Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

> Of course, it's possible that Pearl Jam doesn't realize this and
> thinks they can retract all copies, but I suspect they probably
> know better.  It's not clear to me what the point of doing this
> really is.

I wouldn't be too surprised if they misunderstood that
the license cannot revoke copies that have been distributed.
That has been a misunderstanding that pops up on this list
every once in a while. Some people think they have complete
control to the work adn all its copies. The latest copyright
law abuses around DRM and anti-circumvention would seem
to reflect that this is clearly what some *want* the law to
be, whether it currently grants that or not.

If they want the license to all distributed copies to expire
at a date in the future, then they can't call it a
Creative Commons license, because CC licenses don't work that way.




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