Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Eric Garner <ejgarner AT yahoo.com>]

--- Eric Garner <ejgarner AT yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> --- James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Question: is this kind of decision something that
> > musicians would care
> > about propagating through into derivative works? 
> As
> > long as the license
> > proliferation can be kept clear of creating new 
> SA
> > hybrids, the
> > consequences of multiplying the licenses are less
> > severe.
> > 
> > I'm still generally skeptical of new license
> > proposals, but this does
> > seem to be an area where license behavior diverges
> > strongly from author
> > expectations, and there's also a good case against
> > simply modifying the
> > license that isn't working for them.
> > 
> > James
> > 
> 
> In an instance where Joe next door hears an original
> song of mine on a pod- or webcast and decides to do
> a
> mashup of it, I would be okay with the resulting
> song
> being 'castable royalty-free. But that's just me. I
> suppose this scenario could be addressed through a
> combination of the hybrid license you're proposing
> and
> another license, Sampling+ for instance.

Oops, upon re-reading your post I see where my initial
interpretation of it was incorrect. 

But since I've brought this for-instance scenario to
light (even if on the erroeous interpretation), is
there a solution under the current CC license
structure?

Eric