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: wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune
  • Date: 23 Nov 2005 10:34:09 +0900

Wow. What an amount of discussion within a matter of hours..

WAV and mp3 are different works when wav file contains extra
amount of creative expression fixed. Evan somehow seems to take the
assumption that WAV and mp3 just sounds the same. I don't. And
possibly that is the only difference between Evan and I.

I assume Evan will agree with me that if the WAV version presents
more details that are minimally creative (as to be copyrightable)
are missing from mp3 version, then the CC license covering the
mp3 file does not grant any permission about those details.

drew seems to suggest that different file formats are different
"expressions." I think the file formats do not always equate with
different expressions.

This email of mine is the same work even if it is printed
with black ink, on a screen, or typewrited. The creativity
of the text usually does not depend at all on the medium
it is printed/ fixed. Likewise, a sound recording does not
automatically become a different work simply because you
record it on a tape or CD, or in mp3 or WAV. If they sounds
the same, they are the same work.

Assuming that some more creative expression exists in higher
resolution photos than low-res ones, I still think they are
different works. Just getting a license for low-res photo does not
grant you at all to freely use creative expression fixed only
in the high-res version. (Come to think of it, I am not sure
if Evan agree with this..)

Daniel seems to think that PDF (non-editable) and OpenOffice
(editable) versions of a text are different works. I disagree
for the same reason. Unless there is some specific reason to believe
that the editability is "creative" part of the work, they are
just the same texts. (In addition, I think things like usefulness,
and convenience do not in most cases count as part of creativity).
So if I get a permission to modify, copy, and perform the text,
then I have the same set of permission with both the PDF and
OpenOffice version.

Back to the Magnatune's case, if their WAV files contain
extra creative details that are missing from the mp3 versions,
then you cannot freely distribute the WAV files.

Now, I have not looked into copyright laws other than US and Japan.
And I try to think in terms of US copyright law here. But of course,
I am not a lawyer, so I could well be wrong on all these points.

Regards,

Tomos




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page