Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 02 May 2007 10:43 pm, Eric Garner wrote:
> > > So alternatively I can license a song under BY or
> > >BY-SA and earn nothing
> > > (compulsory licenses are waivered), yet other
> > >musicians can freely adapt or
> > > use my song, go on to resell their spin-offs or
> > >remixes without so much as
> > > a $1 tip for me.
> >
> > One thing with BY-SAas opposed to a bare BY, you
> > could also turn around and
> > freely resell their adaptation or your adaptation of
> > their adaptation or your
> > remix of their remix or adaptation without so much
> > as a $1 tip for them.
>
> Yes, SA creates space for a competitive market in lieu
> of a structure for royalty payments. If an RIAA label
> sold a compilation of BY-SA music on iTunes for $9.99,
> you'd be free to sell that same compilation on your
> own website for half that amount, thus gaining a price
> advantage. Though arrangements are copyright-able, the
> label couldn't stop you because their arrangement
> would also have to be BY-SA.
>
> But I don't see why this wouldn't be the case if only
> the Attribution license was used. 

The argument goes like this (corrections welcome if I get any of this wrong):

If they made a CD of recorded music that was licensed BY, you would be right.

If they had their own artists cover the BY licensed tunes, they do not have 
to 
keep the BY license for the new copyright they get.

If they make a derivative of the song (new/changed lyrics, melody) and have 
their artists record that, they do not have to license the new work BY.

> This clip from the 
> legal code for the Attribution license (section
> 4-Restrictions, part a) says: "You may not offer or
> impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms
> of this License or the ability of a recipient of the
> Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient
> under the terms of the License.") Doesn't this mean
> that the label couldn't impose a standard copyright on
> the compilation, or does it only apply to the
> individual tracks therein?

So, they can't change the license on the work, but they can for new works.

Is that clear? Correct?

all the best,

drew

-- 
(da idea man)