Development of the Creative Commons Sampling license (or license option)

[David meme <david AT locarecords.com>]

Nope no bad Karma. Very happy but want to contribute ideas, critiques 
and suggestions rather than just to the title of the license.. ;-)

> Best netiquette is to not participate,

That is a strange suggestion... If you disagree then don't 
participate... Very odd...

Why would my questions shut the process down? I don't want to stop the 
license I want to improve it.. and if I ask these questions then I'm 
sure others will too... forewarned is forearmed...

> Get that enthusiasm back up.  Enjoy the discussion, and play that "Be
> Happy" reggae song again!

Er... That is a little patronizing, my enthusiasm is fine thanks. The 
fact that I am contributing to the discussion shows that I am enjoying 
it. If I didn't enjoy it then I would go elsewhere. I feel that the 
CreativeCommons is doing something really important, but that ceases if 
it stops having any relevance to what I and other musicians want from 
it.. hence my contributions...

Critique *can* be positive...

Cheers

David


On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 07:22  am, tom poe wrote:

> Hi, David:  Bad Karma, here.  Best netiquette is to not participate, if
> you're not happy.  I'm happy.  No need to shut the process down as it
> exists.  Be confident that if there are no people happy, then the
> process goes away.  Enjoy what's happening, and think positive,
> constructively, and look for the day when posting text messages will
> evolve to posting text/audio/video/graphics messages on our multi-media
> devices as easily as we do, today.
>
> The sampling license, almost by default, includes attribution.  For
> those who want more, there's other restrictions being formed.  At some
> point, if that isn't enough, they can work individually with the
> Creative Commons folks to customize something reasonable.
>
> Get that enthusiasm back up.  Enjoy the discussion, and play that "Be
> Happy" reggae song again!
> Tom
>
> On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 23:00, David meme wrote:
> > Thanks that is an extremely useful link (and maybe it would be good to
> > get it added at the bottom of the CC list signature for all newbies
> > that join the list?
> >
> > But I still wonder about this process..
> >
> > 1. The legitimacy of this process is itself problematic as it has not
> > itself been democratically formed, it is rather the work of a
> > benevolent dictatorship. How can we challenge this process and improve
> > its participation... why only public participation at one stage? Who
> > decided?
> > 2. By getting the process right it helps to improve the license as it
> > carries more legitimacy.
> > 3. I echo the poster who calls for a website to help clarify and lock
> > down where we are in the discussion.
> > 4. I personally wonder about the project in that fundamentally I see
> > this as an ideal. Contributing to the public domain and allowing 
> > reuse,
> > transformation, sampling what-have-you is a conception of a social
> > good. Locking down the licenses so hard seems legalistic and maybe
> > loses the idealistic moment (but understandable of course).
> > 5. I have looked through the list and watched how excellent ideas and
> > ideals are slowly lost to the need to be legally tight.
> > 6. This bias to the American legal system is strange.. but I suppose a
> > side-effect of the fact that it has been created by an American 
> > lawyer?
> >
> > To sum up I think I am worried that the good ideals for sharing and
> > co-operating are getting lost and instead we are writing contracts...
> >
> > The GNU GPL license is questionably legal (and that is putting it
> > lightly), hardly internationally binding legally - yet it still works.
> > Why? Because the people involved believe in it, somewhat oblivious to
> > the legality...
> >
> > Maybe that is the important thing..?
> >
> > Maybe we need to lose the lawyers (useful as they are ;-) and write a
> > GNU GPL for sampling....
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 03:58  am, Glenn Otis Brown 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > FYI, this is the model for public participation, announced long ago:
> > >
> > > http://creativecommons.org/discuss
> > >
> > > I am a "more speech" kind of guy. So I echo Mark's call for patience.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:14:57 -0700, "mark / negativland"
> > > <markhosler AT charter.net> said:
> > > > At 12:25 AM +0100 9/17/03, David meme wrote:
> > > > > > Round and round is good. We have time. Discussion is fine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like I said, I'm happy to take all these names to the team, and
> > > > > > I'll do
> > > > > > so on an ongoing basis.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes but if we are all spending time discussing names and then they
> > > > > are just taken to a team who pick one then it is hardly a 
> > > > > legitimate
