Some people have this crazy notion that artists have a natural right to exchange their cultural work for money in a free market (including a natural right to freely build upon the published cultural work of others). Such lunatics logically do not support prohibitions against copying or commercial exploitation (see the GPL for another bunch of like-minded loonies). People who slap NC on their CC'd work on the other hand have the very sound understanding that if they didn't do this, nasty, greedy corporations could make colossal profits by selling access, or performances, copies, and derivatives of their work (despite it being freely copyable).
_____ From: Dean Jansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 25 July 2008 4:13pm To: Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in particular Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] Sparky Awards video contest I assume he means this: "Copyright, 2008 SPARC, subject to a Creative Commons <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/> Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License" and that NC = lame (especially in this case) That's just my interpretation of the comment though, so who knows. --Dean On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Nelson Pavlosky <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: Rob Myers wrote: > Rather than comment on the NC failage in this competition I'll just > draw your attention to: > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=iVCGmyRrmUc <http://youtube.com/watch?v=iVCGmyRrmUc> > > - Rob. What does "NC failage" mean? ~Nelson~ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss <http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
