Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-nz - Re: [Cc-nz] Time to retire ND and NC

cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand discussion

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Sutherland, Paul" <Paul.Sutherland AT ccc.govt.nz>
  • To: "Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand discussion" <cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-nz] Time to retire ND and NC
  • Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:54:48 +1200

I wonder what evidence there is about the usage of CC-NZ and its various
permutations full stop

Do we know how many objects from New Zealand exist with any CC licences

Somewhere to look that up?

And how much reuse there is actually occuring

Digital New Zealand is too vague to track that I think

I also wonder if we just cannot learn to embrace diversity in licenses.

All rights reserved is not evil.

Just not generous

/paul




From: cc-nz-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:cc-nz-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Leigh Blackall
Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2012 11:58 PM
To: Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand discussion
Subject: Re: [Cc-nz] Time to retire ND and NC



I've wondered about this Bronwyn. d
Is there any research out there that shows NC as a transition point to more
reusable licenses? Or do people who come in on NC, stay on NC?

On Sep 15, 2012 12:33 PM, "Bronwyn Holloway-Smith" <bronwyn AT holloway.co.nz>
wrote:


Hi folks,


To contribute my two cents to the discussion: while I think NC
presents issues in terms of what is defined as commercial or not, I've used
it in my most recent project where I invited other artists to lend their work
to a digital 3D modelling and 3D printing process - releasing the files under
BY-NC-SA http://bronwyn.co.nz/projects/whisper-down-the-lane/ . I
specifically used NC as I found that it reassured these artists - most of
them who were unaware of the Creative Commons license system. Without it many
of them wouldn't have come on board with the project due to the unknown risks
of allowing commercial use.

There is still a lot of work to be done before CC is widely
understood and used by the general public and IMHO retaining NC will lower
the barrier to entry for those who are new to, and wary of the system.

That said, I welcome discussion of where the boundaries of
"commercial use" lie.

BHS


On 14 September 2012 22:50, Leigh Blackall <leighblackall AT gmail.com>
wrote:


fit the record, i support the notion of stopping NC. it has a
corrosive effect I'm projects like ccmixter.org where it is impossible to
create a remix with NC works and release it in a more permissable license. As
a result, I have observed ccmixter has very little permissable work available
in it now.

I don't enjoy or join the borderline moralist rhetoric of
"free culture" though, and think it a shame that it pervades this topic of
discussion. I'd rather check just how much CC and "free culture" pundits
actually serve to reinforce an impoverished understanding of culture,
governed under three notion if copyright, and the market rationale.

On Sep 14, 2012 5:47 PM, "Danyl Strype"
<strypey AT disintermedia.net.nz> wrote:


Kia ora koutou

Thanks to those who have contributed to this
discussion. I seem to be
in the minority so far, but I'm all for rough
consensus and robust
debate.

On 31 August 2012 08:17, Richard Best
<richard AT besthancock.com> wrote:
>> NC and ND variants serve useful purposes for a
range of copyright owners. <<

Can you give me some examples of copyright holders
whose needs could
not be served without NC and ND? I'd be particularly
interested in
examples where CC-NC-ND was someone's lifeline, as I
am strongly in
favour of leaving this out of CC 4.0.

>> Removing them would be counter-productive. <<

Opponents of CC have always argued that removing any
of the rights
associated with ARR copyright is counter-productive.
Again, can you
offer examples?

Presumably in defence of the NC clause, Paul wrote:
>> If someone wishes to profit from your labours is
it not fair that you may wish to receive some recompense. <<

It's a fair wish, but even ARR copyright cannot
guarantee that.
There's no way a NC license can.

The ARR/NC model is that you do the work unpaid, and
then you use
monopoly rights to make someone pay for for it, after
the fact. The
problem is, nobody is going to do that if there isn't
a significant
demand for your work. Having other people selling
your work,
especially in markets you can't reach yourself,
actually increases the
chance that someone will see your work as worth
paying for, and thus
the chance you can sell your own versions.

Also, unless you have the support of a
corporate-scale legal
department, you can't actually enforce an NC clause
to make sure that
happens. So really, you are relying on the honesty of
commercial users
and their customers anyway. I'm all for using the
'Creator-Endorsed
Mark' to encourage people to buy from you, or from
vendors who are
giving you royalties voluntarily, and I think it's
likely to be more
helpful than NC:
http://questioncopyright.org/creator_endorsed

>> A society based on gifts is a long time away. <<

The evidence does not support this assertion.
According to
anthropologist David Graeber (see his book 'Debt: The
First 5000
Years'), the gift economy is the original human
economy, and despite
the significant territory the free market and
government-regulated
money economies have carved out for themselves, the
gift remains the
dominant mode of human exchange. Even in modern
societies, when you
include the domestic sphere, and especially the care
of children, and
the elderly and inform, the vast majority of the
labour performed is
not paid for with money.

Because of the difficulty, security risks, and
transaction costs of
transferring money over the internet, the gift is
still the dominant
form of economic activity online. Open source
communities producing
free code software, and reference works like
Wikipedia and Appropedia,
are the most obvious examples, but there are
thousands of cases where
people perform work, and provide (non-physical) goods
and services
online, without expecting a monetary return.

Then there are all the cases where the internet is
used to facilitate
real-world gift exchange. Look at Freecycle.org,
where people can give
away household or backyard items they don't need.
Look at TimeBanks
where people use online exchanges to give gifts of
their time. Look at
CouchSurfing and the Hospitality Club, and WWOOF
sites, where people
use online social networking sites to share their
homes with
travellers. Look at KickStarter, IndieGoGo, and our
own PledgeMe,
where people gift money to artists and other creators
to fund their
projects.

>> If you want to spend noble energy on something why
not try to get Wikimedia Commons to accept a variety of licenses rather than
them rudely demanding that people drop the NC so that Wikipedia can make
things available commercially. <<

I love the irony of saying its rude to demand NC
users change their
license choice, then proceeding to demand that
WikiMedia change their
license choice. Even more ironically, I'm not
actually demanding
anything of the sort. If NC was left out of CC 4.0,
people could just
carry on using their v3.0 NC license. NC could still
be used, the only
impact would be that it's no longer encouraged and
endorsed by CC.

As for WikiMedia accepting NC-licensed content. It
would effectively
relicense the whole of Wikipedia (and other WikiMedia
projects) to NC,
not only because the SA clause would spread the NC
conditions far and
wide through their works, but because of the chilling
effect of
knowing that the media you want to reproduce might
have an NC
component buried somewhere in it. It would stop
people from charging
money to cover the costs of printing etc, which would
have the effect
of making WikiMedia content unavailable to people
without computers
and internet access. I struggle to see anything
"noble" about causing
this.

Like the dual-license with CC-BY-SA, it would require
a consensus from
the entire Wikipedia community. In other word it's a
pipe dream. For
the reasons given above, and any number of other very
good reasons,
it's not *ever* going to happen.

Keen to hear more views on this.

Hei kōnā
Strypey

--
Danyl Strype
Community Developer
Disintermedia.net.nz/strype

"Geeks are those who partake in our culture."
- .ISOcrates

"Uncomfortable alliances are not just necessary; they
reflect and
speak to the tremendous possibility of our political
moment."
- Harmony Goldberg and Joshua Kahn Russell

http://www.nationofchange.org/new-radical-alliances-new-era-1337004193

"Both Marxists and Chicago-school libertarian
economists can agree
that free software is the best model."
- Keith C Curtis
http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=407
_______________________________________________
cc-nz mailing list
cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-nz
Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand
http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/


_______________________________________________
cc-nz mailing list
cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-nz
Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand
http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/




_______________________________________________
cc-nz mailing list
cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-nz
Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand
http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/


**********************************************************************
This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.

If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the
sender and delete.

Christchurch City Council
http://www.ccc.govt.nz
**********************************************************************



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page