Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Is "podsafe" music affected by CRB rulings

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Is "podsafe" music affected by CRB rulings
  • Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:06:52 -0500

Eric Garner wrote:
> --- Lucas Gonze <lucas.gonze AT gmail.com> wrote:
>>That's especially true with the NC licenses, which a
>>whole generation
>>of creators are exploring by doing the wrong thing.
>>Let them go
>>wrong. They will discover that NC work disappears
>>into a dead zone,
>>while SA becomes part of a thriving ecosystem, and
>>the next time
>>around they will know.

A short while back, I asked for suggestions on ways to prove this. The
response was rather disappointing considering that this is such a
well-accepted piece of conventional wisdom. But if we're right, there
must be evidence, right?

To clarify:

Where is the empirical evidence for the claim that "NC licensed works
are more likely to fall into a 'dead zone' than SA licensed works"?

Can you define what a 'dead zone' is? (That is, offer a metric that
evaluates when something is 'dead').

Or alternatively, can you offer a metric for how 'alive' a work is, so
that one can show that SA works are 'more alive' than similar NC works?

I'm willing to do the leg work of actually collecting data and writing
it up. But I'm still at something of a loss for what can actually be
measured. I've been assured that ccMixters is a non-starter for several
reasons, but is that it?

Jenny will never discover the error if there is no evidence of the
failure, or of what caused it (she may just think her music sucks,
become depressed, and stop producing music at all, for example).

>>The best thing we can do to help Jamming Jenny is
>>not pander to her
>>misunderstanding.

Better yet, we can offer tangible proof of the misunderstanding and it's
causes.

Mere dogma has no power to change minds. Scientific evidence does.

Otherwise, you're just in a shouting match, and the RIAA and MPAA have
bigger lungs than we do, so that's not exactly playing to our strength.

> Now how user-friendly
> is that, for CC to let her work "dissappear into the
> dead zone" and tell her after-the-fact that she should
> have figured this all out from the fine print?

Let's not forget that Jenny can always re-license the work. Just because
she's previously licensed it NC doesn't mean she can't re-release under
By-SA licensing (the exception to this, unfortunately, is if the work is
derived from NC works).

The only problem with this is that it won't happen if Jenny never
figures out that the license is her problem.

Which of course, pre-supposes that the license is her problem. Is it?
Can we prove that even to ourselves?

Others have suggested that it isn't *her* problem, but only *our*
problem. (I.e. with SA the community wins, but not the creator -- it
doesn't take a genius to figure out that if that is true, the pool of
aesthetic SA works is likely to dry up, rather than growing
exponentially as have utilitarian SA works such as software and Wikipedia).

Just some things to think about, and maybe this will clarify why I asked
for proof before.

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page