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: Leigh Blackall <leighblackall AT gmail.com>
  • 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 20:28:35 +0930

Paul, I'm not sure anyone is making out that all rights reserved is evil, though I somewhat detest the moralist language used, like "freedom" and "sharing", that more than suggest one is evil and the other is not.

I think proponents of CC carry an assumption, that seamless reuse of cultural artifacts, in a digital medium and culture of reuse, is valuable and important to cultural continuation and development. this assumption might need some careful reflection, as you suggest.

Some people need that assumption spelt out more, as do you, when you rightly ask for evidence to support the assumption.

On Sep 16, 2012 7:25 PM, "Sutherland, Paul" <Paul.Sutherland AT ccc.govt.nz> wrote:
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
**********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
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/



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page