Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Tuesday 13 February 2007 08:57 pm, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 February 2007 08:44 pm, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> >> drew Roberts wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday 13 February 2007 07:56 pm, Jonathon Blake wrote:
> >>>> On 2/13/07, tomislav medak wrote:
> >>>>> first reason would be: how do you define 'free'?, or rather
> >>>>> 'freedoms', or 'free enough' to be called that. for instance, freedom
> >>>>> to share licensed works is given by all standard CC licenses and it
> >>>>> is a freedom.
> >>>>
> >>>> First, get rid of CC as a brand name. Keep the name for the
> >>>> organization, if you so desire.
> >>>>
> >>>> Debian Legal has a set of four definitions,and three tests that can be
> >>>> used to determine whether  or not something is "free". Anything which
> >>>> passes all of those criteria is "free".  Call that the _Free Content
> >>>> Licence_.
> >>>>
> >>>> The BY and BY-SA variants can be called the _Free Authors Licence_.
> >>>>
> >>>> BY-NC-ND can be relabelled as _The Usage is Banned Licence_
> >>>
> >>> Not so sure this description fits. You can "use" such a book to read or
> >>> as a door stop... ?
> >>>
> >>> A bit off topic here... Is it legal for a for profit entity to download
> >>> NC documents off of web sites?
> >>
> >> Under step 1 of the draft NC guidelines, no.
> >
> > Care to give a step by step explanation of where copyright would be
> > violated?
>
> When I click on the download link, I initiate a process whereby a copy
> is created on my computer.
>
> > In a download situation, who makes the copy? The person with the web
> > server, or the person with the web browser? Both?
>
> This is a subject of some dispute as to the the person with the web
> server.  (The public distribution right is more clearly implicated than
> the copying right).  U.S. judicial authority generally holds that the
> person with the web browser creates a copy.

So, how would it be a copyright violation on the pard of the downloader and 
especially if the person with the web server is the copyright holder? Is the 
license enough to say that the downloader should have known better then to 
ask for a copy, or would copyright holder need to put some clich through 
button whereby the downloader would certify that they are not a for profit 
entity?
>
> James

all teh best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)