Making money with By-SA

drew Roberts wrote:
>  On Thursday 25 May 2006 05:08 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
> > I think we're mostly in agreement on the point I
was originally
> > making.
> >
> > The "business models for copyleft art"
thread is separate, and I've
> > mostly deflected that.
>
>  Should we take that discussion to cc-community?

Probably so. I'm replying to both if you just want to pick
this discussion
up there.

I only recently discovered the CC community list, myself and
joined a few
days ago.

> > However, it's an interesting subject in itself,
and I'm very
> > supportive of the things you've been saying.
You've suggested some
> > ideas that I haven't thought of, and I haven't
given them enough
> > thought.
> >
> >>> I have noted a lack of evidence of
successful
> >>> proofs-of-principle of strong models of
copyleft-art
> >>> monetization.
> >>
> >> And I face the same problem that you do above.
It seems to me
> >> there is no great effort on the part of many
to create enough
> >> copyleft-art to make the necessary
experiments.
> >
> > Yes, and that's always a problem. ISTM that any
way to encourage
> > By-SA material to be made is good for this goal.
>
>
>  In general, yes.
>
> >> The thing is, some get paid to work on the
Free ones as a result
> >> of these "free-samples."
> >
> > True of software, but I can't think of any free
aesthetic examples
> > off hand.
>
>  For my 2004 nanowrimo effort, I raised quite a decent
sum of money
>  from people I knew. The book is going to end up under
a (probably)
>  BY-Sa license. It is not up on the net under one now
like my 2005
>  effort Tings as I made the mistake of including short
bits from songs
>  playing around here on the radio from the era of the
novel.
>
>  Not quite an exact match. But I think I can do it
again if needed.
>
>  Also, it seems to me that things like PBS and NPR are
a natural for
>  creating copyleft works. (Unless they are not really
as public minded
>  as they would like everyone to believe. Or am I
missing something?)

I'm not really sure about PBS -- there's idealist and
cynics both who
work for them.  It's always a bit of a fiction to speak of
the character
of an organization.

> >>> I understand that you have a vested
interest in finding
> >>> successful copyleft-based business models
for art.
> >>
> >> I think my real vested interest is in
preserving my freedoms for
> >> the future. I think most people have the same
interest but most
> >> don't see it. (Obviously, it could just as
easily be me who sees
> >> things incorrectly.)
> >
> > The public good of copyleft works is easy to see,
but the good for
> > the creator is harder -- so I've spent more
effort on that part.
>
>  Well, I know as a creator, I have a bunch of work that
will never see
>  the light of day because it stems from locked up
works. If instead of
>  being primarily exposed to locked up works I was
exposed to free
>  works, I would be more productive. I would be more
efficient labour
>  wise and my cost of materials would be lower.

This is a funny point.  We live in a complex world, and
works are
released under many different license schemes and
distribution
systems.  It's a sad thing that a fundamentally aesthetic
choice --
what media millieu to embed in one's work -- is so deeply
controlled
by commercial and legal choices.  What really should happen
is a
better legal environment -- especially with regard to fair
use, collage,
sampling, etc.

But until that changes, we will find ourselves behind a kind
of cultural
wall (or perhaps the proprietary world will find itself
behind one -- it
depends on how you look at it.  Clearly, in this respect,
the copyleft
regime has an advantage.

> >> [regarding copyleft business models]
> >> For instance, what about an NC on sales except
physical copies at
> >> retail only on a BY-SA license. Any thoughts
on the effects?
> >
> > I am baffled by what this means. You want a
By-NC-SA that exempts
> > sale of physical copies? But you want the By-SA to
apply to copies
> > thus sold?
>
>  No, more like a BY-SA that restricts sales only, not
public
>  performances and the making of derivatives, while
granting an
>  exception to the sales restriction to retail sales of
physical goods.
>  (Perhaps even restricts such sales to mom and pops
only. Single
>  location per seller?) I would keep the right for
online sales and
>  wholesale sales of physical goods. Something like
that. The ratailers
>  could buy from me or burn their own. (Is there a legal
way to do
>  this, and would it have beneficial effects.)

