Development of Creative Commons licenses

[klang AT informatik.gu.se]

Hi,
I have not been party to the discussions on Pearl Jam's license choice (pretty
obvious but maybe good to state the obvious).

My first thought was that Pearl Jam has misunderstood the way the license 
would
work. They have granted their fans the right to share the video but at the 
same
time they state that the video will no longer be free after the 24th.

bah! - I spilled tea all over my desk!

The Pearl Jam video remains their property even when they license it. They 
have
the ability to change the settings in Google video from free content to
pay-per-download (I am unsure as to Googles terms but this does not limit the
discussion here).

So after the 24 May the video will no longer be part of the free content on
Google video. For those who would like a copy they must then pay for it.

Those of us who have downloaded the video under the terms of the 
Att-NC-NoDerivs
are free to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. This means that 
we
can share the video with each other (independent on storage media). So
file-sharing is OK.

If this had been some other large band I would have thought to myself that 
they
missed the point. They don't get it. But this is Pearl Jam and I think that
they do get "it".

Therefore I believe that their choice to sell the video (after a free period) 
is
not an attempt to limit the license but rather a continuation of their less 
than
conventional approach to music, IP and treatment of their fans.

Mathias