Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

S. Massy wrote:
> I like the idea of being able to distribute some of my work for free
> and, further more, allowing other people to redistribute it likewise;
> I do not, however, like the idea of someone putting it on CDs and
> charging 10 quids a piece without even asking for permission. If not
> NC, which license should I choose?

The free market destroys the motivation to do this with SA-licensed
material, so why do you need NC?

I mean, is it really that bad if, say, 10 people get away with charging
"10 quid" for a product that people can just as easily get for free? If
people do succeed in selling the work at that high a price it must mean:

1) The buyer is unaware of his rights -- but SA insists that he be
informed, so that shouldn't happen unless the buyer is fairly clueless
(not that this doesn't happen, but it's the buyer who needs to look out
for this)

2) The buyer knows his rights, but actually likes the packaging itself
(or the convenience or some other aspect of the sale) enough to pay "10
quid" for it (this is rare -- he's more likely to insist on a lower price)

Furthermore, in case #2, the "10 quid" actually represents a carriage or
publishing cost. If you want your work to spread, it's more effective to
let people charge fees that pay for their trouble in distributing it for
you.

There is, of course, *ONE* reason to use NC. That is that *YOU* want to
charge "10 quid" for it, and be protected from competition being able to
do the same. IOW, the only purpose for NC is to defend your monopoly in
selling the work.

Of course, NC produces only a "limited monopoly", because others can
transfer the work without pay if they value it enough to do so. However,
the fact that they are (largely) precluded from charging anything for
this means that their copies will always be sabotaged by unprofessional
packaging. That gives you an advantage in selling the only "official"
version.

Of course, even if you use a By license, purchasing the work directly
from your preferred channel is always going to be the "most official"
version, but NC defends that business model.

If you do not intend to sell a work for at a monopoly-based price, then
it's totally nonsensical to use an NC license (it represents no benefit
for you, is a detriment for your audience and anyone who wants to
popularize your work professionally, and most importantly, it is a
problem for any other artist who wants to build on your work).

BTW, your tone suggests you think I am making a moral or ethical
argument. I'm not. I think the interesting thing here is the practical
impact of the choices in licensing. I'm aware of business models that
rely on NC, and I don't have a problem with them in principle, although
I do have a problem with them diluting the "free culture" label.

Cheers,
Terry


-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com