Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Chris Sakkas <sanglorian AT gmail.com>]

Hey P-M,

On 14 December 2012 11:42, P-M <cc AT phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

The point that is being made is that the work is released into a
non-commercial commons. A commons where people aren't primarily
exploiting the work of others for private gain. Commercial Rights
Reserved is misleading as in many cases it is not weak commercialism
that is being resisted but strong commercialism. So the use of a photo
by a local community group in a publication from which they hope to
raise a few quid is NOT the same as the use of the image by WALMART made
into posters or greetings cards. Similarly a band playing a song in a
club from which they get a cut of the door money is not the same as
Toyota using the song in an advertisement.

Cory Doctorow, in his discussion with Nina Paley, called this the industrial/non-industrial divide. Walmart is industrial, a community group raising some money is not.

But the NC licences don't allow 'weak commercialism' any more than they allow 'strong commercialism'. They ban both industrial and non-industrial uses of the resource. If you use NC to stop Walmart, you stop the band playing in a club as well. That's one reason why I prefer CRR: because it explains what the licence term does, which is exclude bands and community groups from the NC Commons as well as Walmart and Monsanto.

Cheers,


Chris Sakkas
Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki and the Living Libre blog and Twitter feed.