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: Evan Prodromou <evan AT bad.dynu.ca>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune
  • Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:40:30 -0500

On Tue, 2005-22-11 at 22:33 +0100, Antoine wrote:
If you are given a CC'ed MP3 file, you have the right to re-create a WAV
file from that MP3 file, under the same CC license. (well, provided the
CC license is not an -ND license)

But that does *not* give you the right to claim an existing WAV file is
also CC-licensed, when it actually isn't.
You are making the mistake of thinking that a CC license applies to a digital file rather than a creative work. That is just not the case.
A copy is not the same of the original; whether it has been "creatively
altered" or not is irrelevant. [...]
Remember our discussion about the FAL: in the digital world, everything
is a copy.
So, by your reasoning, nothing is an original. Is that correct?

You seem to be falling into the fallacy of conflating two meanings of the word "copy". One meaning is for naming several identical things; the other is for the relationship between an original and a replica.
The author decides, and the user complies.
That's probably the most convincing argument: that the copyright holder has misused the CC licenses and meant that only a particular fixed form is redistributable. I think if they explicitly said, "You may not distribute the WAV file", I think a judge would find that the explicit statement of license is more binding than the implicit one.

Barring the explicit prohibition, though, I think things would go the other way.

Just my opinion.

~Evan




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page