Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 22 March 2007 09:07 pm, Kevin Phillips (home) wrote:
> ----- 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, so should I add a nag-box to my remixes, lol :)

This song only sounds like musicfor 30 days? (The you get tired of it?)
>
> > > 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.

In all honesty, inheriting is not quite the same as shoosing. I don't mess 
with NC works myslef as I see them as too "dangerous"for my tastes, but that 
is just me.
>
> 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.

Oh, I don't doubt that.
>
>
> Because I feel if I decide to make something free, then there's a certain
> invisible spirit attached like attribution.  

I think I understand this and this is one reason I like copyleft as opposed 
to 
non-copyleft Free licenses.

> If someone then makes a 
> commercial sub version, the original intention is lost.  Call it noble,
> stupid, destructive, or whatever you like.  

It can be many things, mostly, long term, I think it will end up a waste.

> 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.

Well, I am more concerned with the other free. (Libre as opposed to gratis. 
The one in Free software, the one in the famous "Free as in speech, not as in 
beer" phrase which is not a favourite of mine.
>
> 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 read the whole post before hitting reply. I think I was going to make this 
point below, but I will make it here and refer to it below if I see the need.

Let's go to ccMixter's model for a second.

Work A. BY.
Work B. BY.
Work C. BY-NC.
Work D. BY-NC

Mix A and B - BY.
Mix A and C - BY-NC
Mix A and D - BY-NC
Mix B and C - BY-NC
Mix B and D - BY-NC
Mix C and D - BY-NC

Now do you see the problem I have?

Works A. - Y. BY.
Work Z. - BY-NC

Mix all 26 together - BY-NC

> 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.

Well, one thing is, any band that is incorporated, cannot play the remix 
BY-NC 
music game. (Not my problem mind you.)

Plus, I am not thinking only of the situation in a year, but in 50 or 75 
years 
as well.
>
> > > 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.

Bingo. But just as others could earn from your works you could earn from 
theirs. Hence my 'Full of themselves: "I am completely original! I don't need 
to build on the work of anyone else to make a living."' quote from before.

(This is not meant as a personal attack on you or anyone, I just worded it 
fairly strongly looking to cause some extra thought. Is the artist so great 
that they will never find themselves building on the work of other's to earn 
their bread? If so, fine, if not, why not return the favour.
>
> > > 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?  

Ithink you are missing my point. This is all in relation to a remix culture. 
If a bunch of people have been messing with each other's works in a tangled 
web of remixes, down the line when one wants to earn some bread, they will be 
no better off than if all the works were ARR. They will have to try and work 
out some side deal to allow this. A Free license would not get in the way 
like and NC license does.

> 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?  

Right not Free. Just as software that will not permit sale is not Free 
Software. It lacks in the four freedoms department. (Once again, Free as in 
Libre, not necessarily free as in gratis which NC is supposed to be by many 
people's thinking.)

> 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 :)

Not really, but OK. After it get's popular, who is the only one who can make 
money from it? But don't forget, only the pure first cut at it, not the 
vibrant remixed NC work. It is not a commons play. It is a mine play. Now, 
that may be a fine play, but it is not a commons play.
>
> > > 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?  

Yep, unaware of that.

> 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.

Which is why I think Sa scares them way more than NC. They can buy out NC 
works and be the only ones able to make money on them. With SA works 
however...
>
> 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.

And I see SA more in this light. Oh, I am sure one part of them will want to 
sell works that they don't have to pay for, but they are not gonna like it 
that what works for them works for everyone.
>
> > > > 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.

Well, IIRC, ccMixter doesn't like license discussion in the forums there, you 
get sent here instead. Again IIRC.
>
> > > > > 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 :)

Or, in my case, more often it is the hand is more sloppy than the mind.
>
> > > 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.

And to most big cats, SA will be just as big or a bigger red flag. besides, 
IIRC, you spoke of having your work, taken, rebranded, and sold.

Like I said, even BY will prevent the rebranding. BY-SA will allow the sales 
where BY-NC will not but with the benefit of your being able to return the 
favour if they happen to make a better version than your original...
>
> > > > > 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.

ShareAlike is not as clear to me as I one thoght it was, but NC is seriously 
more murky.

> Share-a-like your original intention to develop this into a commercial
> recording?  Hmm......  :)

ShareAlike as in the new work has to have the same license as the original. 
Can you see a big studio putting a hundred grand into producing a cover of my 
BY-SA song by the latest boy band sensation and having to release the work 
under a BY-Sa license? I wouldlove to be proved wrong sometime mind you.
>
> > > > > 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.

Nope, not assuming folks would want to do this, just that it is possible. 
Some 
might though.
>
> > 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.

Well, here is how to find those BY works in case you are unaware:

http://ccmixter.org/media/tags/attribution

2104 with that tag as of now it seems.
>
> > > 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 :)

You are not the first to think that...

http://www.ourmedia.org/node/85937
Tings - Anuddah Bahamian Novel

Something else to hurt your head with. There are some lyrics in there (BY-SA) 
that I intend to run a contest on if I can ever get organized and around to 
it. You may like messing with them.)

> http://www.ufocasebook.com/himalayanbase.html

I hate to tell you thi, but that UFO looks fake, mine, on the other hand is 
obviously the genuine article. The real deal as it were.
>
> Kevin (aka tacet :: ccMixter)
>

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)