Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera AT zmsl.com>]

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.