Development of Creative Commons licenses

[<zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:54:50 +0100, Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org> wrote:
> 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.

I am not sure you would have to go this far. What would stop you from
putting the BY-SA license and the more restrictive license on the same
copy.

The CS/PRO signs a blanket license with those needing one.

A place playing only Free music would (may) not need one (if they were
careful to attribute all music properly and abide by the other terms of
the license) but a place playing some music needing a regular CS/PRO
license would sign one.

At that point, the simplest thing for them to do would be to ignore the
BY-SA or BY licenses and go with the other. From what I understand, it
would not cost them anything more on their blanket license, it would
mean they did not have to be as careful with attribution and other terms
of the cc licenses. How is this not easily possible?
> 
> - Rob.

all the best,

drew