Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

On 04/16/2012 01:38 PM, zotz AT 100jamz.com wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 20:57:12 +0100, Rob Myers<rob AT robmyers.org>  wrote:
> > On 04/10/2012 02:19 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
> > > There is no reason why BY or BY-SA should be incompatible either.
> >
> > There is because it clashes with how collecting societies operate at the
> > moment.
>
> Right, but this is their choice, not some fundamental law of the
> universe. There is no reason they could not adapt if they wanted to.

Agreed.

> > If I belong to a collecting society, and I license my work
> > BY-SA, then there is a contradiction between the society's right to
> > collect on the copyrights of my work, and your right to use the work
> > Free-as-in-Freedom way.
>
> Only because they insist on being exclusive.
>
> Say I put two licenses on my song.
>
>
> 1. CC BY-SA
> 2. Some license crafted for my CS/PRO that they love.
>
>
> They can just ignore the BY-SA and enforce license #2. The ones I know
> about give blanket licenses for everything they license for a set
> percentage of revenue. (For example from a music playing oriented radio
> station.) So they just collect on license #2 from their licensees and
> give me my cut. People playing only Free Licensed music would not need
> to enter into a license with them and so they could not collect under
> #2. People playing a mix of Free and non-Free music would need to enter
> into a license with them and they could then collect on license #2.
>
> Flaws in this thinking?

This would be parallel distribution of the copyrighted work (which is 
fine), and it would be interesting if it did work like this. i.e. I send 
the ARR copy to radio stations and put the BY-SA copy on The Pirate Bay, 
and the PRO collects royalties on the former. I assume it does, but IANAL.

- Rob.