cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports)
- From: "Jonathon Blake" <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com>
- To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports)
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:24:36 -0700
On 10/11/06, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
[It looks like my earlier response didn't get thru.]
And if that is the case, woulldn't these groups be better off adding 10 to 50
percent to their royalty amount for a few years and funding a copyleft
Bible translations have a half life of roughly ten years. It takes
between five and ten years to develop a new translation. It is those
expenses that are incurred prior to printing, and selling the
translation that have to be recouped.
up an unending copyright monopoly on a work based on something that was
surely "in the public domain."
When the KJV-1611 eas published, material either had a Crown
Copyright, or was public domain. Crown Copyright. It was only in the
middle of the seventeenth century that copyright had a specific period
of duration.specific expiration date.
Would it be the RIAA or these people:
http://www.ccli.com/
Who you have to convince depends upon what is used, and how it is used.
worship song if they know it by heart. CCLI holding organizations like us can
Operative phrase "if they know it by heart".
> many religious organizations that use the NC licence realize that.]
Well, they should at least read the license they are putting works under. It
It is in a footnote to the NC Guidelines. If you didn't see that
footnote, you probably wouldn't realize it.
To me, in these times, they should have to keep a list of all formerly
copyright works and where possible, make digital versions available online.
The major issue there is a lack of resources: Money and people.
In creating a list of "orphaned works", they will also create a list
of material currently copyright, and currently public domain.
Perhaps they could interest Google in funding that project.
> > One answer is because we are doing our best to make the world a better
> > place and this choice of a license is a part of that. there are other
> > answers. Would you care to brainstom\rm for some?
>
> I"ll have to get back to you on this one.
It seems to me that anyone/organization can use an NC work to teach a course.
It is just that the students will have to obtain copies of the works for
themselves independently. I mean, you can use an ARR work for this now can't
The difference is that there is a system setup for payment of
royalties for ARR material. I'm not sure that that system can also
include CC-NC material.
xan
jonathon
--
Ethical conduct is a vice.
Corrupt conduct is a virtue.
Motto of Nacarima
-
[cc-licenses] More on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports)
, (continued)
- [cc-licenses] More on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports), Henri Sivonen, 10/09/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] More on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports), drew Roberts, 10/09/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] New Generic and ports, Jonathon Blake, 10/10/2006
- [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports), Henri Sivonen, 10/10/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports), drew Roberts, 10/10/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC, Terry Hancock, 10/10/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports), Jonathon Blake, 10/10/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports), drew Roberts, 10/10/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports), Jonathon Blake, 10/10/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports), drew Roberts, 10/11/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports), Jonathon Blake, 10/17/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC (was: Re: New Generic and ports), drew Roberts, 10/17/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC, Henri Sivonen, 10/11/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC, Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts, 10/12/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC, drew Roberts, 10/12/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC, Henri Sivonen, 10/17/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC, drew Roberts, 10/17/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC, Terry Hancock, 10/17/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC, Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts, 10/17/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC, drew Roberts, 10/17/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Yet more on NC, Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts, 10/17/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.