Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "drew Roberts" <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
<cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] NC considered harmful? Prove it...


> > 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?

I hope so, otherwise we're screwed ;)

> > 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.

Maybe, so should I add a nag-box to my remixes, lol :)

> > 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?

I inherit as described below mostly.  I've not really contributed enough
original stuff to ccMixter yet to claim any sort of license consistancy,
and one of my motivations for joining this list was to ask more questions
about the licenses.  I intend to contribute a lot more, so it seems wise to
do fact finding.

As you can see from their stats, most other folks choose NC and when I've
probed them about it they mostly gave the reasons I cited.

> >
> > 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?

Because I feel if I decide to make something free, then there's a certain
invisible spirit attached like attribution.  If someone then makes a
commercial sub version, the original intention is lost.  Call it noble,
stupid, destructive, or whatever you like.  I personally think it's
interesting that I get to choose to restrict the channel of influence to
others who are willing to commit time for free to something which will
always remain free.

I appreciate your point of view, and indeed I can envisage using other
licenses where appropriate.

> >
> > Firstly, you assume that an artist will release everything under one NC
> > license regime.
>
> No, I don't assume this at all.

ok....well, good....lol :)

> > 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.

ok

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

ok

> > 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.

ok

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

You made it sound like all routes were/are dead-ends in your descriptions of
NC, it seems like you don't think it's a useful thing or in fact it's a
destructive thing.   I don't agree with that evaluation.  I've taken part in
remixes which have many threads of attribution, just because something is
non-commercial it's no less likely to be picked up and remixed again six
months down the line.

> >
> > 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?

Sure.  I do understand that point of view, but the flipside is equally valid
for me.  As the author of the original work, I have the power to vito future
right to turn my idea into comercial reality, others have the power to
continue my idea under my imposed regulation or find something else to
remix.  If we killed off the NC licenses, we'd loose the ability to make
that decision.

> > 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.

No, I think NC allows artists to control their releases in a very specific
way.  They might want to do that, so why stop them?  The multiple licenses
provide different options for different scenarios.  In the past a commercial
license provided a single option, and usually not specified or controlled by
the artist.

> > 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.

not Free?  The only non-freedom I have with an NC work is I can't sell it,
or make a commercial version.  I'm still free to share it, or do my own
thing with it.

> > 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?)

Gratis, aye....there's no commercial motivation to drive a "marketing"
campaign.

> > 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?

Bah, semantics :)

> > 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?

ehy?  Unaware of using myspace to promote commercial offerings?  It's the
in-thing to have a myspace page for most artists, where they can "reach out"
to fans etc.  I don't see anything wrong with this but it's a distortion of
the original myspace concept, much like commercial artists were a distortion
of the original mp3.com concept.  Things often start out with noble
intentions, "a vehicle for the unsigned artist" or "a place to share with
your friends" but then the sponsors make their phone calls and everything
changes.

I'm not saying it's BAD, it just distorts things.  I think NC will be one of
the few licenses to offer little interest to the commercial world, no
distortion from corporate pressures.

> > > 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.

ok...no problem.

> > 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.
>

Could be, and it could be an education needs thrusting upon unsuspecting
musicians because of this.  I wonder how many musicians on ccMixter truly
understand the licenses.  I'd have to hold my hands up, because I'm still
learning.

> > > > 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.

Just checking ;)

> > 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.

ok.

> > 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?

Yup, hence the 2nd post sorry about that, the hand is indeed quicker than
the eye :)

> > 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.

Could be.

> > > > 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?

The original work was copyright, it was a commercial recording sampled by a
big producer (happened on more than one occasion) and the courts ruled it an
infringement and ordered the producer to pay a percentage of the album
roylaties.

If I were a producer looking for an idea, I'd first look to works which
allowed commericality because I'd assume I'd be less likely to be sued, when
the license allows me to make a commercial version.

NC is a red flag.

> > > > 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?

Ahh I see, sorry.  It's probably not.  You're right.  BY-SA is just as good
at controlling your work I guess, but "share alike" may be a grey area.
Share-a-like your original intention to develop this into a commercial
recording?  Hmm......  :)

> > > > 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.

That seems to be the case, though I don't have the level of experience yet
to say for sure.

> > 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.

It seems to dummy down, yes.   You're assuming folks would want to distort
the licenses, they're too busy remixing music to be honest, and too
frustrated with other functional restrictions to try.

> 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?

I don't know for sure, but like I said it seems to priorise for NC.  There
are so few BY works and I've never sampled one.  Next time I upload
something I'll try some inherited license tests and let you know for sure.

> > 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.

Yup.  Just some guidance would help, it seems words could be unprotected in
license terms.

> drew
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaf2ThG7q4
> UFO seen in skies over Winton!

You're a sick man, lol :)
http://www.ufocasebook.com/himalayanbase.html

Kevin (aka tacet :: ccMixter)