Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Sincaglia, Nicolas" <nsincaglia AT musicnow.com>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune
  • Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:51:42 -0600

>This depends on whether the license is attached to the *file* or the
>"work". And this is ultimatley the question I'm trying to ask.

I believe Drew is incorrect in his understanding of the license. It is the
"work" that is under the creative commons license and not the "file".

The license clearly states in the first sentence

"THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE
COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY
COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS
AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED. "

That definition below is ""Work" means the copyrightable work of authorship
offered under the terms of this License. "

Nick


-----Original Message-----
From: cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Daniel
Carrera
Sent: Mon 11/21/2005 5:23 PM
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
Cc:
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune



drew Roberts wrote:
> My take is that unlees you have a license or some text somewhere
> to the effect that the wav is under the same license, it would be
> dangerous to assume that it is.

I'm not assuming anything, and I'm not trying to get permission to
distribute an album I just bought to more than 3 friends. I just
think I
hit an interesting question whose answer I don't know, and an
important
real-life scenario.

> Think of mp3 as low res and wav as high res and I think you would
see why
> someone might not want this "automaticly under the same license"
idea to fly.

I have no doubt. But the question is whether the idea is correct.

> You could even give a text file to party A with a CC BY-SA license
and to
> party B with an all rights reserved license. Party B might know
about party
> A's license, but unless they can get a copy from A or someone else
A has
> distributed to, they would not to my mind be able to pretend they
have the
> BY-SA licensed version. (Anyone see where I can be wrong in this
thought?)

This depends on whether the license is attached to the *file* or the
"work". And this is ultimatley the question I'm trying to ask.

Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org
/\/_/ No trees were harmed in the creation of this email.
\/_/ However, a significant number of electrons were
/ were severely inconvenienced.
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses


<<winmail.dat>>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page