Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 03 May 2007 05:35 pm, Kevin Phillips (home) wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>
> To: <jake AT countersinkdg.com>; "Discussion on the Creative Commons license
> drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 2:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Need clarification: What is "commercial"?
>
>
> [snip]
>
> > Basically, the view is that there's
> > "money" and then there's "MONEY".
> > University money is OK.
> > Mail order MONEY is not OK.
> > Which becomes an irresolvable mess trying to
> > codify into a license, because, really, its a
> > totally arbitrary distinction.
> > We're good. They're bad.
> >
> > There's one other fairly common use for NC:
> > Codifying the logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad lazarum
> >
> > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#lazarum
>
> Good grief....
>
> Argumentum Ad Vertisium
> Double-spin linking to a page full of subconscious advertising cues.
>
> "meaning of life", "insight" and "logicam".....logicam....."oo! what a
> give-away" ;)
>
> Just kidding ;)
>
> Ahem, sorry, I'll make a serious point now.  I do see where you're argument
> works for this "good" vs "bad" money issue.  However, I think the real
> problem is that there really might be no solution, because as you say NC is
> being re-coloured for each individual and their unique ideal.
>
> > The idea that money is evil.
> >
> > Some folks use NC because they want to release their
> > works under a NC license and they don't want their
> > work to get "dirtied" by money, or they don't want
> > "the man" to get their work and make money off of it.
> > There is no money that is "good" money, so it's all
> > forbidden.
>
> I think it can be taken a little too far.  I'm not sure it's a fight
> against "the man" but there is an element of fairplay which people measure
> things by, particularly when it's something they fostered or created.  
> MPAA/RIAA methods are well known, and hardly fair.  DRM for instance, as
> you suggested in your fair use comments is the bane of most people's lives
> and gives an indication of "lengths" to which a corporate will go to get
> the level of control they want.
>
> I'd be happy with the NC license if it truly did mean NO commerciality,
> however Sound Exchange is another good example of manipulation of a system
> to ensure retention of control.  It was invented by the recording industry
> to mop-up fees paid for playback to unsigned/unregistered/unknown artists.
> It's the bane of most webcaster's lives, and is currently a major point of
> controversy in terms of the amounts of fees it collects.
>
> I was more than surprised to read the NC license does _not_ waiver these
> fees, whilst other "commercial" licenses DO waiver these fees.
>
> I still wonder if I've read something wrong or if I've got the wrong end of
> the stick, but this is how it appears to be.
>
> [snip]
>
> > (3) and (4) seem like they are wholly based on
> > religious style arguments. Dogmatic views passed down
> > from people who think the world should be their way,
> > and want a license that implements that. They don't
> > really change the landscape of the problem, though.
> > But they got a license that follows their ideology,
> > so they're happy.
> >
> > So, the moral of the story, I suppose, is that, yes,
> > you'd probably find some people who would like to
> > change NC or create alternate versions of NC, because
> > there are several groups using NC for wildly different
> > reasons. And I'm sure none of them are exactly happy
> > with where teh lines got drawn in the license compared
> > to where they drew the lines in their mind.
> >
> > Whether a change to NC is a good thing, I'm not sure.
>
> You could be right, but keep in mind the balance of things.  People are
> increasingly paranoid where corporations are concerned because of their
> personal experiences and close-quarter judgements.  It's not dogmatic to
> worry about being cheated or hussled (in the financial sense, not the
> emotional sense).
>
> > I'm pretty sure that making two NC alternates is a
> > bad idea simply because that doesn't resolve any of
> > the confusion about what NC actually is, it just adds
> > confusion about what THIS NC is versus what THAT NC is.
>
> I don't agree, I think increasing the options can sometimes increase
> clarity.  The situation seems like it would be made worse right now because
> so many folks are bending the current NC license out of shape.
>
> > But you're not the first person to raise the quesiton
> > of what is NC. And unfortunately, you probably won't
> > be the last.
>
> I think a good reason for folks to be purplexed by the NC flavour is that
> it's the polar opposite of BY/SA flavours.  There's no middle ground for
> the creative commoners.  The middle ground appears to be more for the
> establishment with Sound Exchange showing up on NC, and if Drew and Eric
> are correct there's even an "opportunity" to break BY/SA license terms and
> scale-up and right out into the blue sky of copyright.

Check this link:

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat071205.html

As I get things, it is this statutory license that let's anyone get around 
any 
CC license for non-dramatic musical works. Once the work has been published 
if I remember correctly.

This is a special sort of deal for music. It doesn't apply to everything. But 
music did come up I think. Do other countries have something similar?
>
> omg, tin foil hats everyone! :)
>
> Kev

all the best,

drew

-- 
(da idea man)