Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 07:50 pm, Kevin Phillips (home) wrote:
> 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.  

Sure, it could be ignorance. (And I mean no slight by that term.)

> 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.

If people on ccMixter were careful, they could end up as BY. I do agree that 
because of how the site is designed, things tend to NC in the long run.
>
> 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.

ccMixter can't fix it and keep to their goal of everything on the site being 
remixable.

They would need to run another site, say ccFreeMixter where the allowable 
licenses were BY and BY-SA. And perhaps other sites. I would hope they 
wouldn't bother with a site for ND! ~;-)
>
> > 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.

This isn't even exactly true as we have the dual license games going on in 
the 
Free Software world.

To make this true, I think the original people could do something like sell a 
GPL only gaurantee or something along those lines. That is, contractually 
bind themselves to be in the same situation for a minimal amount up front.

> > 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.  

Nope, not on the original work, which is the point. On the derivatives, sure.

> 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.

Not if you are in a band that is incorporated.
>
> > 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

all the best,

drew

-- 
(da idea man)