Development of Creative Commons licenses

[P-M <cc AT phizz.demon.co.uk>]

On 14/12/2012 01:56, Chris Sakkas wrote:
> Hey P-M,
>
> On 14 December 2012 11:42, P-M <cc AT phizz.demon.co.uk
> <mailto: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.


I'm well aware of the problems but currently NC is the best we have. Its 
like accepting Apple juice though we'd rather have Mango juice.


In the past we may have used ARR and chosen not to get uppity at certain 
reusers. With NC we still do that. The NC license simply indicates to 
those that are definitely non-commercial, who care about copyright and 
doing the right thing that no one is going to come after them for reuse. 
Also it lowers the psychological bar for those that are slightly 
commercial and care about copyright that an ask to reuse isn't going to 
be rebuffed. For those that don't care about copyright all the licenses 
are meaningless anyway.


Now several years ago I was definitely in the no atom of commercialism 
shall touch these works ever, and I'm truly sorry for those that made 
genuine requests and were rebuffed during that period.