Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 22 November 2005 05:40 pm, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> 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.

But the license does not permit them to do such a thing does it? The license 
claims it is the only agreement between the parties.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> ~Evan
all the best,

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