Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 24 November 2005 07:56 am, rob AT robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting Stefan Tiedje <Stefan-Tiedje AT addcom.de>:
> > In art its much more likely to have only one generation. I don't even
> > know one musical piece which is the arrangment of an arrangement.
>
> Any folk music. And I've seen more than one painting of the cruxifiction in
> my time. :-)
>
> > If
> > you're going to arrange some music you'd always take the original to
> > start with. This question has no practical meaning beside programming
> > and maybe DJing (But even as a DJ you would just pass compensation to
> > your sources, and those could pass on if necessary).

This is just so far from right it is not funny. What you are seeing is in my 
view a direct result of the copyright laws as they have been practiced and 
not as a result of the nature of things.

I have heard that Shakespeare told all original stories as well.
>
> There have been cases of accidental inclusion of multi-generational samples
> in music ("Ride On Time" springs to mind).
>
> > For the case of BY-SA-NC-FCR its already possible, as the NC license
> > does not cover the commercial use. I could just give it away as BY-SA-NC
> > and additionally independently as FCR. But the sole FCR is missing the
> > ease of use, because its not wide spread or well known enough.
>
> Lessig says that CC are working on a compensation system called cc.com:
>
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5704
>
> > The Case of BY-SA-FCE is more complicated, as the license itself would
> > need a clause which requires to look at the FC-description as part of
> > the license which must not be removed, though there is no legal
> > difference in practice in comparison to a pure BY-SA.
>
> A legal license is not the place to "expect" "fairness". :-)
>
> > In most cases I could think of BY-SA as the ideal license if I just
> > could attach something to it which must not affect any legal issues of
> > the original BY-SA licenes, but is like the obligation to name the
> > author (BY) to also express the authors other thoughts.
>
> I'm sorry I don't understand this at all.
>
> > This could be called (BY+). Its would be like BY, but with the
> > obligation to add a text, which is not part of the work, but part of the
> > license.
>
> Do you mean like an FDL invariant section?
>
> > [...] And its also always the question about the freedom of whom.
>
> Not on the license discuss list it's not. ;-)
>
> - Rob.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

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