Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 27 August 2012 18:00:52 Gregor Hagedorn wrote:
> On 27 August 2012 19:40, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > I think the license should automatically terminate on violation.
> > I think the license should have a procedure that, if followed, will
> > automatically result in the grant of a new license on the same
> > conditions.
>
> 1. I fully second that, I believe this is a balanced solution and in
> the spirit of the open content movement.
>
> 2. This is quite different from a grace period during which a
> violation would be tolerated until the license terminates (which is my
> understanding of Anthony's proposal and Diane's proposed path of
> discussion). I concur with Mathias Schindler that this is an
> unnecessary complication.
>
> 3. While I concur with Drew that a healed violation should not be
> prosecuted, I believe this should be a moral question, not a legal
> one. While I think the license should expressedly mention
> reinstatement, it should be silent on this.

I think we need to try and find a way to distinguish between willful 
infringement and inadvertent infringement and I think they should be treated 
differently.
>
> The consequences of _not_ introducing a grace period or "no action if
> healed" clause are simplicity, but also more rights to the licensor.
> Offering fresh licensing (after the violation no longer occurs) only
> takes a ways the punitive aspect of "life-long-inability-to-license",
> but not the right of the licensor to seek damages for a violation.

If we want to share BY-SA, I am not sure what actual damages inadvertent 
infringement can do but I am willing to have it explained to me. And while I 
think it may be OK to seek statutory or actual damages from those willfully 
infringing, I don't think it would be right to seek statutory damages from 
inadvertent an infringer.

Someone explain the rightness of this last please if you see it that way.
>
> A positive aspect of this is that it does not make it risk-free to
> violate the license. However, it limits damages to the damages
> incurred during  the duration of the violation, which immediately
> terminated the license and thus created a copyright violation.

Bingo.
>
> Gregor

all the best,

drew