Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 21 March 2007 07:26 pm, Kevin Phillips (home) wrote:
>
> Anyway, I just wanted to make a couple of points about the NC licenses.   
>
> You want me to prove NC licenses work, and you want empirical evidence of
> levels of "work".  I'm pretty sure that's an impossible ask right now.  The
> licenses are too young, 

> So don't expect a sea change 
> just yet......

I agree here for the most part.

>
> I digress.   I just wanted to point out that I think you guys need to think
> not about the "public" outcome, but tip the whole question on it's head and
> think about the "artists" and hobbyists like me.

I don't think those of us who prefer the Free licenses need to do this at all.

My take is that artists using NC are either not thinking enough steps ahead 
just yet, or are full of themselves, or are trying to take advantage of the 
"commons" for their own private reasons without actually wanting to benefit 
the "commons." (With a few possible wiggle areas.)

Why would I make these claims which may seem harsh?

Enough steps ahead: how can any artist make a living "commons wise" when all 
works end up NC?

Full of themselves: "I am completely original! I don't need to build on the 
work of anyone else to make a living."

Taking advantage: "I can use NC as free marketing, good for me."

The third still seems to want to include one of the first two...
>
> Many folks choose NC because it removes the worry (paranoia?) of having
> your work nicked by some quick-buck music producer who rebrands your work
> and sells it to a Brazilian label for kicks. 

Seperte out the issues if you want to have a profitable debate:

Even BY gives you protection from the rebranding!

> It's a money issue in 
> reverse.  In accepting you're not going to make money, you want to damned
> well make sure nobody else can.  

Isn't this a bit of a dog in the manger attitude? Perhaps you don't need the 
money? Perhaps there is a starving artist who does?

Why not leave the option for making money open for all including youself down 
the road should you be in a position to do so at a later date?

> This may be a simplistic view of the 
> license, but honestly, it's a popular one. 

No doubt.

> You need look no further than 
> 90s rap music to understand this point of view, and particularly famous
> court cases which had obscure and often impoverished musicians square upto
> big producers who refused to share their spoils.

Were the works protected by copyright or not?
>
> So, my point?  There is a hidden value in NC licenses which could
> ultimately motivate artists to choose them, so it could be incorrect to
> assume positive return is the only driving force to success (of a license).
>  It could well be that future use of NC licenses grows in a defensive
> response to commercial interest, particularly as the community gains more
> exposure and stomps on the wrong toes.

How do you see NC being a better defense than SA? (Or a stronger SA?)
>
> As for real-world measurements of my observations :
> http://ccmixter.org/media/view/media/extras/stats
> ....check out how many folks choose NC licenses.
>
> I'd say ccMixter is a thriving NC-community.

ccMixter is a rigged community. SA is specifically excluded so that all the 
licenses will be compatible. People want Free must choose BY. People who like 
copyleft must give it up and go with BY or not participate. People who go 
with BY cannot stop people from going non-Free. Once NC is applied, it cannot 
come off. Over time, most works in such a system will tend to NC unless there 
is serious oppositin to it.
>
> Kevin (aka tacet :: ccMixter)

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)