Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 24 November 2005 03:32 pm, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 14:40 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
> > Would it be better just to make it easy for people to notify you and to
> > perhaps provide some incentive for them to do so?
>
> Yes.  And this requires zero legal innovation.  Really
> http://ccmixter.org is all about this.  There's an incentive to specify
> tracks you've remixed as the links between tracks generated when you
> specify are a primary means of navigation.  More broadly, linking to
> another's blog post when citing it makes it easier to find your post via
> services like Technorati, and "blog post" could be any content on the
> web.
>
> > Should the CC startt the equivalent of the ISBN number system? The CC
> > number system. Let any producer get a prefix and add a suffix of their
> > choosing to create the CCWN (Creative Commons Work Number) of the work.
> > Then this could be required to be included in the license or the URL
> > (URI?) or somewhere.
> >
> > Then, google will tell you where your work is reused in the online world.
>
> There are more complications than I can go into right now, but the short
> answer is no.
>
> Ok, here are a few:
>
> - Many CC license users don't go through the CC website/web services.
> We aren't in a position to assign identifiers.  Anything that puts us in
> that position, delegates the position to someone else, or an algorithm,
> e.g, GUID generator, imposes technical and other burdens on licensors
> and license integrators.

I was not thinking of something mandatory, just optional. CC would only have 
to assign a number (prefic) to a creator, it would be up to the creator to 
make up meaningful suffixes.
>
> - What granularity of a work should an identifier identify?

I was just brainstorming. I would not want to get into the issues that 
project 
xanadu was trying to solve.

Would the same granularity as the URI work? That is, if you need to include 
the URI, you need to include the CCWN? Is that clear?
>
> - The existence of an identifier, assuming (massively unrealistic
> assumption) that it always travels with the work, only allows a google
> to tell you where a work has been copied.  Telling where a work has been
> reused means the original work's identifier needs to travel with
> derivative works, which will have their own identifiers.

This constant piling on of travelling info is what I see as the largest 
problem in many schemes.
>
> - There are many [wannabe] identifier standards out there.  Some are
> well used within a specific format or discipline.  Most are solutions
> looking for a problem, or more cynically, entrepreneurs looking for a
> monopoly.  In any case, there's little cause for CC to introduce yet
> another identifier.

One thing for sure, let's not go making any more monopolies, especially 
gratuitously.
>
> - There's already a well designed, amazingly flexible, decentralized
> identifier system widely deployed that CC metadata and pretty much
> everything else on the web builds upon -- URIs.  You can use a dc:source
> property to identify a source work's URI.

The problem I see with URIs is what happens if  person has their domain taken 
or loses it for some reason.

all the best,

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