The trouble is, the result is still going to be an
"NC" license, and it
will still be fundamentally incompatible with the By-SA. 
The license
proliferation issue is a serious problem, not just because
of the
conceptual limitations, but also because even two licenses
which are
conceptually identical (or similar enough that no one cares
about the
difference) -- at least w.r.t. a particular work -- e.g. the
GPL and the
By-SA -- are nevertheless *legally* incompatible.

What I'm saying here is that if I have an
"artistic" work which is under
the GPL license and another which is under the By-SA, I
can't combine
them and release them under either the GPL or the By-SA. 
Because,
even though the authors probably wouldn't object (two
licenses with
very similar intent -- namely 'copyleft'), the legal
language doesn't 
specify
that hte

>  Would more models open up if CC changed the licenses
such that it was
>  not the "work" that I had to license, but
only the instance that I
>  released with the license and anything stemming from
it?

Isn't that technically true already of By-SA licensed
material? There is
of course the point that digitally identical copies are
pretty hard to
tell apart, so it would be silly to argue that someone
violated the license
because they based their work on the freely-downloaded copy
(under
a restrictive license) and the paid CD-ROM copy.

>  See what I was trying to do here:
>
>  http://www.ourmedi
a.org/node/42417
 > http://www.lulu.com/zotz
>
> >>>> An artist can insist on being paid
every time they "sing" and
> >>>> still release all of their work as
copyleft.
> >>>
> >>> Service model. The artist gets paid for
their time performing.
> >>
> >> Nothing wrong with the service model.

Well, actually, there is something "wrong" with
the service model: It's
labor-intensive.  And so it puts a pretty firm cap on how
much money
you can make with it.

Whether that's "wrong enough" to create a
problem is a different
question, though.

 >>> That said, I think it is
> >> more than that. After enough copyleft mass has
been built up,
> >> those making use of this have an advantage
over those that don't
> >> If your band can go to the club and explain
that you only perform
> >> BY and BY-SA work and so the club will not
have to pay PRS,
> >> ASCAP, BMI for your performances, that is a
selling point for the
> >> gig. Etc.
> >
> > Yeah, that's the value proposition of copyleft,
but the
> > monetization is still based on the service model.
>
>  It may be, but it is service model plus. The plus
being the reduced
>  "cost of goods."
>
> >>>> Income streams that don't go away
when your creative works
> >>>> are copyleft...
> >>>>
> >>>> Gig and concert for musicians. (Plus
endorsements, action
> >>>> figures (had to put that in for fun)
and merchandise and the
> >>>> like.
> >>>
> >>> Same: service model.
> >>
> >> Just to be clear. Merchandise is not the
service model.
> >
> > Yeah, there's actually a few different things
included there.
> > Merchandising is selling material stuff related to
the work. The
> > free software analog is selling (e.g.) video cards
with
> > free-licensed drivers.
> >
> >>>> For painters, they can still sell
their originals. They can
> >>>> also still sell numbered and signed
prints. As a matter of
> >>>> fact, couldn't they reserve their
signature as a part of a
> >>>> trademark and not allow free use of
that (sort of like what
> >>>> Red Hat does with their trademarks?)
> >>>
> >>> True, of course.
> >>>
> >>> Every one of these is pretty marginal as a
business plan,
> >>> though. They make a lot less money than
direct sale of copies
> >>> of a work, and when they do work well,
they do so by promoting
> >>> the values of patrons (corporations, for
the most part, but
> >>> also rich individuals), and so are not
exactly populist
> >>> solutions.
> >>
> >> I don't see where selling originals and
numbered prints is a
> >> marginal business for painters. Where do you
think they make the
> >> bulk of their money?
> >
> > You have a point there.
> >
> > I've always been baffled by this, though. The
idea of paying for
> > totally artificial scarcity (i.e. numbered prints)
always struck me
> > as twisted, though. Also the whole concept of
"real" works versus
> > indistinguishable copies (e.g. *this* toy
astronaut has been in
> > space, but that one hasn't).
> >
> > I guess I'm just too utilitarian at heart.
>
>  The thing is, we don't have to fully understand or
agree with each
>  possible model, just recognise its existance and
effectiveness.

