Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 07 March 2007 10:01 pm, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 3/7/07, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > Let's say that we do find the NC domain being built on in a vibrant way.
> > Getting a lot of derivatives. We could easily end up with no one being
> > able to profit from the best of the works in that domain. If we want
> > artists to be able to earn a living from their art if they so choose and
> > they are good enough in the eyes of their market, then this is something
> > that should concern us.
>
> A minor nit... It doesn't make sense to talk about "the commons of
> works" because the freeness or existence of a work is irrelevant
> without people to benefit from it. Even just talking about the artist
> is a fairly narrow perspective. I think it makes the most sense to
> talk about the freedom of the public.

Let's talk art for a second. We can benefit from art by seeing it, hearing 
it, 
etc. That is a real benefit.
>
> A world of NC content is a world where you lack the freedom to use
> your resources to encourage an artist to make a derivative that you
> want which he would not otherwise make, if you choose. It's a world
> where you don't have the freedom to pay a distribution to locate and
> provide content to you in a manner you find valuable.

Hey, you if you can figure out how to ditch NC, I would be happy. I was 
trying 
to bring reason/thinking to the table in a fair way.

So, you might be able to call the pool of NC works (except with ND?) a 
commons, but it would be one where after a while, these works would be NC for 
everyone. (If you do get generational derivatives being made.)
>
> Some people think that with the Internet -- with Napster, Youtube,
> blogs, and what have you -- that other forms of distribution are
> unnecessary... but I think that this is a very myopic perspective
> which ignores an entire world outside of the middle-class person in a
> first-world country sitting in a chair in front of a computer.

I agree that this would be myopic.
>
> I think it's especially troubling that the Creative Commons' latest
> clarification has been to permit advertising on sites that distribute
> NC content.  So someone won't be able to make a good living by helping
> me get what I want... but they will be able to make a great living by
> blasting me with advertisements, spyware, and payola. Just wonderful.

Well, I am more disturbed by what I may have learned about BY-SA lately. I am 
still chewing on things.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)