Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

drew Roberts wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 October 2006 12:20 pm, Bram @ Freesound wrote:
> > Hello Terry,
> snip
> > > ShareAlike is a far better option if you want to preserve the "freeness"
> > > of the work.
> > But, this means no commercial artist could ever use (those) freesound
> > samples for a commercial album 

BY-SA not being NC means that you can use the work commercially, and 
that nobody can stop you using the work commercially (ignoring moral rights.

> > (without giving the songs away for free
> > as well).

You don't have to give the songs away for free. You can sell copies of 
them to people or charge to perform them. Songs being free seem to drive 
sales and drive demand for performances according to studies in the US 
and Brazil.

> > Isn't this exactly one of the things CC is trying to avoid (
> > i.e. the wrath of the "commercial" world ;-) )?
>
> Just a point of clarification. This is absolutely incorrect. Just as people 
> can contact copyright holders for broader permissions on works licensed NC, 
> they can do the same for works licensed BY-SA.

This is true. Sony aren't going to make their next film or advertisement 
BY-SA just to use a song they could negotiate a proprietary license to. 
Dual licensing has worked for MySQL and Trolltech in software. And 
Prelinger uses this model for Free film.

But this is not a particularly interesting model as it privileges Sony's 
economic "freedom" over their audience's cultural freedom. CC should not 
be just a means of free advertising for people who haven't won American 
Idol yet. There are already commercial (indie) labels selling BY-SA 
music. And Apple, IBM, Novell and Oracle all seem to believe that 
selling copyleft work can be a good thing economically speaking.

- Rob.