do whatever the band says.
3) The sound engineers are a part of the venue, and the band purchases their
service
for a price and do not have much control over certain aspects of the service.

And what is copyright status of sound engineers in a performance of a
copyrighted work?
I guess I should not provide my wild guess here, but that might affect if
they are among
the licensees of the CC'd work.


Best,

Tomos




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page