You're right -- I'm just explaining my problem with
relating to these
kinds of business models.  I haven't got a problem with
exploiting
people's irrational desires for "real"-ness.
But since I personally have
a much weaker appreciation of this psychic value, I find it
harder to
predict what the market will want.

I guess that why God created agents. 

> >>> IOW, they would promote artistic works
that favor upper class
> >>> values.
> >>
> >> Not if hte upper class can see a way to make a
buck promoting
> >> other values.
> >>
> >>> (Not that upper class values shouldn't be
represented, but my
> >>> point is that biases are introduced
because of the model)
> >>
> >> True, but in the big money models under
"all rights reserved"
> >> isn't this the case already?
> >
> > To a degree, but this relates to the "making
a buck promoting other
> > people's values" argument. Selling copies
of something does that:
> > the distributor can accumulate enough sales to
offset the cost and
> > make a profit.
> >
> > But in the patronage model, the patron doesn't
make direct income
> > off of the work from lower class consumers, so he
has little
> > motivation to pay for something to their taste.
>
>  There is no reason why patrons cannot make or save
money off of the
>  results of that patronage.
>
>  For example. Stores pay good money to have music
playing. If they
>  would fund copyleft music with a part of this, they
could play that
>  instead and save. (I can think of other
possibilities.)

Okay. So the "patron" is a club or store owner,
who collects money from
people who listen to music in his place. The music is part
of the 
atmosphere,
so there's a clear motivation to keep purchasing new (or
paying for more
art to be created).

This is very close to the "internet radio" or
"bulk download" models.

It also suggests patronage pricing systems -- e.g. the most
requested
artists get scored and the top 100 or so get paid more for
their work
than others, hence there is competition to be the most
popular work,
encouraging quality in the work developed (but leaving entry
wide-open
nevertheless).

> >>> The thing is, copyright monopoly rules
undeniably *have*
> >>> benefited creative works during the time
they have been in
> >>> force. There are many, many writers,
musicians, singers,
> >>> artists, and illustrators who are
gainfully employed because of
> >>> the ability to excercise monopoly control
over the sales of
> >>> copies of their work -- the
"masquerade of information as
> >>> matter". So it's pretty hard for me
to scoff at this model:
> >>> it's a proven reality.
> >>
> >> We can see the benefits, but we can't see
what we may have
> >> missed. This goes back to the issue brought up
very early in this
> >> post.
> >
> > Sure. And there probably was a cost.
> >
> > But do you really believe that, without copyright
protection that
> > we would have the vast collection of literature,
music, and art
> > that we do today?
>
>  I doubt it, but I think we have gone over the top now
and the laws
>  and practices currently in place are harming the
situation now. At
>  least in some realms.

Yes, of course. I'm only defending the underlying concept,
not the
extremity that we see today.  I see copyleft art as existing
alongside
proprietary for some time to come, though.  I don't think
it can quite
supplant the old system entirely, because I believe there
are many
niches it can't fill that the old system can.

> >> One difference between the public domain and
the copyleft-commons
> >> is that there still exists the dual-license
monetisation option
> >> for works original to the author.
> >
> > Of course, I meant that the non-copyleft
free-license commons is
> > conceptually equivalent to public domain. Copyleft
is conceptually
> > distinct, although related, and some different
aspects apply.
>
>  I am not really that interested in the non-copyleft
free-license
>  commons except that I appreciate those who have made
the works and
>  made them available to me. I personally would have
preferred that
>  they made them available to me under a copyleft, but
the gift horse
>  and mouth warning from my younger days comes into
play.

Well, the point is that as a copyleft artist, you are free
to use material
that is public domain, non-copyleft free, or copyleft-free
(*using the
same copyleft system you chose!*).  The PD or NCF commons is
the
'true' commons, though, shared by all.  The CL commonses
are divided
due to multiple CL licenses which are generally
incompatible.  Fortunately,
there isn't that much division as yet (except for the
prominent and
worrying case of the "NC commons").

