Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

That last bit should say:

Really, if a song is CC-BY-NC, has contact info, and a radio
station wants to play it, I don't think the license is a
gating factor.

(just to be clear)

> The way I see it, CC-NC is for generating
> fan-based word-of-mouth buzz about a work.
> Fans can pass the work around for free,
> post it on their websites, their blogs, etc.
> But record labels have to pay to play.
>
> When you say this:
>> Greg: CC-BY-ND would not provide the artists enough protection.
>
> I take that to mean you are looking at this
> Yet-Another-License as something along the same vein:
> something that generates buzz for the work,
> but retains commercial rights for a work to the original artist.
>
> If that's the case, then I see this idea as splitting hairs.
> You are proposing to allow indirect commercial sales, but
> that is based off the current way the music industry works
> by making most of its money off of selling teh work directly.
>
> If indirect sales are allowed, then direct sales doesn't
> give the customer any benefit, other than, perhaps, location,
> and in the web, location is just a URL away. It is a license,
> that if it succeeded in getting adopted industry-wide, would
> render itself moot.
>
> Since you seem to be focusing on what is essentially a
> buzz-generating license, and since the means for music
> distribution may be completely different in another
> couple years, I'd suggest going with a CC-BY-NC license,
> include a URL for attribution which contains the license
> information and your contact infomation such as email,
> and then add in your additional license to allow whatever
> specific mode of distribution you want to allow for that
> particular song.
>
> "This work is licensed CC-BY-NC. It is also licensed to
> be podcast blah, blah,"
>
> Really, if a song is CC-BY, has contact info, and a radio
> station wants to play it, I don't think the license is a
> gating factor.
>
>> Terry: I agree!
>>
>> This would be a license for "small businesses" - hey you could even put
>> this
>> into the clause somehow. This is putting power back to the cottage
>> industries.
>>
>> In a year or so time, we will have so many people making mediocre
>> podcasts
>> from shoestring budgets that the public will get bored. The commercial
>> corporations will watch what is successful and steal the best ideas -
>> but
>> steamroller the original guys with advertising and hype. Like they
>> always
>> do.
>> (There are some excellent podcasts out there, but how long will they
>> last
>> before they want to become commercial in some way. And why not, if it
>> keeps
>> the podcast running).
>>
>> Greg: If the license became so common place that most record labels were
>> using it on their music, I think that secondary sites, which could allow
>> downloads of the music for no direct costs and make their money on
>> advertising, and direct sales would drop
>>
>> I would like to see the license common place, but NOT all tracks would
>> be
>> on
>> the license. This would stimulate sales of CDs/downloads. Hey it's like
>> having a trial version of software, "try before you buy".
>> Plus - musicians make money from loads of other sources, merchandise and
>> tours.
>>
>> Greg: It'd be nice if everyone was on the same page as to what, exactly,
>> CC-NonCommercial meant before we went off and tried to create
>> Yet-Another-Incompatible-License-Option.
>>
>> Couldn't agree more. It's too fuzzy.
>> Websites like podsafeaudio.com are great, but as podcasts become more
>> commercial it makes a complete folly of the CC-NC license.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> [mailto:cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Greg London
>> Sent: 04 April 2006 03:50
>> To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
>> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Creative commons for music
>>
>>
>>> On the contrary, I'd say it's very different: There's a lot of
>>> difference between "indirect" profit from the free sharing
>>> of a work and "direct" profit by controlling the distribution
>>> of the work.
>>
>> It'd be nice if everyone was on the same page as to what,
>> exactly, CC-NonCommercial meant before we went off and
>> tried to create Yet-Another-Incompatible-License-Option.
>> I can just imagine the CC-IN debate over the license
>> that would allow INdirect commercial use, but not direct
>> commercial use, and it makes my head hurt. Just thinking
>> about the NC definition makes my head hurt enough that
>> I've avoided further reading of CC's NC questionaire.
>>
>>> In fact, I think there's probably a lot of people who wouldn't
>>> care about the indirect profit issue as long as they could
>>> retain a monopoly on selling CDs or whatever medium they
>>> chose (or on per-track download fees).
>>
>> Except the person who originally brought up this idea
>> was talking about a "license for the record companies".
>> And when you look at it that way, the license doesn't scale.
>> If the license became so common place that most record
>> labels were using it on their music, I think that
>> secondary sites, which could allow downloads of the music for
>> no direct costs and make their money on advertising,
>> and direct sales would drop.
>>
>> (1) Go to www.majorrecordlabel.com and pay 80 cents
>> for a download or
>> (2) Go to www.musicondemand.com and get the song at no cost.
>>
>> as it is, I subscribed to Rhapsody almost a year ago,
>> for a flat fee of $8 a month, and I can listen to all
>> the music I want to hear there. I'm assuming that some
>> of my money is going back to the record company, and then
>> a small sliver of that is making its way to the artist.
>>
>> But if Rhapsody could give the music away for free
>> while making money on various advertising angles,
>> I'm sure they'd figure a way to make the numbers add up,
>> maybe use Peer-To-Peer networking to share the bandwidth
>> and storage among the various users or some such thing.
>>
>> The short of it being that if everyone licensed their
>> work to allow anyone to make indirect profit, then
>> I don't see direct profit having much of an income
>> potential.
>>
>> If nothing else, fans could host their favorite music,
>> and then a decent search engine could find the music
>> for free rather than go to the Record Label page and
>> pay for it. Yes, people could buy the work as a way
>> of giving alms, but if that argument were to scale,
>> then you could simply license the work CC-BY, let folks
>> sell it, and then wait for your true fans to come to
>> your site and give you money to keep playing.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> btw: everything I say here is wrong
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> But clearly this is not the meaning of the current NC clause.
>>>
>>> Terry
>>>
>>> --
>>> Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
>>> Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cc-licenses mailing list
>>> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
>> http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-licenses mailing list
>> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-licenses mailing list
>> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>>
>
>
> --
> Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
> http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>


-- 
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/