CC-NC considered harmful
esr.ibiblio.org
esr.ibiblio.org
That said, for many authors the choice won't be between CC BY-NC and the more permissive CC BY, it's between CC BY-NC and a non-copyleft license. So we might just end up with less content under a free license. I'm not sure if conceptual purity is worth it.
I can't agree with that. The exact goal of the NC attribute is to make money from others making money out of your work but to let people who don't make money out of your work not have to pay.
That has nothing to do with "old media" and "new media", and is orthogonal to them.
(2) I don't know how something can be orthogonal when it correlates strongly. The reason you are using CC-BY-NC is because you want to enable noncommercial uses, which is a major chunk of the entire new-media model of use, and a miniscule grain in the old-media model's desert.
Just to explain, because I was a bit terse above: The point of NC is that use and distribution in the world of filesharing networks, mix tapes, podcasts, independent remixers, and public social events like flash mobs -- those are explicitly allowed, because they don't make anybody any money. The point which I had trouble explaining above was that there also some for-profit uses in this category which NC-using bands would not mind, like ad-supported bloggers. In that sense, my impression of those who select NC is that they really just want to embrace the newer ways that people interact with music, without allowing the older modes of interaction to exploit it.
That is not a problem at all: believe it or not, a work can be available under multiple licenses. Here's how you establish a price for commercial use: you talk to the author and you ask him if he'd consider giving you a commercial license, the you discuss the price.
> I don't know how something can be orthogonal when it correlates strongly.
Because it only correlates due to medium and publication costs.
> The point which I had trouble explaining above was that there also some for-profit uses in this category which NC-using bands would not mind, like ad-supported bloggers.
Or so you believe, that doesn't actually mean it's the case. Furthermore, and as I noted above, this is a non-issue: the ad-supported blogger can send a request to the author and get a license directly.
> In that sense, my impression of those who select NC is that they really just want to embrace the newer ways that people interact with music, without allowing the older modes of interaction to exploit it.
That is not my impression at all.
There's just one thing: I don't want others to profit from my work. Listeners can get the album from wherever they want, do whatever they want to it or with it, I don't care. I suspect that if they like it, they'll drop me some form of donation and if they can't afford it, I'm also happy with a simple "thank you". But I definitely don't want my works to end up as cash in someone elses pocket, so that's why would be choosing a CC-NC license. If that goes away, I'll have to come up with my own license, or just use a non-copyleft license, whatever is easier and cheaper for me.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for sharing. Music is meant to be shared. That's why I want to encourage people to give it to their friends, hence the free license.
There are quite a few similar use cases for a NC license, so we should rather look into the issue of where "commercial" starts, rather than removing the NC license and losing potential free works.
I hope that makes any sense at all.
For example, "without cost" would allow a radio station, or a streaming system like Spotify, to play it without monetary compensation.
In addition to the right of licensors to request removal of their name from the work when used in a derivative or collective they don't like, copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world (with the notable exception of the US except in very limited circumstances) grant creators "moral rights" which may provide some redress if a derivative work represents a "derogatory treatment" of the licensor's work.
It effectively makes CC pointless. The whole point of CC is to declare that you don't need to ask the author's permission because he's already given it to you but the moral clause means he really hasn't given you permission and can deny you permission for any reason whatsoever.
That effectively makes CC no different as just plain all-rights-reserved where you need to ask.
So whether the CC license mentions it, in some countries it still matters.
Correct. This is what happened in Puerto Rico. In preparation for the Puerto Rico version of CC, the University of Puerto Rico Cyberclinic did a comparative study of moral rights across the world: http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/international/pr/moral-ri... which is pretty informative.
There are few more fundamental rights than the right of free speech, and this so called "moral rights" are utterly incompatible with free speech.
No more so than the right to privacy, or publicity rights in general.
> There are few more fundamental rights than the right of free speech
There's absolutely nothing effectively fundamental to free speech. Not even one country provides for unlimited and unrestrained free speech, yet most of them seem to work well enough.
> and this so called "moral rights" are utterly incompatible with free speech.
I fail to see the relation, let alone the "utter incompatibility". Not that it matters, as both are social constructs
Well in the USA flag burning is considered a form of free speech. After reading parts of the linked document from Puerto Rico it seems like I would not have legally be able to burn/destroy/deconstruct art that I have bought from an artist under all circumstances with out the artists permission. From the USA legal perspective this seems to limit free speech.
> Not that it matters, as both are social constructs
Some constructs are more effective then others at achieve specific goals, in this sense it does matter.