So from a raw-materials point of view, they are all the
same. The CL
commons, however, is your "edge" over
proprietary works.

> >>> As such, I would argue that the benefits
of a time-release are
> >>> similar to those gained by sharealike
licenses. But they work
> >>> for different business models, which may
incorporated better,
> >>> more optimized coverage of artists'
endeavors. Both aspects are
> >>> meant to be means of restoring the
original balances of
> >>> copyright law. Convincing artists of the
value to them of these
> >>> balances is tricky, but that's precisely
what CC's mission is
> >>> (as I understand it).
> >>
> >> Can we start a copyleft "art"
registry? How about here for a
> >> start:
> >>
> >> http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/111124
> >
> > That's a lonely looking page.
>
>  It is very lonely indeed.
>
> > Actually, I've been going through my old artwork,
and I have
> > decided that as soon as I can figure out how to
scan it (it's
> > oversize), I'm going to probably release my
1980-1990 work under
> > By-SA. I did a number of science fiction
illustration series back
> > then for concepts I was working on, but never
finished. It's not a
> > huge body of work, and I'm not actively drawing
anymore, but it's
> > something I'd like to make available so it
doesn't go to waste.
>
>  I know there is not enough time in the day.

Actually, it's not so much the time, as I don't yet know
how to get
18"x24" artwork scanned.  I have a flatbed
scanner, but that's only
about 9"x14", and knitting together multiple
pieces of a picture is
a nightmare. There's probably a copy shop, or maybe an
equipment
rental I could use to solve this, but that will take some
research.

(Suggestions welcome)

> >> Oh, but it might. we will not really know
until there have been
> >> large scale experiments to see what happens.
> >>
> >> I see synergies between copyleft code and
copyleft art where we
> >> can offer things that regular players might
fear to compete with.
> >
> > Clearly computer games are a cross-over point.
>  There are other areas I have in mind as well.

Yeah, well there are many, in fact.

First of all there are two major classes of synergy:

1) Artists using copyleft tools are more likely to favor
copyleft 
distribution.
    (The existence of Gimp, Inkscape, and Ardour make a
powerful point
     to artists who use them).

2) Artists may target copyleft tools as objects of copyleft
art (e.g. skins,
    themes, etc.)

> >>> I'm not opposed to that, but it doesn't
excite me that much.
> >
> > [to clarify 'it' means 'loss-leader/free-sample
strategies using a
> > copylefted work as the freebie']
> >
> >> Are you a big user of Free Software?
> >
> > You could say that, yeah.  I
actually don't use anything else --
> > at least w.r.t to everyday tasks.
> >
> >> This is not what I am advocating. I am
advocating running a real
> >> experiment with copyleft works. See if you
can't come up wtih
> >> profitable avenues that would be unavailable
to you with other
> >> licenses.
> >
> > Hmm. Well, there are a few, and you've raised
some ideas for models
> > I haven't considered.
> >
> >> It is how you might be able to make money off
of the work of tens
> >> of thousands of other like minded creative
people that I find
> >> interesting.
> >
> > Well that's what the big recording labels are
interested in, isn't
> > it. 
> >
> > The point is, though, can the 10,000 make money
off of the 10,000's
> > work?
>
>  I think so. And as the laws and their enforcement
become more
>  draconian, I think it will become more and more clear
to people. We
>  shall see.
>
> >> Another thought, the infrastructure of freedom
still has to
> >> develop. It is hard to find works by license
along with type.
> >
> > This is a MAJOR problem, I agree 100% on this one.
> >
> >> For instance, if someone knows of a good way
to find BY-SA music
> >> with a high signal to noise ration on the
searches, I would be
> >> very interested in hearing of it.
> >
> > I have no reliable mechanism, but I have certainly
tried. So far, I
> > find that there are "knots" created by
individual registry sites
> > (BTW, there's some useful starting points in the
LinuxUser &
> > Developer (#62) that should be hitting newstands
just about now. I
> > believe the article is titled "Music on the
Lam".
> >
> > Again though, a major problem is the "a
Creative Commons license"
> > problem -- CC-By-NC comingles with CC-By-SA. It's
the primary
> > source of the noise you refer to, in my
experience.
>
>  I have a different experience. I can often find BY-SA
fine, I just
>  get text with a BY-SA license instead of the music I
am looking for.

