Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Eric Garner <ejgarner AT yahoo.com>]

--- Jonathon Blake <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Have you taken a look at the license that "media
> conglomerates" are
> selecting, when choosing a CC license?

So what?

> Provide a legal definition for "non commercial".
> 
> I suspect that the first dozen or so cases (in the
> US at least) will
> revolve around:
> *  What is legally meant by "non-commercial";
> * What the licensor understands by "non-commercial";
> * What the licensee understands by "non-commercial";
> * How much weight to give to the Creative Commons
> Guidelines on what
> the license means;

Please choose a context: A-SoundExchange demands
royalties because your CC-NC music webstream plays
commercials (we've already covered this) B-Alice
decides to split hairs to the nth degree over the
CC-NC license she placed on her song (the judge will
have little patience for this because, once again,
Alice is the one who chose a copyleft license after
all).

> > That decision will set the course for how future
> open-source licenses will work.
> 
> You've forgotten a couple of things:
> 
> * The ability of Congress to inflict mandatory "Your
> Rights Removed"
> licenses on all content;
> * Bad prior case law that mandates "your rights
> removed" for all content;
> * Software EULAs that turn over the Intellectual
> Property Rights of
> content created with that software to the company
> that
> wrote/distributed the software;
> 
> Unfortunately, there is precedent for all three of
> those cases.

Don't these apply to full coryright too, or are they
specific to CC licensed material? I take it "all
content" means just that.