Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 04:15 pm, Stefan Tiedje wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > Yes, but since NC is not clearly defined, someone with tendencies like
> > mine is going to be leery of playing with them at all. Especially where
> > certain copyright violations can carry jail time.
>
> This is exactly aimed at the need of clarification. The commercial use
> should be easy understandable and clear with no risk of going to jail or
> paying any unfair punishments. The only risk I could imagine of is
> something like making public what you paid and saying thank you.
> If Micro$oft would use my music lets say for an advertisement and pay me
> only one dollar, you'd be sure the world will know, but I wouldn't sue
> them, and I can't because the user decides whats appropriate. Only if
> there is no compensation at all for "Fair Compensation Required" this
> would be possible.

Ah, but after thirty generations of combinations, what then. I understand how 
it could be clean and simple in the first generation.
>
> >>Thats why I wanted to simplify it with a common definition of "fair
> >>compensation" and two ways to ask for it either "required" or only
> >>"encouraged".
> >
> > So, BY-SA-FCR or BY-SA-FCE or BY-SA? Is this what you would envision in
> > the BY-SA area?
>
> almost, it would be either BY-SA-FCE (Fair Compensation Encouraged) or
> BY-SA-NC-FCR (Fair Compensation Required) where it means the commercial
> use requires a compensation, but the user will determine the amount,
> which will be accepted in any case. The latter would not need a change
> in the BY-SA-NC license, because the FCR would only cover the commercial
> use. It could then be redistributed either just with BY-SA-NC or again
> BY-SA-NC-FCR The FCR would add some freedom, as its possible to use it
> commercially under hopefully easy to understand circumstances.

I need to read that again and try to digest it when I am not so tired.
>
> > I am certainly not against the compensation of the creators though. So
> > long as it does not gum up the works.
>
> In the world of art, you either like the work or you don't. In that
> regard artists are much more powerful than programmers.
> You could always recreate a program from scratch and deliver it with
> what ever license you prefer.
> But if I feel the need to create a derivative work from a music I love,
> there is now other way than respecting the will of the creator...

You could of course, suppress the need and find a free work that inspires you 
and start your creation from there.
>
> This won't influence the distribution of a work. I guess most of the
> music you listen to is standard copyrighted music, but if you love it
> and want to listen to it, you'd have to buy (or steal) it somehow. There
> is no alternative.

You guess wrong. Severl years ago, it would have been a good guess, but not 
today. Today, I actively seek out Free Music (libre) and am spending my own 
money and time towards the creation of Free Music.

I also only want to give minimal if any cranial capacity to non-free works. 
It 
is too restricting of my own creativity as you touched on above.



>
> As a creator of art, you might actually want to gum up your work a bit,
> to prevent dilletants from destroying the original idea. I do like to
> give my work away, but I also want to be sure its treated respectful.

Freedom is a powerful thing. It can hurt, but it is better than chains.
>
> Stefan
all the best,

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