Re: [microsound] Re: creative commons license

[Damian Stewart <damian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

tasty radish wrote:

> Should it be like this? Well, I think we would need to
> ask should their be private property really! Not
> something so super-easy to really finally once and for
> all state, if you ask me.  Maybe we will get to a
> world where this doesn't play, but it won't be with
> cookie cutter templates, primarily. 

cookie cutter templates are better than the blanket copyright which 
would seem to be the alternative to anyone who isn't a lawyer and/or 
can't afford lawyer's fees.

> Anyhow, all this _doesn't_ mean that people shouldn't
> feel free to mess with stuff. Just understand that you
> may be taking risks, and weight them.  It's like this
> sample crazy sound artist said, he respects copyright
> and understands its uses and abuses, and he
> appropriates without getting consent like a
> motherf*ker.  So... 

my approach goes like this: if it's traditionally copyrighted and i'm 
using it for purposes that i feel are 'fair use', i'll use it. if i get 
sued, i know that the definition of 'fair use' largely comes down to who 
has the bigger legal budget, and as such i will lose, but that's not 
going to stop me doing it.

if on the other hand it is creative commons licensed, i will look at the 
'mess with me' flag (attributive, no-derivatives etc) and if the artist 
explicitly does not allow me to mess with it i won't mess with it.

> The key to writing good copyright language is time
> limits and a sense of what the main aim is in letting
> 'others' have rights to the material. 

the latter part is exactly what creative commons tries to do.

--
f r e y
live music with computers
http://www.frey.co.nz


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org