Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Eric Garner <ejgarner AT yahoo.com>]

Thanks, and sorry for the double-post. My messages
aren't showing up in email for some reason.

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

> 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)
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>