Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

rob AT robmyers.org wrote:
>  Quoting Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>:
> > Well actually, I'm not entirely sure about that. I have my 4
> > freedoms pretty much:
> >
> > 1) I can use the work (listen to it)
>
>  Unless you need to re-encode it (which is not covered by Fair Use in
>  some countries).

Even if not, the NC clause would certainly regard that as non-commercial
use.

> > 2) I can pass it on to my friends (because that's non-commercial)
>
>  Copying and distribution of the entire work is prohibited under
>  Sampling. Sampling Plus allows noncommercial copying and sharing,
>  yes.

Yes, it's only "Sampling Plus" that we are discuss -- see subject line.

>  p2p sharing is defined as commercial use under US law. This is
>  something CC have had to work around for NC.

What do you mean "work around" -- the NC clause surely permits P2P,
right?  Work-around or no, we have the right in the end.

> > 3) I can modify the work to my needs (and now the NC goes away)
>
>  Under sampling plus this strips the NC yes. Under sampling it's not
>  there anyway. But under NC sampling plus it doesn't.

Irritatingly complex.  But I never liked NC anyway.

> > 4) I can share my modified work (even commercially)
>
>  You cannot use it in advertising however. I know, I know, but it's
>  still a restriction. :-)

I think you're wrong.  The license says I cannot use the *original
work* in advertising -- except to advertise the *derivative work*
(an interesting exception that I didn't really expect). I certainly
can use the *derivative work* for any commercial use, which would
certainly include advertising.

I read it twice, and I'm pretty solid on this point.

> > It's interesting, because, really, it's the "transformative" uses
> > that really matter in terms of the copyleft culture.
>
>  As an artist certainly these are the uses I wish to make. But in fact
>  all uses count equally. If we cannot listen or share we cannot
>  transform. We must not privilege creation/transformation above the
>  work of distribution and consumption when considering use, otherwise
>  creation/transformation will suffer.

What do you mean by "must not"?  I lose track of people's politics
here, but I thought you were of the opinion that free-licensing is
a matter of the artists' choice?

> > I agree that FSF and DFSG guidelines would probably come down on
> > the side of it being non-free, but it's in an interesting and more
> > useful case than the By-NC or By-NC-SA (which prohibit the
> > transformative commercial case).
>
>  Oh certainly. I love the Sampling license, even if I'd never use or
>  recommend it. BY-NC and BY-NC-SA (notice the ordering of terms...)
>  are what happens when you privilege creativity/transformation to the
>  detriment of creativity/transformation.
>
> > IOW, it's easy to produce a "free as in speech" work -- all I have
> > to do is disintegrate the original into samples or patches, and the
> > unordered collection is a free work in the FSF/DFSG sense.
> >
> > At least, that's my understanding at this point.
>
>  I think you would not be able to distribute the samples raw, you
>  would have to use them in a derivative work. And there is no
>  requirement to "provide source".

Now there's where I want to see an official clarification.  Maybe I
should create the "slow beat, staccato sampled percussion remix".
In reverse.  Or maybe ordered by pitch or randomized.

You know, that goes:

"sample1 __ sample2 __ sample3 __ sample4 __ ..."

> > Hmm. Well, I think that what constitutes "transformation" is
> > probably subject to interpretation. In a big way.
>
>  I can tell you two things that won't work ;-) :
>
>  * "I have transformed this work by altering its context."
>
>  * "I have transformed this work because I say so."

Sure, but I'm not sure I care about those cases. If I want the original
work, I'm going to listen to the original work, from the original source.

And even if that fails, there are ways to get it. The problem for
me with NC terms is not mainly the distribution chain, but rather
the fact that I can't really use it as creative input.  Sampling Plus
is more usable than that.

That's what happens with free software in practice, even if it's not
strictly required by the licenses.

Mind you, I'm not challenging the idea that Sampling Plus
is "less free" than CC-By or CC-By-SA (except for the interesting
point that Sampling Plus allows the derivative to be further
restricted than CC-By-SA -- but I'm not sure I like that part).

Of course, some people would argue that Sampling Plus provides
only the rights that "fair use" should already have given you. But
I understand that legal cases have knocked that down. Maybe the
law should really be changed to obviate Sampling Plus -- but until
then, I have to say I like it better than, say "By-NC-SA".

By-NC-Sampling+ though, sounds like spawn of the devil.  I hadn't
thought of that one.

How much material exists under Sampling+ (or better yet,
what's the easiest way to answer that question myself?). Doesn't
seem to be included in the pie-charts CC published this year and
last.

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com