Yes I agree with you that it is really up to a court to decide what commercial is. I understand that personal definitions have no legal merit. I was just pointing out what I think most people intend when they use this license.
Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com --- In [email protected], "Andreas Haugstrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:29:00 +0100, Bill Streeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I may be splitting hairs here, but the author lists "Public Domain" > > as a type of CC license. But I don' think that this is the case. I > > thought that Public Domain was a part of standard copyright law. Am > > I wrong about this? > > I think CC just lists public domain because people who are interested in > CC might also be interested in releasing their work to the public domain. > No harm, no foul. > > > But I do see his point on the definitions of commercial. I would > > suspect that most users would consider commercial use to be used in > > a way that directly makes a profit for the publisher. Like directly > > selling copies of the work, or used as the primary content in a for- > > profit venture. A website with ads isn't always a for-profit > > venture. But I agree that the commercial concept is pretty fuzzy. > > But I don't believe that anyone would consider a link to a resume to > > be an ad as he suggests. > > First off all: What regular people think "commercial use" is doesn't mean > a thing. At all (unless both parties in a dispute agrees, but then we > wouldn't be talking). What matters is how a judge interprets the license > and the law. The big issue with CC is that it has not been tested in court > yet (unlike copyright law which has been tested a million billion times). > What's really needed is some lawsuits centered around the CC licenses. I > can't believe I just wrote that. > > I don't know if the guy read the actual license. It is more specific than > the *guidelines* you link to when you link to a license. The license says: > > "You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above > in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial > advantage or private monetary compensation[...]" > > The operative word being "primarily". You can interpret the above in a > multitude of ways (some ads might be okay, others not). As long as > everyone is agreeing you're fine. The moment someone disagrees the courts > will have to take a stand. Their interpretation means a whole lot and will > set down guidelines for future users of CC material. The court's > interpretation might not be what the authors of the CC license intended in > which case the license will have to be rewritten and then the process will > begin again. > > So all we need is someone to sue. > -- > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen > <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ > > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
