Crazy Idea Creative Commons NC Fee

Crazy Idea Creative Commons NC Fee
 Copyright 2012 drew Robert


Crazy Idea Creative Commons NC Fee by drew Roberts is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

So there is quite the debate going on right now on the Creative Commons mailing lists and on identi.ca as to the possibility of CC dropping or deprecating BY-NC and BY-ND variants as a part of the upcoming license version refresh.

I have asked for years that if CC does not drop the NC and ND stuff, they at least create a FreeCC brand / logo / etc. that those who use CC licenses but are only interested in the Free side of things can use and promote.

Dropping them would be OK with me too,

So this morning I had this crazy idea.

Since the people who use the NC license on their works reserve the right to make commercial use (make money from / profit from?) of their works for themselves and seek to restrict others from doing so, might it be fair to ask them to pay Creative Commons a small fee for the use of the NC license for each work that they release under such a license? Would it also be fair for CC to demand a small ongoing rate tied to revenue from the work on a yearly basis?

I can hear the howls now. Sorry.

If you are an NC user and are howling, consider this:

Those who use a Free BY or BY-SA license for their works allow others to earn revenue and possibly make a profit from their works. CC can do so if it chooses. The people who comprise CC can too. You, on the other hand want to reserve all of the revenue and profit for yourself. Why should you not pay a small fee to protect your works with such a finely crafted license? Why not pay a small percentage of the revenue you earn from your work thus protected? (Don't forget that a small percentage of $0.00 revenue is $0.00.)

If you don't want to pay with money, pay by sharing.

Hah! Ouch? I just had an even crazier idea to add to this:

CC could begin charging web sites etc for the right to offer the NC licenses for use in their site. If the sites need to, they could pass this on the the users as well. Nice way to double dip a bit there...

all the best,

drew
(who may try and improve on this bit of crazy. Help doing so appreciated.)

Crowd Funding Freedom

Crowd Funding Freedom

Copyright 2012 drew Roberts


Crowd Funding Freedom by drew Roberts is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

So KickStarter kicked it off in the minds of many and IndieGoGo lets people outside of the US get in the game. (There are others as well, if you have such a site, send me the link for possible inclusion in the little post.)

This is something for people who crowd fund projects to consider and if they like the idea to insist on.

If you are going to participate in crowd funding a project which results in copyrighted works, patented or to be patented products / designs, inventions, etc. then why not insist on Free Licensing for the resulting works / products?

If you think about it, why should you pay to fund the creation of something which you can then be sent to jail or seriously fined for copying and sharing with friends.

If you think about it, if you are paying the creative person *up front* for the work they are doing, why do they need the government granted monopolies of copyright or patent to give them an incentive to create the work that gets the monopoly protection? Is the money that the crowd is paying them up front not enough of an incentive for them to create?

If crowd funders get into the swing of this, artists/musicians/creatives will get paid, and fans will be free to share the creations and promote their favourite artists.

Government, copyright and the public good

Can someone get the Bahamas Government to officially comment?

Government, copyright and the public good

[At GovCamp Canberra 2012, the Australian Information Commissioner Professor John McMillan stated:

"When government is the owner of intellectual property, a proprietary approach runs counter to the purpose of government and the public good".

We couldn't agree more.]

 Think about that a bit.

Anyone?

Thieves? Stealing?

Thieves? Stealing?

So I read this article the other day. And it is not the first time I have seen such an idea out in the wild.

TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement

Think about what they are saying for a minute. If you get up and go to the bathroom during a commercial break, you are a thief in their minds.

So this morning I go to a sports site (which I will not name) and I go to watch a story on last nights Celtics-Heat game. They show me a pre-clip commercial then a message comes up saying that the video is not available in my area.

Think about this for a second. If not watching commercials but watching the show is stealing, isn't showing the commercials while refusing to deliver the show also stealing?

This is to all sites *breaking* the world wide part of the world wide web:

1. Shame on you in general.
2. Double shame on you for not detecting the region and notifying the watcher before showing the commercial, not after. Shame!

This Video Is Not Available In Your Location

This Video Is Not Available In Your Location
(Or: Shame! Copyright breaks the "world" wide web)

Now the world wide nature of the world wide web may not be the most important thing that copyright "breaks" but it is not an insignificant thing.

It is especially odd to find this on "news" sites.

Now, it is a shame in general that this is done but what makes it even more of a shame is when richer countries deny access to poorer countries. Shame on you when you do this.

On The Need For A Stronger Copyleft For BY-SA 4.x

On The Need For A Stronger Copyleft For BY-SA 4.x

Copyright 2012 drew Roberts


On The Need For A Stronger Copyleft For BY-SA 4.x by drew Roberts is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

For those of you have not run into copyleft and its relationship to Freedom before here are a few links:

What is Copyleft?

What is free software?

Definition Of Free Cultural Works

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0

OK, so let's consider the the following situation and see if this is really an acceptable situation.

Billy Bloke spends some time searching around on Kompoz and Jamendo and finds a bunch of BY-SA songs.

Billy listens to a bunch and then chooses a bunch on the theme Night. He listens a bunch more and picks some that go together and will fit on a CD.

He puts together this CD.

Let's assume that this CD fits the bill of the BY-SA definition of a "Collection" as per 1.b. of the license.

Therefore Billy Bloke gets a copyright on this collection. Nothing in the license for the songs says that he has to put any particular type of license on this collection. Billy chooses to go with no license at all and keeps his copyright ARR (All Rights Reserved).

Billy starts selling copies of his CD which he has titled Night Dreams. It turns out he has decent taste and the CD starts selling well.

The songwriters and musicians who wrote and recorded the songs notice these sales and decide to try their hand at selling copies of the CD to their fans at gigs.

Billy sues them for copyright infringement and wins. The musicians face huge statutory damages and are told they cannot sell copies of the CDs without Billy's permission. Billy refuses.

They chat about this online for a good while and one gets the bright idea to use most of the songs but replace a few. They start selling that Collection of songs.

Billy sues again on the grounds that their CD is a derivative of his. He wins again and they pay again.

Is this really the situation we want to exist with regards to Free Copyleft works and copyrighted collections?

all the best,

drew

What If Copyleft Was Written Into Law?

What If Copyleft Was Written Into Law?

Consider what would happen if lawmakers around the world decided to add the copyleft concept to copyright law.

1. Automatic copyleft, not copyright.
2. To get copyright, works would have to be marked copyright and registered.
3. Copyleft works could draw freely from works in the "public domain" (works never in copyright and works no longer in copyright.
4. Copyright works that draw from the public domain would be assessed a percentage fee to fund the arts.
5. All copyright works would be assessed a fee to pay for the functioning of the copyright apparatus. (Copyleft works exempt.)
6. All copyright works currently under a bona fide Free copyleft license would automatically become legal copyleft works.
7. All copyright works currently under a bona fide Free permissive license could elect to become legal copyleft works.
More?
)