Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Hey guys,

[snip]

> > 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.

uh oh.  So a "cover", where something is re-recorded cuts the rope to the
originator?  Even though they created the seed idea?  Not only that but the
conditions of his/her original license for the work?  Doesn't that render
the BY license slightly impotent?  Afterall, the rules for sampling in the
commercial world now say any amount of a sample must be credited/licensed
where it's recognisable.

> > 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

Surely a "work" should mean any recognisable element of the work, not the
work in it's entirety?  1 hour, 1 minute, or just 10 seconds.....

Hmm.....

Kev