Maybe there are specific cases where doing so is an important message, but conversely giving you that right would give you the right to destroy the speech of others.
How is giving you that right furthering free speech?
French law goes a little further in this vein. In French law, if you paint something racy for a private collector which could perhaps damage your reputation if it went public, you can decide that the private collector is not allowed to put your painting up for public exhibitions, and they have to respect that (at least until you die). If they are going to make a ceremony of burning or defacing your work, you're also entitled to forbid them from doing so -- though I'm not sure how this applies to derivative works, it demands "respect de l'intégrité de l'oeuvre" -- respect of the integrity of the work.
Moral rights are not strictly copyrights -- they do not forbid copying. They are only incompatible with "free speech" in a subset of cases where, arguably, that speech is being used to harm the author of the work. The only peculiarity is that the author of the work is given a very wide latitude to decide what uses of their work are "harmful" to them -- but this is probably the only way to avoid massive legal complications.
In most jurisdictions they boil down to a right for the creator of the work to receive or deny attribution (the latter if the integrity of the work has been compromised; e.g. consider if I wrote a political manifesto and somebody decided to republish it under my name but insert statements endorsing fascism on every page with the intend of discrediting me).
This does not prevent your ability to exercise speech - it places some small limitations on how you can attribute the work, that are far less restrictive than estate rights.
Some jurisdictions extend moral right somewhat farther, but compared to estate rights the restrictions are tiny and they all apply to your ability to duplicate other peoples creative works, not your ability to exercise your own speech.
I am very curious to see why you believe moral rights impact free speech in any significant way.
Don't you think that 70 years is enough time for your original views to have gotten out? I mean, I could also take the works of Darwin and insert references to young earth creationism on every page, but I don't think it would change many people's minds about Darwin's works.
I suppose I could take an obscure biography written 100 years old and change it to discredit the original author. But what impact would it have? I could as easily write a completely fake story and attribute it to the original person, and get the same effect. Do you wish to also ban historical novels?
In Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp, the Supreme Court decision (8-0, btw) said:
> Reading "origin" in §43(a) to require attribution of uncopyrighted materials would pose serious practical problems. Without a copyrighted work as the basepoint, the word "origin" has no discernable limits. A video of the MGM film Carmen Jones, after its copyright has expired, would presumably require attribution not just to MGM, but to Oscar Hammerstein II (who wrote the musical on which the film was based), to Georges Bizet (who wrote the opera on which the musical was based), and to Prosper Mérimée (who wrote the novel on which the opera was based). In many cases, figuring out who is in the line of "origin" would be no simple task.
It seems the same problems of attribution, and of defining the source of the material, would apply to any moral right which extends "forever."
Thus why I don't think your example helps clarify the reason for the particular moral right you mentioned.
Something very similar to this exists: A version of Origin of Species with a 50-page rebuttal attached: https://www.google.com/search?q=creationist+origin+of+specie...
France is as well, there's no such thing as "copyright" there instead there's an "author's right", which is split in "Estate Rights" and a "Moral Right".
Estate rights are about the economic exploitation of the work: its sale, its reproduction, its usage, etc... This is the most similar part to the UK's copyrights in that it's about property and it expires when the work falls into the public domain.
Then there's the moral right, which is about the authorship relation: the work is found to be part of the author, and the other way around. The moral right is closely related to the right of publicity.
Every year the arguments against artists having any control of their original work get more and more absurd, and more vicious. I may write a story and not mind if people repost it, but I don't want it used to promote Neo-Nazi organizations, so I retain moral rights. Now I am told that doing so is "Orwellian"? Best to avoid all this copyleft stuff altogether given that if you try to retain any rights at all over your own work the groupthinkers will attack you as being a fascist, when it is they who are the true fascists.
Only today R.E.M. announced they had a moral objection to Fox News using their work "Losing My Religion" to attack the Democratic Party.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/rem-demands-fox-new...
Do they have the right to stop Fox from using their work to promote propaganda they are deeply morally opposed to? Probably not, because the US doesn't recognize moral rights of authors and artists as most European nations do. This song is licensed under BMI licensing, which is available to anyone who pays the standard fees. Should we say that R.E.M. are Orwellian fascists who are opposed to free speech because they have publicly announced their displeasure regarding this situation? To do so seems to me to be an insane, crazed position to take, one which attacks the foundations of artistic freedom.
The actual license (CC BY-NC 3.0 [1]) says, in section 4b:
> You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above [2] in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.
This is rather more precise than just saying "noncommercial". I'm not sure whether it's precise enough or not ... but it seemed worth pointing out.
