Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Alex Bosworth: "Creative Commons Is Broken"

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Alex Bosworth: "Creative Commons Is Broken"
  • Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 09:57:18 +0000

On 8 Mar 2006, at 22:27, drew Roberts wrote:

So, I could have a competing furniture store do the hosting.

Would you be doing this to promote the NC work or to benefit the competing store financially?

And a friend of
mine could have my family's store do the hosting.

Would anyone benefit financially? If it's just a fig leaf over you wanting to do the hosting, it would infringe. If the friend wants to promote NC, it wouldn't.

But we better not collude.

" " " :-)

It is just too complex. How is this ever gonna get easy to understand?

By asking whether you are using the work for your own commercial ends.

People can make money off NC. Kinkos will make a killing, as will ISPs. Apple can plead that iPods can be used with NC content, and so should not be made illegal as copyright infringement machines. But they have not asked to make money off NC work, they are providing a service to people to use the NC work. The people actually using the work, that is the people experiencing the work or distributing the work or requiring that the work be copied, are not making money.

So in the shop scenario Mia mentions, you are effectively hiring the shop's facilities to use to distribute NC work. So you are not infringing, and the shop is not infringing, it is incidental and has no direct benefit regarding NC work. But if I use NC work in my own shop to promote the shop or to sell as the shop's sole business, I am directly using the work for financial ends, and so I am infringing.

(If I get NC work copied, I am causing money to be made off NC work. But I am not myself making money off NC work.)

Some interesting scenarios:

Imagine if Kinkos, Apple, or Napster said they would *only* handle NC work. Their business then looks like it is based on NC content, although they can argue that they are only providing a service to NC users. I think this is a case that, if it ever happens, should be tackled when it actually comes up as in abstract it's a bit of a black hole. :-)

A copy shop might say "NC work has a ten dollar surcharge" to cover any legal risk over copying mis-licensed work.

A web site uses the tip jar exception. If I don't click on the tip jar and try to download the work, I am redirected to another begging page. This goes on ten times until I can finally download the work. When challenged, the web site points to the tip jar exception and points out that people do not, finally, have to click on the tip jar link. They are just encouraging people to do so.

That is my solution for all uses. I am not gonna touch NC works. Here is the
problem. Do all of you NC releasing people realise that many would want to
promote your works but find it too dangerous to do so? Just so that is clear.

The problem is that NC is the license term that CC promote the most, and many people use it. Those people need (and deserve) clear guidelines.

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page