Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Kevin Phillips (home)" <tacet AT qmpublishing.com>]

> > 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.

It's a start ;)

> > 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.

Maybe, maybe not.  My point here was the real disruption and movement is
going on underground, in a manner of speaking.  It's not the "public" who
choose the license it's you and I.  This is the only empirical evidence we
can collate right now, and it's the seed of a bigger reaction hopefully.

> 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.)

Then your take would be wrong.  I personally fit none of those criterion,
I'm certainly not full of myself, I'm not trying to take advantage of anyone
or anything and I have no "private" reasoning.

Yet still I personally contribute to the commons, into a community which
benefits me because I get to share a skills base, and you know what?  I have
a lot of fun, and it seems some people enjoy what I do too.  I'm not a
person who is motivated by fiscal reward, at least not for hobbies or things
I do for fun.

> 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...

Firstly, you assume that an artist will release everything under one NC
license regime.  This isn't true at all.  If you sample other work with a
share-alike licensed you have to continue the license thread, no choice.
For original works they can obviously be whatever you like, when working
with others it can sometimes be a group decision, and there's no dead end to
NC as you describe anyway.

Making a living is not the ultimate goal of all artists, at least not from
everything they release.  My personal opinion is that CC can provide a
long-term licensing framework which is much better than that of tied-down
classic commercial licenses for artists.

Your "taking advantage" also doesn't work for me.  You want all licenses to
be commercial and then you seem to be suggesting "marketing" is an abuse of
the free system.  Using a marketing or promotional analogy really isn't
helpful imho because there's no reason to do it for NC.  If it's free and
it's good it'll promote itself, through word of mouth mostly......just like
all those old nursery rhymes you learn as a kid.

I think if you're talking about infiltration of the NC licenses by
corporates as they have myspace for instance, then you may have a point.
But I'd suggest they'd not be interested, for the same reasons you
provide.....there's no money in it.   They'd also be wary of stirring
interest in NC and providing source materials for remixes etc imho.

> > 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!

Tut tut....no need to be rude. ;)   Given a screen with two choices, one
which is clearly marked "Non-commercial" most of the musicians I know will
choose the NC license because they either can't be bothered to read the
legal text or feel they don't fully understand the legal text.  They do know
about the court cases, and see NC as a control lever they can quickly grasp.

> > 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?

Maybe you're right.  But careful now, talking of "starving artists" makes
you sound like an RIAA exec.

There's not so many starving artist sitting in their production suite
wondering where the next meal will come from, in my experience.  Sorry for
the sarcasm, but really?  I think the evidence points more towards wealthy
artists who have run out of ideas and can afford the time and the risk
money.

> 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?

>From the way I understand it, making money from an NC license is entirely
impossible if all parties are in agreement, even if they need to revoke or
change the license to do so.   I think this will start to happen if NC
licensed material attracts commercial interest, for the good.....who knows?

> > 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?

Yes.....and it seems the producer assumes the original artist will either
never find out, or never be able to afford the legal costs.

> > 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?)

uh?  Where SA=share alike, and NC=non commercial, if I'm understanding it
correctly, they are doing different things.

> > 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.

eh?  That's not strictly true.  ccMixter inherits the properties of each
license, from each sample.  If you upload something original you can choose
whatever license.  If someone chooses to sample your work they inherit your
license, so it's a kind of share-alike anyway in a sense.  You're right, if
someone NC's a contribution you're stuck with their license, so find
something else or make something new.

NC seems to be a popular subject here on the list.  Now can someone give me
some help with my other post, pretty please?  ;)

 Kevin (aka tacet :: ccMixter)


> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>