Yo Tim! On 12/06/07, Tim Cowlishaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>> Purely out of curiosity, rather than pedantry (and slightly O/T) Nah, its OT imo, because Backstage has NC terms.
come round to the NC way of thinking, or is there some way of monetizing> content through licencing without imposing an NC restriction that I haven't> yet worked out or been made aware of? ;-)
No. :-) If you make a sandwich, and I buy it for £1, and take it up the roadto that gardener working up my street, and sell it to him for £5, areyou entitled to any of my £4? No, I don't think so. Some people do though, because you _could_ havesold it to the gardener and made £5, and they feel I've cheated youout of that in some way. If you make a painting, and I buy it for £1, wait a while, and take itto a fine art auction house and sell it for £50,000, are you entitledto any of my £49,999? No, I don't think so. Some people do though, because you're anartistic genius and it was really worth £50,000 all along, just nobodyrecognized your genius back then. If you make a 3 minute recording of yourself singing and playingguitar, and you publish the recording for £1, and I buy and then sellone of the authorised copies for £5, are you entitled to any of my £4? No, I don't think so. Some people do though, because you _could_ havesold it and made £5, and they feel I've cheated you out of that insome way. If you make a 3 minute recording of yourself singing and playingguitar, and you publish the recording for £1, and I make a copy andsell the unauthorised copy for £5, are you entitled to any of my £4? No, I don't think so. Some people do though, because you _could_ havesold another copy and made £5, and they feel I've cheated you out ofthat in some way. I make 100 copies of the recording and sell them for £500, are youentitled to any of my £499? No, I don't think so. Some people do though, because you _could_ havesold another 100 copies and made £500, and they feel I've cheated youout of that in some way. As I said on the Backstage DRM podcast, if someone wants to buy ashitty copy of a DVD that's shot from the hip in some smelly hong kongtheatre, with the label printed on an nearly-run-out inkjet, from asmelly woman on Brighton beach out of a plastic bag, I've got noproblem with that. If I buy a DVD as a present for someone, and I givethem that, I'll get a slap. Likewise if I burn off my DVD rip andprint the cover with my nice photoprinter. And most people like to buyluxury information products for themselves, although its pretty much adifferent kind of luxury information product per person. What it boils down to, is that I don't see that someone else makingvalue effects the value that you make. When faced with a customer going elsewhere, you can do one of twothings: Lower your price, or raise your value. But this is an interesting debate, and I understand that it isn'tclear cut. Non commercial sharing between friends and between thepublic at large *IS* clear cut: That's the nature of friendship in the21st century, and restricting people from sharing is not cool, in factits very bad, in fact it is evil. Creative Commons have recently adopted this position, which is animportant milestone for them: "One feature that all of the licenses we currently serve share is thatthey all guarantee at least the freedom to share non-commercially. Tothose of you who support us because our licenses all permitnon-commercial sharing, you can count on us not to change this policyexcept after an extensive public discussion."- http://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses So while I, personally, won't be using any CC-NC licenses, and willnot recommend them to others, I won't cuss you for using them. If youuse any of the retired, anti-sharing CC licenses, or refer to "_the_Creative Commons license," you get cussed :-) -- Regards,Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
