> From: Rob Myers > It can prevent you using derivatives of your own work commercially.
I keep forgetting that one. I can remember that the GPL restores the author's liberty to their own work (when incorporated in another author's published derivatives). > It is a deeply self-defeating licence but very seductive. I suspect the thinking is something like this: "CC-NC means that Big bad publishers or corporations can't commercially exploit me and my work without my say so" Really? Says you and what army of well heeled lawyers funded by a vast litigation budget? If you remember, copyright is impotent without such an army as only a large commercial publisher can muster. Copyright = "I will sue the living daylights out of you with my army of well heeled lawyers funded by a vast litigation budget the moment I see you publish any copies without my permission" CC-NC is pretty much identical: CC-NC = "Freely copy, but I will sue the living daylights out of you with my army of well heeled lawyers funded by a vast litigation budget the moment I see you make any money from my work without my permission" What I want to know is how many CC-NC users have or expect to have the services of a well financed legal department. Traditionally, in order to obtain such services, the solitary author has had to first submit themselves to exploitation by big bad publishers. "Sign here son. It's a good contract - trust me." Ditch the delusional army of lawyers. Restore the public's liberty - in full. Publishers don't get rich by selling copies of your work. They get rich by unfairly stopping anyone else from selling copies of your work. So if you want to stop them unfairly exploiting your work, prevent them from being unfair. CC-SA _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
