Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <greglondon.1 AT gmail.com>]

On 4/25/07, Kevin Phillips (home) <tacet AT qmpublishing.com> wrote:

From: Greg London
> 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,

 

Original creators with the full copyright, who license their works NC?

You should ask them why are they witholding commercial rights?

There's a lottery mentality in a lot of folks who use NC.

"Well, maybe it'll become popular, and then I could get some money for it."

 

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.

 

Again, why? They want nothing more than to be remixed and sampled,

but, if there's money to be made, do they want to be the sole person

who can cash in? If not, then I should add a second category to

the types of people who use NC: People who don't understand the license.

But I wouldn't be surprised if it really comes down to a "cash in" idea.

 

so their creation doesn't end up in the hands of some greedy executive producer

 

Oh, sheesh. Sorry. I forgot. Argumentum ad lazarum

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#lazarum

 

Yes, that's a separate category. peopel who think money is evil.

 

Well, back in the day, when shareware and Free as in Speech

software were duking it out for supremecy, the shareware folks

argued that money is evil. Commercial use is evil. yada, yada.

 

Luckily, they, for the most part, got their heads knocked together,

and the idea the Free as in speech has nothing to do with Free as in beer

won out,  mostly.

 

But I don't have a problem with these folks using NC because they

think money is the root of all evil. I just have a problem with these folks

saying NC has anything to do with Freedom. As I said, that whole debate got

knocked out years ago. Done deal.

 

 Honestly, I think a large number of people are choosing NC instead
of SA in error. 

 

I believe there are soem number of folks who see the CC website,

see all the nice, flowery language about "Freedom" and "Commons"

and all that, and pick the license in their best interest that is still on the list,

thinking that everything on the list must qualify as having something

to do with this "Freedom" and "Commons" stuff.

 

CC certainly doesn't go out of its way to clarify that some licenses

have nothing to do with Freedom or Commons. Trying to request

the website be clarified results in a massive etymological study

of the words in question, which apparently produce some connotation

that legitimizes continued confusion.

 

 > 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.  

 

Except that you forget that being forced to get "permission"

means that someone has authority over you.

That has nothing to do with Freedom within a community.

of equals.

 

Also, the original creator retains commercial rights of the original work.

which means the communinty must trust the original author won't create

a commercial fork of the original and ignore the later contributions.

Which is completely opposite in a Freedom based license, where

the original author must trust the community by giving up all

priveledged rights.