Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Rob,

one thing I am not trying to do here is in any way defend NC. I "hate" NC if 
that term is not too harsh. (It probably is too harsh, so cinsider it 
hyperbole.)

On Thursday 08 March 2007 08:08 am, you wrote:
> Quoting drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>:
> > On Thursday 08 March 2007 05:09 am, Antoine wrote:
> >> Note :
> >> The irony is where the word "commons" comes from:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons
> >> The Wikipedia article does not mention any "non-commercial" limitation
> >> to the "number of traditional rights" which could be exercised by the
> >> commoners.
> >
> > I would be interesting to see someone put together a history of "commons"
> > around the world in light of the modern libre and commons "movements"...
>
> When the commons in England were enclosed and commoners more often than not
> ended up in towns, allotments were created as a sop. Allotments are
> implicitly personal and noncommercial. NC isn't a creative commons, it's an
> artistic allotment.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotment_%28gardening%29

I appreciate the pointer to allotments.
>
> The idea that NC allows you more use than you would otherwise have while
> protecting the original author's economic interests is one of the more
> bizarre counterfactuals of online hipsterism. Fair Use allows commercial
> use in many more situations than NC does, apart from the one situation that
> makes NC pointless for most media as an economic protection: the right to
> share the work
> without restriction on a commercial p2p system.

I have said in the past that the CC licenses don't create a creative commons, 
at best, they create multiple creative commonses (sp?) and I don't recon that 
a good thing. I still feel that way.

So, let's not call it a commons for a bit... NC could perhaps get some 
traction and find quality derivatives being made. After a while and several 
rounds of improvements by various artists, we could have a situation where 
the pool of works in the NC area has all the best versions covered by NC in 
such a way that no one can make commercial use of those works as per the 
license.

This is one point I think people using NC fail to take into account. (Either 
that, or they think their original will always be better than any possible 
derivative?)
>
> - Rob.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)