Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 22 March 2007 05:47 pm, Kevin Phillips (home) wrote:
> > > 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.  

Yes, indeed we do. But in the commons/remix view we are also the public for 
each other are we not?

> This is the only empirical evidence we 
> can collate right now, and it's the seed of a bigger reaction hopefully.

Well, I agree that it does remain to be seen if non-software will go down the 
same roads as software did and that it is still early days yet. The empirical 
evidence could indicate that we are at the shareware sort of stage.
>
> > 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.

So, spell it out, how do you fit in the commons/remix world. Why do you 
choose 
NC if you do. Perhaps you were speaking of others and not yourself?
>
> 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.

Fine, I do my thing for other reasons as well, I try not to rule out the 
possibility of fiscal reward if things should shake out that way, but I am 
not driven by it either.

Still, if you (or someone) is not in it for the money, why get too bent if 
others make some?
>
> > 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.  

No, I don't assume this at all.

> 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.

Well, that is the pooint of the sharealike bt, yes.

> For original works they can obviously be whatever you like, 

Yes, legally you can.

> when working 
> with others it can sometimes be a group decision, 

For original works made by groups, yes again from a legal point of view.

> and there's no dead end 
> to NC as you describe anyway.

How so?
>
> Making a living is not the ultimate goal of all artists, at least not from
> everything they release.  

True, but again, why should I mind if someone else makes a living from my art 
if it is not my intentions to do so? perhaps they are not as well off as I am 
and it might help them?

> 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.

But NC leaves them little better off when it comes to commercial uses. If 
not, 
please explain your take.
>
> 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.  

No, because NC works are not Free works. Unless you mean something else by a 
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 

(gratis?)

> 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.

And this is not marketing?
>
> 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.

I am unaware of what you refer to here, can you explain?

> 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. ;)   

Supposed to be "seperate out"and not meant to be rude in any way.

> 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.  

Oh, no doubt. Ithink this is one of the problems may have with how CC lumps 
all their licenses together.

> They do 
> know about the court cases, and see NC as a control lever they can quickly
> grasp.

See below.

>
> > > 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.

Well, I am far from that.
>
> 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?  

When you see those guys suggesting that BY-SA licenses are better than ARR 
licenses or NC licenses, let me know. I think you may be misreading me.

> 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, 

Did you mean to say possible? Or do I not understand what you are getting at?

> 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?

Ah, but it will take all to agree. And the "friction" will be there in force, 
kind of like an ARR situation.
>
> > > 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.

Remember when I said "see below" above. This is the spot. If those people 
would do this with an ARR work, what makes anyone think they will not do it 
with an NC work?
>
> > > 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.

Yes, they do, but how is NC a better defense to the situation you outlined 
than BY-SA is?
>
> > > 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.  

And you cannot change the license in the system where the license itself 
permits it? I can believe it, but it surprises me that ccMixter would choose 
that road.

> 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.  

Again, is this only the default behaviour which can be overridden, or is this 
a fixed thing? In any case, it is probably easy enough to get around. Upload 
ten seconds of silence and put it under an NC license. If you want to make a 
work using a BY license and have your result under NC, just use some of hte 
NC silence in the new work. This is only needed if you can't find an NC work 
to use in the new work.

You can mix BY and BY-NC works on ccMixter can't you? The resulting work is 
BY-NC isn't it? They do not allow BY-SA on ccMixter do they? And they say 
this is so that all the works there can be mixed don't they?

> 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?  ;)

If you mean the lyrics one, I guess we are waiting for a lawyer or someone 
who 
thinks they know the answer to speak up. You are not likely to get legal 
advice in any case.
>
>  Kevin (aka tacet :: ccMixter)
>
all the best,

drew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaf2ThG7q4
UFO seen in skies over Winton!
-- 
(da idea man)