Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Eric Garner <ejgarner AT yahoo.com>]

--- drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday 02 May 2007 06:55 pm, Kevin Phillips
> (home) wrote:
> > Hey Jake,
> >
> snip
> >
> > 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.
> 
> I can see the big guys taking advantage of BY-SA and
> reselling your original 
> work. I would be very interested and surprised to
> see the big players taking 
> advantage of BY-SA to make and sell covers.
> 
> I would think they would use the
> compulsary/statutory? license instead and pay 
> you your money.
> 
> Does anyone see them going the other way?
> >
> snip
> >
> > Kev
> 
> all the best,
> 
> drew
> -- 
> (da idea man)
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> 
> > 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. 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?