Tim Cowlishaw wrote:
I'm afraid I don't quite understand why this is the case. Granted there are a lot of problems to NC, and it is indeed antithetical to the Stallmanite view of Free Culture espoused be the FLOSS movement, but NC simply does not mean that an artist cannot commercially exploit their work, as Commercial rights can be obtained through a seperate licence - it's simply a case of 'ask first, and agree terms' before allowing commercial sharing. I'm not saying i necessarily agree with this (although i think it has value in some contexts), but the free culture movement is a broad church, and I am happy to accept NC works as nominally 'free culture'. Others may disagree, but as mentioned before, pluralism is a strength rather than a weakness in my opinion. However, to state that NC licences prohibit commercial exploitation of ones own work is a complete falsehood.I agree that NC is not at all a bad thing, and that it's not detrimental to FC society. You're right, Tim, that future licenses can be negotiated at the discretion of the artist(s). However, I take issue with your wording in the last sentence: I think that NC licenses do prohibit commercial "exploitation" in the sense that the artist cannot be "ripped off" for creative works. I know I'm whipping out connotations here more than anything, but we all know how valuable semantic spin can be in the FC world. It's called "free culture" for a reason, after all. ;) I personally found the CC attributive share-alike NC license very intriguing, though I understand the routine licenses offered by CC are now quite simplified. Again, that's something I have to read up on. Conor
|
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
