Development of Creative Commons licenses

["James Sweet" <james AT educationarchitects.com>]

Pearl Jam is not giving up the right to sell the work, but simply choosing
not to exercise that right until May 24. We have all the usual CC rights,
with the NC (and ND) restriction(s). So we cannot sell (or remix) the work,
but Pearl Jam can (of course). What's the conflict?

-----Original Message-----
From: J.B. Nicholson-Owens [mailto:jbn AT forestfield.org] 
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 11:32 PM
To: Creative Commons license mailing lists
Subject: [cc-licenses] Pearl Jam trying to limit the time the
licenseapplies?

Pearl Jam is a rock band which has recently released a video under a CC 
license (by-nc-nd version 2.5).

The video is on Google Video 
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6187666924357770983) and currently 
carries the text:

"Free until 5/24/2006."

Nowhere in the text on Google does it specify what will happen on May 24, 
2006.  I think it's reasonable to assume that the video will not enter the 
Public Domain.  Yet the license they've chosen says:

"3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, 
Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, 
perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to 
exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:"

followed by the reproduction and distribution rights.

If the license is "perpetual (for the duration of the applicable 
copyright)" what will happen on May 24, 2006?

Furthermore, section 8d of the applicable CC license says that:

"This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with 
respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements 
or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor 
shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any 
communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual 
written agreement of the Licensor and You."

So, by my reading, Pearl Jam's attempt to place a new restriction on the 
license is meaningless.

At first blush, it appears that either something is really wrong with Pearl 
Jam's licensing here, or I'm horribly misreading something.  I don't think 
Pearl Jam realizes that they are licensing something to us all under terms 
that will not expire on May 24, 2006 (unless they choose to place the work 
into the Public Domain), contrary to their wishes.

Any idea what's really going on here?
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses