Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

ok, but do I smell our old friend Sound Exchange sneaking around under the
floor boards?

Greg explained : "Alice creates a song. It is automatically put under All
Rights Reserved by copyright.
Alice then adds CC-NC-ND-BY to her song. Bob comes along and likes Alice's
song. He decides to use the compulsory license approach to create his own
cover of the song. He pays some amount of money, and creates
his version of the song. Alice doesn't like it, but she can't stop him. Bob
keeps his version under All Rights Reserved. Alice's version is still ARR
and CC-NC-ND-BY."

So, the obvious question is : Does anyone know if the two "recordings"
....1x Alice 1x Bob are treated as unique (in terms of their licenses)?
This makes most sense to me.  In which case Alice's original non-commercial
intention for her song/recording has been levered into the commercial space
via the compulsory license.  Ooo fragmentation, it's so purdy! :)

*flash* Alice needs to be registered with ASCAP (or similar) to ensure she
gets her dues.

If the two "recordings" somehow get entangled legally, then we have a big
big mess.  For instance - Alice maintains authorship of the song, obviously,
and therefore if the song is performed she should receive payment from her
collection agency (eg ASCAP) via Sound Exchange. The NC component of her
license ensures the fees are not waivered, she can collect the money and buy
a new car.  BUT only if she's an ASCAP member (or similar society member in
another country).....otherwise everyone's friend Sound Exchange will
dutifully collect the money and place it in their bottomless pot.....without
telling a soul.  So, it's a good thing for Alice that she registered with
ASCAP, and that she didn't choose SA or her CC license would have waivered
those fees, no new car :/  ....just because she chose the SA license
(commercial allowed aka no wheels for Alice) and not the NC license
(commercial not allowed aka hot rod & sunglasses).....ironic?  If the
license fee is also paid via the Sound Exchange mechanism (or similar -
because the new SA license doesn't specifically mention SE by name), that
may also be waivered.

Whichever is the case, I still can't get my head around SA having waivered
fees whilst NC does not.

Kev

ps. sorry Jake we do appear to have hijacked the thread somewhat, oops.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Garner" <ejgarner AT yahoo.com>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
<cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Need clarification: What is "commercial"?


> > Personally, I think there are bigger
> > fish to fry with the current set of copyright laws
> > that I'd rather focus attention there. DMCA, DRM,
> > infinite copyright terms, etc.
>
> Indeed. Now that I'm up to speed with this, I'm
> inclined to agree.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>