[1] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode
[2] These rights are the right to reproduce the work, to create adaptations of it, and to distribute or publicly perform the work or adaptations of it.
Not only are they using unpaid manhours and equipment it took to write and host the code, it probably also took a great deal of personal investment to learn how to do whatever the code does. If they are making profit that is fine, but be fair and share a small part. (And yes, I really would ask only a small part or perhaps even only credits – it's open-source after all and they're honest enough to contact me – but that's something entirely different from free.)
using a license that is a cut and paste job (i.e. you took it from the web, or some other source; i.e. it was not drafted for you and your work specifically).
1. If you don't really care much about what you're licensing, the license doesn't really matter. Probably 99% of programs fit this category. With "99%" of programs, no one gets wealthy, no one gets sued, the license has no real impact on anything, life goes on as if there had never been a license. And in most cases no one even reads these licenses. Hence things like the "shareware" license, the "beerware", the "dowhatthefuckyouwantto" license, the GPL, "Copyleft", "Ty Coon", and so on. These are mocking the entire practice of licensing. There's a reason for that.
And for many years even the ones who do care about licensing, e.g. Microsoft, would have licenses that contained unenforceable terms. But how many Windows users cared about reading a license?
If you really cared about licensing your software (e.g. you thought someone might get wealthy from the software, or someone might get sued), then you'd spend a few bucks to have a lawyer draft a license for you, specifically.
And if users really cared about the licenses they were agreeing to, they'd probably complain. Because some of the licenses, the terms they contain, are beyond unreasonable. They are so one-sided as to be unenforceable.
It's amusing how programmers who post comments on the web are so tuned in to licenses, but in reality they spend little effort/money when it comes to licensing. And that's OK, because with "99%" of software programs, it does not matter. It's irrelevant. No one gets wealthy, no one gets injured, no one sues. It's neither here nor there. Some cut and pasted text that no one reads is good enough.
But licenses do make a great subject for programmer chatter on the web. It never stops.
Truthfully, in the context of the web, at the end of the day, the license is not nearly as important as whether someone is going to sue. Because if she really wants to sue, and has the means to do so, a copy and pasted license is probably not going to stop her.
Food for thought.
Public domain.
Although I am a big fan of open-source licenses for code and open to the possibility that they will do good when applied to photographs, animations and videos, I doubt that applying Creative Commons licenses to TEXT has done more good than harm.
Despite efforts by Google to counteract them, I still waste a little time every week or so exploring Google hits that turn out to be SEO spammers re-using Wikipedia's CC-licensed text. And I do not see enough benefits to offset that sort of harm. In general, it seems to me that it harms readers when readers are subjected to text that has been re-used for some purpose that might differ drastically from the purpose or context of the original author of the text. I would prefer it if people who did not make the effort to put something in their own words did not even have the ability to put text onto my computer screen. Of course, there is no way to achieve that, but stopping the CC-licensing of text would cut down on it.
Certainly, there needed to be some way to assure contributors to, e.g., Wikipedia that Wikipedia would not monopolize their contributions for selfish or stupid ends, but I do not think a CC license (or the GFDL used before that) was anywhere near the optimal way to do that.
Maybe I should not state my opinion without having taken a close look at the effect of CC and similar licenses on textbooks and technical manuals, but I tend to think it is time to stop imploring WRITERS to CC-license their TEXT.
I haven't contributed much to Wikipedia, but what little I DO contribute wouldn't be there if Jimmy Wales owned it all. Instead, it is available for anyone to reuse... for good OR for bad.
For instance, although I think Conservapedia is a stupid idea done by stupid people, the fact that they CAN fork it and create their own is important. In the (unlikely) event that Wikipedia is "taken over" by malign influences (for instance: sells out to the largest bidder, who starts exercising editorial control), I would want to make my own "Conservapedia"-like copy.
I completely disagree with you that rewriting is so easy. I couldn't rewrite Wikipedia, could you? Could any 1000 people in the world?
Forking an open-source project is quite rare, and usually a sign that the community has failed. But sometimes it is the only means to save the project; LibreOffice stands out as an example. The EXISTENCE of that option (even if almost never exercised) is a powerful force of its own, and the same is true of text as is true of code.
It has been years since Jimmy owned or controlled Wikipedia. Sure, the existence of a non-profit board with elections is no guarantee Wikipedia won't go bad, but I think you overestimate the usefulness of the CC license to those who would try to fork it if it does go ("has gone"?) bad.
>LibreOffice stands out as an example
Like I said although I strongly support open-source licenses for CODE (precisely because they allow forking). But I don't think the experience with code is particularly informative about text (or "prose" if you want a more precise word).