> > > > > and participatory method of choosing the name. Why not start to
> > > > > narrow the field, or somehow allow us to take stock of what we are
> > > > > talking about, otherwise this is starting to resemble a talking 
> > > > > shop
> > > > > that gives the *impression* of participation but lacks any real
> > > > > power.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't think we can take a vote and decide that way,, though...we
> > > > have lawyers involved and CC wants this thing to be legally 
> > > > workable,
> > > > so it cant just be what the musicians want...Glenn will have to 
> > > > chime
> > > > in here to be more clear.......
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > It certainly makes me wonder what the point of contributing if 
> > > > > there
> > > > > is no end in sight and newbies start us right at the beginning
> > > > > again.. There surely needs to be some structure to how we are
> > > > > forming some kind of consensus or decision..
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed, there are multiple levels to this discussion, my
> > > > > understanding (possibly misplaced) was that we were able to not 
> > > > > just
> > > > > *influence* with its implications of a small group of technocratic
> > > > > 'experts' distilling the ideas into 'sensible' solutions. But more
> > > > > radically we could direct, write and hey maybe even name the 
> > > > > license
> > > > > so that it reflected the needs and wishes of musicians rather than
> > > > > lawyers... and who is best to make the decisions if about a license
> > > > > that is for musicians to use... not the lawyers thats for sure!
> > > > >
> > > > > And that's not to say I disagree with discussion, its just
> > > > > unstructured, never ending, non-chaired, round and round discussion
> > > > > that I have a problem with...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ummm....as one of the chairs/project managers  of this list my
> > > > suggestion is that you  stop reading  the "names" e-mails and stop
> > > > driving yourself batty!   :)  :)   We just started this "names"
> > > > discussion a few days ago and Negativland member Don Joyce (DJ), who
> > > > is one of the other chairs,  only just chimed in for the first time 
> > > > a
> > > > few hours  ago. So please be patient.
> > > >
> > > > And in case not everyone  new to this list knows, though he isn't a
> > > > project manager here, Chris Grigg was also an equal part of the
> > > > Negativland team back when we were sued for the "U2" single....his
> > > > contributions back then were crucial,  brilliant and invaluable and
> > > > his contributions here have also  been insightful and invaluable.  I
> > > > will now refer to him as "Mr. Arty Smarty  Pants". He does a mean
> > > > butt dance too.
> > > >
> > > > David- I think a  lot of what you are looking for on this list was
> > > > actually discussed and mostly sorted out a few months ago....not 
> > > > sure
> > > > if you were on the list then.
> > > >
> > > > Dont forget- trying to satisfy a lowest common denominator usually
> > > > pleases no one.  For me,trying to reduce Negativland's IP ideas to a
> > > > workable license has been an interesting  challenge, but ultimately
> > > > the  real world of US contract law will never quite live up to our
> > > > collage-art ideals.... I am reminded of  why I'll never be a
> > > > politician or an IP  lobbyist! Yikes. But we're doing the  best we
> > > > can here....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > mark
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > David meme
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --------THE OPEN SOURCE RECORD LABEL--------
> > > > >
> > > > > L O C A   R E C O R D S
> > > > > Stick to What You Don't Know?
> > > > >
> > > > >         http://www.locarecords.com
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > cc-sampling mailing list
> > > > > cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > _______________________________________________________
> > > > *******************************************************
> > > >
> > > > HEY!! LOOKEE!! Please note my new e-mail address that I am writing 
> > > > to
> > > > you from -
> > > >
> > > > mark / negativland <markhosler AT charter.net>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My old address at attbi.com is no longer being used.
> > > ---------------------
> > > Glenn Otis Brown
> > > Executive Director
> > > Creative Commons
> > > glenn AT creativecommons.org
> > > +1.650.723.7572 (telephone)
> > > +1.415.336.1433 (mobile)
> >
> >
> >
> > --------THE OPEN SOURCE RECORD LABEL--------
> >
> > L O C A   R E C O R D S
> > Stick to What You Don't Know™
> >
> >         http://www.locarecords.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-sampling mailing list
> > cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling



--------THE OPEN SOURCE RECORD LABEL--------

L O C A   R E C O R D S
Stick to What You Don't Know™

        http://www.locarecords.com