Never had that problem myself. I guess I'm probably not
using the
same tools.

> >> it is early days yet and I am in it for the
long haul. I would be
> >> very happy for early successes, but they are
not expected at
> >> this point.
> >
> > Hmm. I guess for CC it is still "early
days". My first copyleft
> > art project was under the Design Science License,
because CC hadn't
> > been invented yet. That was 2000. The overall
project has not yet
> > succeeded, but we got some very interesting
contributions. I'm
> > trying to kick it off again with a GPL license on
the code and a
> > combined GPL2+ + CC-By-SA license on the
aesthetics (for piecewise
> > distribution, the CC-By-SA is superior, but for
inclusion in Linux
> > distributions, it's desireable to be compatible
with GPL). (I'm
> > refering to http://light-princess.sf
.net ).
>
>  Even six years is not a long time really. These ideas
have to grow
>  and spread. Then there need to be some successes or a
big enough body
>  of work available and findable.
>
> > I was not able to contact everybody, though, so
there is still
> > stuff stuck in the copyleft-conflict limbo, which
is why I'm sort
> > of sensitive to the problems it creates (and
disjoint "commonses"
> > in general).
>
>  Indeed.

(I left a bit more of this conversation in for the benefit
of the 
cc-community
list thread -- we were originally discussing a variant type
of "NC" license
on the cc-license list, but it evolved into a discussion on
copyleft and
business models that you see here).

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Thursday 25 May 2006 11:01 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> >  On Thursday 25 May 2006 05:08 am, Terry Hancock
wrote:
> > > I think we're mostly in agreement on the
point I was originally
> > > making.
> > >
> > > The "business models for copyleft
art" thread is separate, and I've
> > > mostly deflected that.
> >
> >  Should we take that discussion to cc-community?
>
> Probably so. I'm replying to both if you just want to
pick this discussion
> up there.
>
> I only recently discovered the CC community list,
myself and joined a few
> days ago.
>
> > > However, it's an interesting subject in
itself, and I'm very
> > > supportive of the things you've been saying.
You've suggested some
> > > ideas that I haven't thought of, and I
haven't given them enough
> > > thought.
> > >
> > >>> I have noted a lack of evidence of
successful
> > >>> proofs-of-principle of strong models
of copyleft-art
> > >>> monetization.
> > >>
> > >> And I face the same problem that you do
above. It seems to me
> > >> there is no great effort on the part of
many to create enough
> > >> copyleft-art to make the necessary
experiments.
> > >
> > > Yes, and that's always a problem. ISTM that
any way to encourage
> > > By-SA material to be made is good for this
goal.
> >
> >  In general, yes.
> >
> > >> The thing is, some get paid to work on
the Free ones as a result
> > >> of these "free-samples."
> > >
> > > True of software, but I can't think of any
free aesthetic examples
> > > off hand.
> >
> >  For my 2004 nanowrimo effort, I raised quite a
decent sum of money
> >  from people I knew. The book is going to end up
under a (probably)
> >  BY-Sa license. It is not up on the net under one
now like my 2005
> >  effort Tings as I made the mistake of including
short bits from songs
> >  playing around here on the radio from the era of
the novel.
> >
> >  Not quite an exact match. But I think I can do it
again if needed.
> >
> >  Also, it seems to me that things like PBS and NPR
are a natural for
> >  creating copyleft works. (Unless they are not
really as public minded
> >  as they would like everyone to believe. Or am I
missing something?)
>
> I'm not really sure about PBS -- there's idealist and
cynics both who
> work for them.  It's always a bit of a fiction to
speak of the character
> of an organization.

Of course. It is just that they seem to be a fairly large
deal and are 
supposedly for the public good and so "should"
line up fairly well with 
copyleft ideas.

