Development of Creative Commons licenses

["S. Massy" <smassy AT sdf.lonestar.org>]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:39:54PM -0500, Terry Hancock wrote:
> 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).
Some very interesting points and a lot to think about, for me at any
rate. I must admit I did think of NC as a kind of insurance against
people using my work for commercial purposes without first contacting
me; my issue isn't so much with the money-making as with the idea that
someone can do so without even informing the author. But perhaps you
are right and using NC does shackle a work more than it protects it...
I need to think about this.

> 
> 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
Well, it did sound like it to me: apologies if I misread you. I think
this is a very interesting discussion.
> 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
S.M.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
> Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

-- 
smassy AT sdf.lonestar.org