tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post8045910657711949340..comments2023-04-15T11:42:35.385-04:00Comments on Go To Hellman: Creative Commons - NC (Non-Commercial)Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14172740163003223132noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-79900215280268872942011-10-22T11:16:58.556-04:002011-10-22T11:16:58.556-04:00Mike- yes, I have another post or two to write.
...Mike- yes, I have another post or two to write. <br /><br />It's important to recognize that even an NC-ND license unlocks a lot of remix/reuse via fair use provisions (at least in the US) of copyright law. These uses are allowed without CC licensing, but in practice are prevented by ebook DRM and anti-circumvention laws. <br /><br />In the end, only the market can decide. If the supporting public accords a premium for non-NC licenses that's greater than the its value as perceived by rights holders, then non-NC will win out. If not, no. But to create that market in the first place, we have to focus on a license that we guess, without data, to have the highest chance of clearing transactions. Even with only one license, we have a huge education challenge before us. So I hope you help us push that boulder part way up the mountain.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14172740163003223132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-9560546757992620662011-10-22T05:28:25.866-04:002011-10-22T05:28:25.866-04:00(I hope you'll be posting a followup that deal...(I hope you'll be posting a followup that deals with these issues. They seem pretty fundamental to me.)Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-49085937302796808192011-10-21T07:39:28.576-04:002011-10-21T07:39:28.576-04:00Let me try to summarise that. CC-NC makes a work ...Let me try to summarise that. CC-NC makes a work free to consume, which is good. But here in the 21st century, we've all read enough Clay Shirky to realise that the producer/consumer dichotomy is creaking. The motto on the masthead at <a href="http://www.creativecommons.org.uk/" rel="nofollow">creativecommons.org.uk</a> is "Share, Remix, Reuse"; but NC only facilitates one out of three.<br /><br />(I wish there was a better term for "non-NC"!)Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-45897122393827436202011-10-21T07:32:20.022-04:002011-10-21T07:32:20.022-04:00Eric, I'm not sure I could list a lot of speci...Eric, I'm not sure I could list a lot of specific cases off the top of my head, although your example of charities printing and selling copies of CC works is an important one.<br /><br />But that's not really my point. The point is that there are seven billion people out there who <i>might</i> come up with ways to add value to CC works are make a living that way, and we can't possibly predict what those ways might be, or how they might affect the way we live. Surely we want to do all we can to <i>enable</i> this kind of entrepeneurship, not lock the works down explicitly to prevent it? Especially in economic times like these, it seems to me that we have a mission: to avoid imposing any unnecessary road-blocks.<br /><br />In short: the NC clause is ungenerous, and I like to be generous. Now I know it's easy for me to say I want to be generous with other people's IP; and I can see why a rights-holder accepting an ungluing offer might want to hold out for (a little) more money to release it non-NC. But the resulting NC-free work is much more valuable <i>to the world</i>, in ways we can't even imagine yet.<br /><br />Does that make sense?Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-64159573413122213782011-10-21T07:19:21.118-04:002011-10-21T07:19:21.118-04:00Mike- What use cases are restricted by NC and also...Mike- What use cases are restricted by NC and also matter to you?Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14172740163003223132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-43941457232436696252011-10-21T04:55:34.933-04:002011-10-21T04:55:34.933-04:00"For purposes of interpreting the CC License,..."For purposes of interpreting the CC License, Rights Holder agrees that "non-commercial" use shall include, without limitation, distribution by a commercial entity without charge for access to the Work."<br /><br />Really? That seems tautologous. I suppose it can't <i>hurt</i> but I really don't see how it brings anything to the party.<br /><br />"Given this clarification, why not go all the way, and require that Unglue.it rights holders agree to commercial distribution of works that get unglued?"<br /><br />That is the real issue. It seem to me that the meaning of a licence that includes NC is much murkier than one that omits it. And clarity is good. Really, all NC gives the licensor is freedom from the nagging fear that someone else might have found a way to make money that they missed. That seems an ignoble motivation for reducing the usefulness of the unglued work.<br /><br />"We'll allow rights holders to offer non-NC licenses, but we won't expect them to do so."<br /><br />Well, that is a step in the right direction.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.com