If Wikipedia's text were not freely redistributable, there'd be other ways of "forking" it (or more precisely, competing with it for the attention of the world's readers) besides rewriting from scratch. One can for example distribute a browser extension that replaces references to Wikipedia pages with pages from the "fork" if and only if a page in the "fork" exists.
My strongest counterargument is that the CC experiment and the Wikipedia experiment have been going on for at least 10 years now, and in the domain of their application to textual (or "prose") works, the most compelling actual development you can point to in support of them is Conservapedia (which, even if you approve of their mission, does not get enough traffic to count as a significant effect either good or bad).
In contrast, I can point to continuous harm (namely SEO spammers and just plain lazy folks who cannot be bothered to put thoughts in their own words, who are wasting the time of millions of readers).
Yes, this is not a "read news articles" site, this is a "discussion" site.
> I think you overestimate the usefulness of the CC license to those who would try to fork it
Really? Because the Conservapedia people were unhappy with the editorial policy and they wanted to fork it. And the CC license made it possible for them.
> If Wikipedia's text were not freely redistributable, there'd be other ways of "forking" it [...] for example distribute a browser extension
That would be of no use if the person's complaint were that it was online and they wanted to print it out on paper. Or if their complaint were that it was only available on the internet and they wanted it to also be available on the private military security network. Or if their complaint were that the board had decided to block access in certain countries because of laws passed on those countries that imposed liability risks. CC licensing addresses ALL of these concerns. It's also technologically easier for someone like Conservapedia to simply seed another MediaWiki clone with the same data than it is for them to create some kind of browser plugin that transforms pages and then convince their audience to use it. I, for example, would NEVER install a browser plugin created by Conservapedia, but I do sometimes browse their site (mostly just to laugh at them).
> the most compelling actual development you can point to in support of them is Conservapedia (which [...] does not get enough traffic to count as a significant effect [...]).
First of all, who are YOU to say that Conservapedia doesn't count? Even if they only have 6 users, aren't those 6 users entitled to their own opinion? I want to support that!
Secondly, I can give other examples. The work I'm taking a break from at this very moment is editing a patent application. The lawyers who constructed the text appear to have borrowed many explanations of basic technology from the corresponding Wikipedia entries. This would be illegal without the CC license, but I maintain that it is a good thing.
Yes, SEO spammers who just copy from Wikipedia are bad. They're not contributing anything new. But the solution is NOT to prohibit anyone anywhere from copying from Wikipedia, instead the solution is for Google to discount sources significantly when a substantial portion of the text is identical to text in Wikipedia and Wikipedia does not contain a link to the site in question (which it would if the copying had gone the other way).
I have suggested here that CC does more social harm than good when applied to textual works (when compared to the alternative of making the text available for free under a more restrictive license) and consequently it is not an effective way for an author of a text to be socially responsible or altruistic.
Your question, "who are YOU to say that Conservapedia doesn't count? Even if they only have 6 users, aren't those 6 users entitled to their own opinion?" does not really apply to my suggestion because my suggestion is addressed to altruistically-minded authors and to people trying to persuade altruistically-minded authors to use the CC licenses. I am not trying to influence any other group.
And I am not suggesting the users of Conservapedia do not count; I am suggesting that the benefits (to them and the other beneficiaries) are outweighed by harms done elsewhere.
(And that will probably be my last comment in this thread.)
Does anyone remember CDDB?
I just don't particularly care about enabling people to use my work gratis for “cash transactions” or “for profit”. These people can contact me for a paid license. Or they can create a substitute themselves, no skin off my back.
1) If it's a company that has money and is all to ready to give me some, I'll gladly take it.
2) If it's someone, such as an author who wants a photo to illustrate their book, I may not ask for money but I like knowing who is using my photo in that context.
3) I know I'm not at fault if someone misinterprets CC as "the original photographer acquired the rights to use the identifiable people in any commercial contexts", but I still want to avoid as much as possible being drawn into this kind of snafu: http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-...
A common interpretation (and the one I used to use myself) was that the non-commercial protection was meant to cover use of content as a fundamental piece of a commercial venture. So a photo on a t-shirt, a song being sold on a compilation CD, etc. But using a photo within the context of a blog post on a commercial blog would be ok.
It seems, though, another interpretation is that any usage that's even vaguely related to a commercial interest is verboten. And since no-one has drawn the line in the sand on this, I'll steer clear of NC stuff now unless it really is a hobby project.
This is clearly forbidden by NC.