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: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune
  • Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:57:01 -0500

On Tuesday 22 November 2005 08:34 am, Sincaglia, Nicolas wrote:
> >1. Different resolution/ sound quality means different work?
>
> No. This is not correct. Copyright law does not make any mention of file
> formats or resolution. Neither does the CC licenses.

You are thinking (C) and not (P) I think. So, you might have rights to the
(C)
all the way around but not necessarily fot the (P).

I would like to see this discussed with respect to the CC licenses.

The fact also remain, that I I give a a file with license A and b a file with
the standard copyright terms, b cannot act like they have the same license as
does a unless they somehow go through a chain to get it. They cannot just
become aware of the license I have given a and assume they now have the same
rights.

If I am wrong in this, please explain how.
>
> "Under the 1976 Copyright Act an author is protected as soon as the work is
> recorded in some concrete way, since the Act protects all expressions upon
> fixation in a tangible medium."
>
> So what is protected by copyright law and licensed under CC is not the
> tangible medium but the expression. The expression is the work. The only
> role the tangible medium plays in copyright law is it's existance marks the
> beginning of ones legal protection for the creative expression.
>
> (e.g. If you write a new song and sing it live without ever having recorded
> it in any tangible form, you don't have legal protection for that song. If
> you record it at the live performance or write down the chords and lyrics
> at home on a piece of paper prior to the show, you will have legal
> protection for that song)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of wiki_tomos
> Sent: Mon 11/21/2005 8:38 PM
> To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune
>
> >Daniel Carrera wrote:
> >>drew Roberts wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> Hi. I am inclined to agree with drew. Instead of repeating what he has
> written, here are my formulations of the key questions and my answers.
>
> In writing this, I realize that my opinions are largely based on my
> understanding of "how lawyers and other experts think about these
> things."
> Quite vague ground, indeed.
>
> 1. Different resolution/ sound quality means different work?
>
> In case of wav vs. mp3 licensing, if someone reproduce a wav file, or
> create a derivative work that cannot be created without high quality
> audio source in wav format, then that would is likely to be a
> copyright
> violation.
>
> What is licensed is certain rights in all the creative expression
> fixed in the mp3 file, but some more subtle creative expressions are
> fixed
> in wav file only. The latter is not licensed.
>
> In some cases, it would be difficult to tell if one particular
> derivative
> work is created from .wav without permission or created within the
> freedom
> granted by the CC license for the mp3 version. But that pragmatic
> difficulty I guess is not the focus of the question.
>
>
> 2. Work / File distinction
>
> Some files of digital creative works are often times equally
> authentic and
> just the same. So if one file is under a CreativeCommons license, how
> come
> other, exact same file could be unlicensed?
>
> I think it is somewhat like different copies of the same book (same
> edition, from the same publisher) that are priced differently in different
> locations.
>
> Using drew's example each copy of the same text is, in CC's license
> term,
> different "Work," I suppose. In a more ordinary sense of the word,
> each
> copy of the same text is the same work, just different copies.
>
> Again, I am not a lawyer, so I might well be wrong on all these.
>
> Tomos
> _______________________________________________
> 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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page