Someone with some contacts might want to investigate.
>
> > >>> I understand that you have a vested
interest in finding
> > >>> successful copyleft-based business
models for art.
> > >>
> > >> I think my real vested interest is in
preserving my freedoms for
> > >> the future. I think most people have the
same interest but most
> > >> don't see it. (Obviously, it could just
as easily be me who sees
> > >> things incorrectly.)
> > >
> > > The public good of copyleft works is easy to
see, but the good for
> > > the creator is harder -- so I've spent more
effort on that part.
> >
> >  Well, I know as a creator, I have a bunch of work
that will never see
> >  the light of day because it stems from locked up
works. If instead of
> >  being primarily exposed to locked up works I was
exposed to free
> >  works, I would be more productive. I would be
more efficient labour
> >  wise and my cost of materials would be lower.
>
> This is a funny point.  We live in a complex world, and
works are
> released under many different license schemes and
distribution
> systems.  It's a sad thing that a fundamentally
aesthetic choice --
> what media millieu to embed in one's work -- is so
deeply controlled
> by commercial and legal choices.  What really should
happen is a
> better legal environment -- especially with regard to
fair use, collage,
> sampling, etc.

A better legal environment would indeed be most welcome.
>
> But until that changes, we will find ourselves behind a
kind of cultural
> wall (or perhaps the proprietary world will find itself
behind one -- it
> depends on how you look at it.  Clearly, in this
respect, the copyleft
> regime has an advantage.
>
> > >> [regarding copyleft business models]
> > >> For instance, what about an NC on sales
except physical copies at
> > >> retail only on a BY-SA license. Any
thoughts on the effects?
> > >
> > > I am baffled by what this means. You want a
By-NC-SA that exempts
> > > sale of physical copies? But you want the
By-SA to apply to copies
> > > thus sold?
> >
> >  No, more like a BY-SA that restricts sales only,
not public
> >  performances and the making of derivatives, while
granting an
> >  exception to the sales restriction to retail
sales of physical goods.
> >  (Perhaps even restricts such sales to mom and
pops only. Single
> >  location per seller?) I would keep the right for
online sales and
> >  wholesale sales of physical goods. Something like
that. The ratailers
> >  could buy from me or burn their own. (Is there a
legal way to do
> >  this, and would it have beneficial effects.)
>
> The trouble is, the result is still going to be an
"NC" license, and it
> will still be fundamentally incompatible with the
By-SA.  The license
> proliferation issue is a serious problem, not just
because of the
> conceptual limitations, but also because even two
licenses which are
> conceptually identical (or similar enough that no one
cares about the
> difference) -- at least w.r.t. a particular work --
e.g. the GPL and the
> By-SA -- are nevertheless *legally* incompatible.

I know, and if we can get his done with pure copyleft while
people can still 
find ways to earn a living, I would prefer that route, but
we may need to 
take some funny paths to get there.
>
> What I'm saying here is that if I have an
"artistic" work which is under
> the GPL license and another which is under the By-SA, I
can't combine
> them and release them under either the GPL or the
By-SA.  Because,
> even though the authors probably wouldn't object (two
licenses with
> very similar intent -- namely 'copyleft'), the legal
language doesn't
> specify
> that hte

This is indeed a problem. It remains to be seen if it can be
fixed.
>
> >  Would more models open up if CC changed the
licenses such that it was
> >  not the "work" that I had to license,
but only the instance that I
> >  released with the license and anything stemming
from it?
>
> Isn't that technically true already of By-SA licensed
material? 

It seems not. I think I was told that just reducing the
resolution on a photo 
is not enough to make a new "work" thus, if I
license the low resolution 
BY-SA while putting the higher resolution versions elsewhere
for sale under 
"all rights reserved" or what have you, then
once someone buys one copy, they 
can just assume the BY-Sa license on the high resolution
copy as it is the 
"work" that is licensed that way. Clear? If I
understood incorrectly, or was 
mis-informed, I would appreciate hearing about it.

> There is 
> of course the point that digitally identical copies are
pretty hard to
> tell apart, so it would be silly to argue that someone
violated the license
> because they based their work on the freely-downloaded
copy (under
> a restrictive license) and the paid CD-ROM copy.

