Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Evan Prodromou <evan AT bad.dynu.ca>]

On Wed, 2005-23-11 at 10:34 +0900, wiki_tomos wrote:
> 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. 

> 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. 
So, if the process was in the reverse -- that one took a low-quality recording and through patience, expertise, and incredible technical and musical skill enhanced it with rich, colourful tones and vibrancy, well, yes, of course, there'd be creative content in the WAV that wasn't in the MP3.

I think if there were even some selectivity on the part of the producers -- "Let's hold back some content by taking out these high vibrant trebles, and wash out these fabulous bass tones" -- then, yes, there'd be some creative work in the WAV that wasn't in the MP3.

I'd be surprised if that was the case. Unless Magnatune (or whoever else) is unique, they crunch their WAVs through the same MP3 juicer as everyone else.

But I'm hearing what you're saying, and there's merit in it. You could sway me with this argument; especially the fact that the creative content is intentionally held back.

~Evan