cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND

From: Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se>
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:16:18 +0200

Ŭalabio‽ skrev:
>
> I a perfect world, everything would be public domain.
> Unfortunately, in the real world, creators have to eat.

In *your* perfect world that may be the case, the majority of CC contributors seem to have other priorities. "ND" licenses are the most popular ones among the creators AFAIK. Copyright as such is not a bad thing - it's quite useful for society. The interests of the creators, investors and society needs, however, to be balanced and that is not the case today. CC provides a way for creators to re-balance the scale and offer their creations to the public under more liberal terms than those of current copyright law. The majority of the users of the CC licenses probably care very little about the "commons" - they have far more egoistic motives.

>
> I see the purpose of CreativeCommons.Org as creating licenses
> which move us toward the aforementioned world. Is not our purpose
> to create a creative commons upon which one ca at least
> noncommercially, build?

Your agenda is that of a small minority, as I wrote above: most users of CC licenses seems to have a far more egoistic agenda.

>
> Does anyone understand the point I try to make? Does anyone
> believe that a constitution which all laws (licenses) mast obey is a
> bad idea? Please explain why.
>

There's nothing inheritably wrong with either the NC or the ND option. Creators find them useful. They help re-balance the current copyright situation a bit - maybe not so much as you would wish, but that is (really) a minor point in the greater scheme of things.

The success of CC is, IMO, largely dependant upon CC giving the creators a large set of options. If CC were to narrow down the available options many creators would opt out. It's a matter of overall strategy. You can cater too many, offering options that suits many different people or you can choose a more "fundamentalistic" approach. The later won't be very successful - IMHO.

Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND , (continued)
- Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND, Tom Quoroll, 04/26/2006
  - Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND, Douglas Pollard, 04/26/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND, Terry Hancock, 04/26/2006
  - Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND, Peter Brink, 04/26/2006
    - Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND, Terry Hancock, 04/26/2006
      - Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND, Mia Garlick, 04/26/2006
      - Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND, Peter Brink, 04/26/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND, Rob Myers, 04/26/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND, jonathon, 04/27/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND, Ŭalabio‽, 04/26/2006
  - Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND, Peter Brink, 04/27/2006
    - Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND, drew Roberts, 04/27/2006
      - Re: [cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND, Greg London, 04/27/2006