Development of Creative Commons licenses

[wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp>]

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