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: Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera AT zmsl.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 21:11:20 +0000

Evan Prodromou wrote:
[big snip]
I think it's an error on part of a copyright holder to think that the two fixed forms are different works that can be licensed differently. And it's also probably bad naming to call them two different "versions"; they are two fixed forms of the same work.
[big snip]

Evan's reasoning makes sense to me.

Here are some alternatives for those who insist on this model:

* CC-license live recordings of a song, and sell studio recordings
* CC-license one or two singles from an album, and sell the entire
album
* CC-license all recordings and sell media like CDs or DVDs

How about this one:
* Make two recordings. CC one and distribute it as MP3 and sell the other as WAV.

In other words: Are different performances of the same song considered the same work or different works?

In practice, the Magnatune model is probably fine for making money. After all, nobody wants to file-share huge fat WAV files, anyways. So if I pay for a WAV file, I'm either going to a) compress it to an Ogg Vorbis or MP3 file or b) give away CDs. Either way, no big loss for Magnatune.

I would guess that this is their reasoning. It seems sound to me.

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.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page