Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Just thought I'd chip in.  :)   Interesting discussion......


----- Original Message -----
From: Greg London
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL

> Oh come on.
> Anyone releasing someing under NC and/or ND is doing so
> more for their personal benefit than for the benefit of the
> community.

No.  Not unless you mean by "personal benefit" an increase in skill, or
enjoyment.  I personally know many musicians who have NC materials, as we've
discussed here previously.  I'd rather question the vagueness of the CC
deeds and investigating why NC is so popular for these folks rather than
shine sunlight through a magnifying glass on the word "freedom".

Sites like ccMixter do propegate NC because of the copyright-derived
competitions, but don't forget about the original materials which get posted
and remixed and end up as NC works eventually.  These are mostly created for
fun, by folks who want nothing more than to be remixed or sampled.

I truly believe it's a mistake most folks make that NC provides some kind of
comfort blanket protection mechanism, so their creation doesn't end up in
the hands of some greedy executive producer, yes I know it's bordering on
paranoia.  I tend to agree with you if you're suggesting NC is something of
a lesser option in terms of overall potential for "the work", because by
choosing NC the artist is excluding commerciality.


> Free samples so that people come and buy more.
> Or free samples so they get a chance of getting discovered
> and someone comes in and publishes their work.

hmmm....

> If you release something under SA or GNU-GPL or BSD or BY
> then you are actually giving the community something more than
> you are directly getting back.

Agreed.  This is why I'd like more clarity in the license descriptions and
deeds.  Honestly, I think a large number of people are choosing NC instead
of SA in error.  Or choosing NC where SA isn't an option (ccMixter)....in
which case something should be done to fix that.

> copyleft et al are barn raising licenses.
> NC and ND are types of commercial advertising,
> guerrilla marketing, free samples, hype generators, etc.

Again, this is only partly true.

> THere is closed and open. Free and Proprietary. that's it.
> You either enable the creator more than the community,
> or you enable the community as an equal to the creator.
> NC and ND and ARR are all proprietary, closed.
> The creator retains the majority rights to the work.
> The creator alone can sell the work.
> The creator alone can modify the work.

Careful now, you're using singularity.  An NC work remixed becomes another
NC work (singular) sure, but creator becomes creators (plural) and therefore
everyone is an equal who takes part - to break out into commerciality it
requires a re-license agreement from one and all.  Which is where I agree
with you NC controls rights, but I disagree that it's proprietary because
(in a music context) I have the legal right to change it, copy it, remix it.

> And in a world where transmission of the work is a sunk cost
> over the internet, giving people the right to transmit the work
> for free isn't giving them much at all.You're just giving them the
> right because of the potential benefit it may bring to you.

Hmmm, I have a little issue with this because of the copyright music +
iTunes model which uses the self-same transmission systems we use to give
stuff away for free, for fun.

Kev

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses