Tim, just substitute 'copyright' wherever you use 'NC' and read your post again. Freedom does not mean "A slave having the right to ask their owner for manumission", but never being a slave in the first place. Just imagine you're an artist who's incorporated twenty other artists' CC-NC derivatives who've each remixed work from other CC-NC derivatives, etc. One day your work is blogged by some famous blogger. You realise you could sell the high resolution original for $10 a piece and probably 500 copies thereof - if you can move fast. Ooops. There are 400 other artists whose permission you must first seek (and you can only recall 10 of the twenty source works you used). And here's how it can backfire in the other direction too: http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=82 <http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=82> _____
From: Tim Cowlishaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2007 10:52am To: Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization inparticular Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] FreeCulture.org is now Students for Free Culture On 10/3/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: Essentially, non-commercial sharing limits production of free software and free culture to those who do other things to earn income - employed by Microsoft, for example. It is commercial in one way, in that it's very attractive to people who have large amounts of money, so they'll give some to iCommons, but it's ultimately anti-commercial for free culture and detrimental to society. 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. Cheers, Tim
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
