Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 22:37 +0000, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> The thing is, if you control the distribution through copyright, you can
> close access to those who exploit the availability of your content online,
> like Microsoft did to their web fonts.

But Microsoft *didn't*.  If they did, corefonts wouldn't work.

> This option is not there for NC
> content (same goes for BY and SA of course but this is a feature there)

Is it really a feature in the case of BY and SA?  The same method could
be used to avoid giving attribution, or to avoid licensing under SA, or
GPL, as the case may be.

> So despite what a lot of people seem to think, NC does not give a
> watertight proof against commercial exploitation.

So despite what a lot of people seem to think, all rights reserved does
not give a watertight proof against commercial exploitation.

So what?

> This "hole" becomes larger the more the personal computer is made to do,
> which is the trend, and which will raise interesting questions of its own.
> 
> Eg is a "web radio" RSS feed that links to a NC music piece available
> online for automatic loading from your private PC a public performance or
> a private use? Eg a game company could allow people to download their game
> as two downloads, one from an external server for the NC bits, and one
> download from their server for the commercial bits.

This has nothing to do with NC, which does not add additional
protections on top of copyright.  Whatever "hole" exists (and I agree it
is very interesting, search for "client side remixing") is available
regardless of NC, standard copyright, or anything else.

IANAL, blah blah.

-- 
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://creativecommons.org/about/people#21