Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Friday 01 June 2007 06:22 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew:
> > This plan of course breaks down for a remix culture right? Jack makes a
> > track and licenses it CC BY-NC. Jack puts his track up on ourmedia.org.
> > Mary finds it and reworks it and re-records it and also used the CC BY-NC
> > license. She wants to put it up on Macjams.com where her other stuff is.
> >
> > Surely she has not right to give such a license to Macjams? And thus no
> > right to upload it to Macjams in the first place.
>
> Yep. That's one of the biggest problems with NC, and the one that makes
> it a failure as a "commons" license: Once two people have contributed to
> a work, it becomes no more possible for either to profit from it (or
> possibly even to distribute it on commercial sharing sites as
> demonstrated here) than it would've been if the work were "all rights
> reserved".
>
> One of the advantages of a simple copyleft requirement (like the By-SA)
> is that it works as well for the hosting site as for the people who
> download the document from the site. So no second license is needed.

Yes, if they are willing to operate that way. If they require the grant even 
for copyleft works, even they cannot be uploaded if not all original. (or 
with specific, out of band agreements.)
>
> In what you describe as a "remix culture", only the symmetric aspects of
>  a license can be exploited, because any assymetric term (i.e. that
> grants different terms to the author than to anyone else) becomes
> self-incompatible as soon as another author is added to the work.
>
> By-SA, like the GPL, works better because only the symmetric terms are
> needed by derivers. Strictly speaking there are assymetric terms -- the
> author can violate the copyleft, but no one really needs that ability to
> use the material. Again, strictly speaking, a hosting site could refuse
> copyleft work (or insist you agree to a copyleft-incompatible license in
> order to upload), but there's no compelling reason for them to do so.

Right, unless they have extra motives.
>
> So it's practical for a hosting company to offer free hosting for
> copyleft work, but not under a non-commercial license. For NC, they need
> the same thing as they would for ARR work -- a specific license to cover
> their use.

Bingo. Now how do we go about getting all of them to see the light? Or do 
they 
all already?
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew

-- 
(da idea man)