Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

I like this idea Jonathon.  If what we're saying is "this isn't a license
issue it's an educational issue" then there needs to be better education for
all concerned.

One way to do this would be to modify the current license chooser page
(rather than have an opt-out questionnaire), which if carefully arranged
could do two things :

1) find out more about what people REALLY know, not what they THINK they
know

2) provide feedback responses to each question (instead of just storing the
answers)
    - which could go some way to better inform folks of possible bear snares

You could do this with a kind of feedback loop.  So, you ask a question
regarding the license, and the say "did you realise choosing this license
will restrict your potential audience because....", then offer a "would you
like to change your last option? or continue?"

The questions could be "tuned" to media types, audio may well have a
question connected to NC which says something about podcast and radio
airplay.....ie. do you want any?  (!)   Jammin'Jenny would therefore see the
red flag and act accordingly.  She makes informed choices instead of
listening to bad advice about NC through the peer-grapevine.   If this is
the outcome of this discussion then at least it's very very positive step.

I'd like to see a small amendment to the licenses giving a possible option
for support for pod/web casters who thanks to commercial legacy interest are
really having a hard time to stay afloat, but I realise that's more of a
personal idealistic thing.

I have yet to fathom why an "NC" license would support a back door to Sound
Exchange anyway, irrespective of the fact that it's (p) releated instead of
(c) - I wonder how many musicians with NC licensed work are SE
registered?.....so why would an option to make NC *really* NC and offer no
means of commerciality be so inappropriate?  eg. IF I started a bedroom
radio station or podcast tomorrow at my own cost for NC music (observing the
no commercial support what so ever rules), currently I'd still have to pay
(p) fees to SoundExchange to stay legal......if I'm understanding this
correctly.  So, under the new CRB rulings I'd need to be a footballer or a
movie star, just to be able to afford the (p) fees for my presumed "podsafe"
music stream.

Which leads to the question : Do sites like ccMixter pay (p) fees to
SoundExchange for their podcast/radio streams? ....I don't hear them
complaining in the same way the web/pod casters are.

Kev



> Terry Hancock wrote:
>
> > Better yet, we can offer tangible proof of the misunderstanding and it's
> > causes.
>
> a) Go thru the list archives, for the discussions on what "Non
> Commercial" means. If nothing else, they serve as a graphic illustration
> of how broad the spectrum of what it does, or does not allow is.
>
> It doesn't matter who is right, but the fact that there are a number of
> points in contention indicates that the licence is extremely blurred,
> and might not do what a naive user expects it to do.
>
> b) Survey roughly 5,000 people who use an NC licence.  The survey
> consists of specific situations/scenarios, and whether or nto they are
> permissible under the NC licence.  Pick ten or so of the most
> contentious issues, and ten or so of the "show stopping" issues.
> [I'm not sure how to send the survey out, without it getting flagged as
> spam. Perhaps Creative Commons to add a survey to the page with the
> licences, as part of the licence selection process.  Whisltthe results
> would not be scientific, they would point towards what the licences were
> percieved to allow/disallow.]
>
> xan
>
> jonathon
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>