Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Tuesday 22 November 2005 04:11 pm, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> 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?

As far as I understand things, it would probably be the same work re the (C) 
but a different work re the (P)
>
> > 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.
all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22