Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Good one, though you'll probably get little sense from the mailing list,
they have more time for bickering over the semantics of buttons and
banners than actual practical application of the licenses....I'm not
bitter ;)

I'm at work right now, but I have a couple of good bookmarks with answers
to these questions at home (i'll forward later).  A friend of mine has an
amateur radio station : www.pearadio.com  ...and he asked me to sniff out
the potential of using CC music.

We may have to either :

1) get blanket agreement from all those involved that commercial
applications are allowed and list them, youtube, bebo, radio etc.

2) use a different license (instead of NC)

Victor has long had the conviction that NC just means no commercial uses
directly to earn money, but the rest of the world seem to have a very
different opinion....even a guy with a radiostream and a tip jar seems
covered by the NC police.

SoundExchange is covered also by the license, it says the webcaster should
pay fees as per usual to SE or appropriate body (they don't name SE
directly in the new version of the license) and that it's upto the artists
to register for their collecting agent (ASCAP etc).

It's a mess, which is why I flagged it.  We'll need to work on it as a
seperate issue.  It's almost like we need separate marketing, development 
and legal teams!

I've asked Victor to give us a Community Projects topic, at least we can
then thread-up some of these questions.

Kev :)


----
> Real-world uses for the CC-licensing structure seem pretty obvious, but
> sometimes answers lead only to more questions:
>
> There seems to be some confusion in the blogosphere as to whether
> CC-licensed (aka "podsafe") content offers an alternative library to
> webcasters who won't be able to afford the new SoundExchange payments
> conceived last month. How does CC-licensed content fit into in this
> scheme? I've been following this matter since the announcement of the new
> royalty structures by the CRB last month, and there seems to be an
> assumption that podsafe music will be able to fill the void if webcasters
> are unable to continue using their current libraries. There is also some
> concern that podcasting, which is currently unaffected by the CRB ruling,
> may be next in line for regulatory action.
>
> As a musician, am I correct to assume that CC-licensing my music places it
> into a body of work residing outside the reach of the CRB and
> SoundExchange for purposes of webcasting? As a podcaster, am I safe to
> assume that my sticking with podsafe, CC-licensed music will is enough to
> satisfy any future regulations which might be in store for this medium?
>
> Since the blogosphere isn't always a 100%-reliable source of information,
> I would rather ask these questions to the people who really know what
> they're talking about. Unfortunately, I made a similar post about a month
> ago and no one responded :(
>
> Eric Garner
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>