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: Antoine <antoine AT pitrou.net>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune
  • Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:10:06 +0100


> You are making the mistake of thinking that a CC license applies to a
> digital file rather than a creative work.

Could you quote the relevant part of the CC license that says it can
apply to upstream works, or to "similar" works ?
If there is no such part, then it's clear that the CC license applies to
the very work it's distributed with, which is - in our case - the MP3
version.


> 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.

It seems to me that, for author's rights, these two meanings have the
same exact consequences.

Also, the distinction you are trying to raise is weakened by the
vagueness of the word "identical". I don't think copyright law defines
what is identical and what is not. IIRC, French law doesn't.


> > 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?

No. Everything is a copy but every copy is an original in its own
regard. That is, it can be the start a new descendance of derivative
works which obey to a certain license (e.g. FAL or CC-by-sa).
That's the terminology used by the FAL and it provides a very clear
disambiguation.

On the other hand, all the talk about what is "identical" and what is
"derived" is as vague and useless as the endless rantings about what is
"commercial" or not. Vague because it is educated guesswork, trying to
draw precise categories using imprecise words. Useless because it will
be subject to varying in-court interpretations depending on national
legal traditions (so you can say bye-bye to international
interoperability).

This is, by the way, another reason why the FAL is a remarkable
license ;)

Regards

Antoine.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page