[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [microsound] Fwd: Creative Commons (Was RE: Podcast feedback?)
Hmm, it is not the diversity (or variety) of CC licences that confuse
me. It's the actual implications of the different licences. Say, the
most common ones I see on the web are "Attribution-No Commercial Use-
You Name it".
Now, there was a rather long and heated thread on Nettime about the
"No Commercial Use" issue, since most people don't have a very clear
idea of what "commercial use" of content might imply.
See, suppose that X posted a marvellous audio project here
on .microsound. So, I decide to take part, and send a track
copyrighted under an Attribution-No Commercial use licence. Cool, eh?
Expanding the universal commons, or whatever...
But X has spent a lot of time and money on a limited edition CD,
download/podcast bandwith, etc., so she wants to cover at least some
of the costs, and wants to sell a few copies online. Well, obviously,
my track makes the whole compilation impossible to sell. Too bad.
Then X decides that, well, he'll take on some extra work, or what
have you, money's not that important, what matters is to document and
make the project available. So, she decides to donate a few copies to
public libraries/museum archives, etc. But, you see, if any of these
institutions charge any kind of fee (and most of them do), then they
cannot hold works whose licence prohibits "commercial use". Yup,
charging a 5€ annual fee for a library membership, or something like
a 2€ loan fee is also considered "commercial use".
Now, there's little point in re-running the Nettime discussion here.
What I'm trying to say is that despite their excellent presentation,
their amazing communication efforts, and their brilliant intentions,
CC haven't managed to breach the "legalese" divide: most people are
still not quite aware of the full implications of the smallprint in
each single kind of licence, and I shudder to think what might happen
to a lot of the content I see out there. It doesn't mean that they
won't achieve it one day, but this is still a long way away, IMO.
But, anyway, I use CC licences, despite the time and effort needed to
decide which licence is appropriate to every kind of content. But I'm
still looking. I suppose artlibre is an option (it was funny to see
representatives of both artlibre and CC at a CC conference here in
Madrid a couple of years ago...).
Well, my 0,02 €.
Best,
Kamen
On 21/04/2006, at 11:27, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Kyle Klipowicz hat gesagt: // Kyle Klipowicz wrote:
While we're on this topic, what's everybody think about creative
commons licensing?
CC has been a good idea, but it went terribly wrong IMO. Instead of
providing one license that can be truly called "free" the board
created a whole bunch of incompatible licenses, some of which forbid
almost as many uses as traditional copyright did. Most websites
providing artworks under one of the many CC licenses make this fault
visible by stating for example "This [xx] is licensed under Creative
Commons" which is a sentence that contains absolute zero information
and is a useless nonsense statement. For a critique of CC see for
example this article:
http://www.metamute.org/en/Freedoms-Standard-Advanced
An alternative could be the Free Art License:
http://artlibre.org/licence/lalgb.html
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org
------------------------------------
Kamen Nedev
c/Pelayo Nº38, 5º Izda.
28004 Madrid
España
(+34) 649 77 80 37
kamennedev@xxxxxxxxx
http://emitmedia.blogspot.com
http://emit-es.blogspot.com
http://emit.omweb.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org