Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lucas Gonze" <lucas.gonze AT gmail.com>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
<cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Is "podsafe" music affected by CRB rulings


> On 4/6/07, Eric Garner <ejgarner AT yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > If that is the case, then writing a brand new
> > > licence just for audio
> > > is called for.
> >
> > Given CC's hesitance toward cluttering the landscape
> > with too many licenses, perhaps a reworking of the
> > existing NC license would do the trick.
>
> I dunno, Eric.  Even a reworking amounts to another license.
>
> I think that this hair splitting is an attempt to arrive at logical
> conclusions based on the illogical axiom that commercial use by some
> parties is bad but others is good.

I see your point, but it's not hair splitting imho because it's essential to
the musician to get airplay or review (through preview etc) and could become
a tool for reducing swingeing webcasting fees (if such an option existed).
These are practical rather than emotive or moral issues.  When there's such
a glinty-clear benefit to both sides, and both sides are happy to trade off,
where's the beef?  What's wrong with CC supporting webcasters and podcasters
by being reasonable, particularly in the current climate?

If there's no room for maneuver for NC licenses (non-commercial *absolute*)
then there needs to be a clear statement about NC and it's rigidity to allow
musicians to make a choice.  At the moment there's way too much assumption
with NC, and misinformation.

Kev