On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:53:05 +0200, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder... maybe Andreas can chime in... does it make any sense to > modify > cc licenses to include a clause about re-hosting and re-distributing > media > from that host? If a license can state whether or not it is allowed, > then > maybe that would streamline things? I was tagged, but I'm not lawyer (just vocal). Charles has got it right. This is already covered in the CC licenses. All CC licenses grant rights to make copies and distribute those copies - it's the whole point. Then there are the two limitations. The non-commercial clause limits who can make the copies and no-derrivs limits derrivative works (straight copies are still fine). So there's no reason to ammend the licenses. I don't agree with Devlon that a video transcode constitutes a derrivative work (IANAL!!!). Just as a xerox of a photo is a "copy" not a derrivative work... It's a bad copy, but still a copy. IMO. -- 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/
