Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 27 April 2006 05:16 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> 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. 

He did say, "In a perfect world." (OK I fixed up the typo, but still.)

So, NC is unneeded as everyone has all they need of this world's goods to be 
happy and healthy. And ND, well, since it is a perfect world, people love 
each other enough to share.

> 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.

So, why did Creative Commons choose the word Commons if it has nothing to do 
with their aims? Is it just PR, or does it have meaning?

>
>  >    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.

Indeed, but calling something with an ND option a part of a "Creative 
Commons" 
is at best a bit of a misnomer is it not? In what way exactly is something 
with an ND option a part of a commons?

> 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.

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145