Not if the copies were at different resolutions in the case
of pictures or 
frequencies etc with sound files.
>
> >  See what I was trying to do here:
> >
> >  http://www.ourmedi
a.org/node/42417
> >
>  > http://www.lulu.com/zotz
>  >
> > >>>> An artist can insist on being
paid every time they "sing" and
> > >>>> still release all of their work
as copyleft.
> > >>>
> > >>> Service model. The artist gets paid
for their time performing.
> > >>
> > >> Nothing wrong with the service model.
>
> Well, actually, there is something "wrong"
with the service model: It's
> labor-intensive.  And so it puts a pretty firm cap on
how much money
> you can make with it.

Some actors seem to do pretty good selling their labour. On
top of that. I 
have no great desire to push a system where the goal is that
some be able to 
get super rich. I prefer to push one where many can earn a
decent living. If 
some can get super rich while not really harming the ability
of the many to 
earn their decent living, that is their problem and I will
not worry about 
it.
>
> Whether that's "wrong enough" to create a
problem is a different
> question, though.
>
>  >>> That said, I think it is
>  >>>
> > >> more than that. After enough copyleft
mass has been built up,
> > >> those making use of this have an
advantage over those that don't
> > >> If your band can go to the club and
explain that you only perform
> > >> BY and BY-SA work and so the club will
not have to pay PRS,
> > >> ASCAP, BMI for your performances, that is
a selling point for the
> > >> gig. Etc.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that's the value proposition of
copyleft, but the
> > > monetization is still based on the service
model.
> >
> >  It may be, but it is service model plus. The plus
being the reduced
> >  "cost of goods."
> >
> > >>>> Income streams that don't go
away when your creative works
> > >>>> are copyleft...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Gig and concert for musicians.
(Plus endorsements, action
> > >>>> figures (had to put that in for
fun) and merchandise and the
> > >>>> like.
> > >>>
> > >>> Same: service model.
> > >>
> > >> Just to be clear. Merchandise is not the
service model.
> > >
> > > Yeah, there's actually a few different
things included there.
> > > Merchandising is selling material stuff
related to the work. The
> > > free software analog is selling (e.g.) video
cards with
> > > free-licensed drivers.
> > >
> > >>>> For painters, they can still sell
their originals. They can
> > >>>> also still sell numbered and
signed prints. As a matter of
> > >>>> fact, couldn't they reserve
their signature as a part of a
> > >>>> trademark and not allow free use
of that (sort of like what
> > >>>> Red Hat does with their
trademarks?)
> > >>>
> > >>> True, of course.
> > >>>
> > >>> Every one of these is pretty marginal
as a business plan,
> > >>> though. They make a lot less money
than direct sale of copies
> > >>> of a work, and when they do work
well, they do so by promoting
> > >>> the values of patrons (corporations,
for the most part, but
> > >>> also rich individuals), and so are
not exactly populist
> > >>> solutions.
> > >>
> > >> I don't see where selling originals and
numbered prints is a
> > >> marginal business for painters. Where do
you think they make the
> > >> bulk of their money?
> > >
> > > You have a point there.
> > >
> > > I've always been baffled by this, though.
The idea of paying for
> > > totally artificial scarcity (i.e. numbered
prints) always struck me
> > > as twisted, though. Also the whole concept of
"real" works versus
> > > indistinguishable copies (e.g. *this* toy
astronaut has been in
> > > space, but that one hasn't).
> > >
> > > I guess I'm just too utilitarian at heart.
> >
> >  The thing is, we don't have to fully understand
or agree with each
> >  possible model, just recognise its existance and
effectiveness.
>
> You're right -- I'm just explaining my problem with
relating to these
> kinds of business models.  I haven't got a problem
with exploiting
> people's irrational desires for
"real"-ness. But since I personally have
> a much weaker appreciation of this psychic value, I
find it harder to
> predict what the market will want.

I am in that boat too, but I do see it around me. (I joke
about starting a 
celebrity abc gum rental business.)
>
> I guess that why God created agents. 
>
> > >>> IOW, they would promote artistic
works that favor upper class
> > >>> values.
> > >>
> > >> Not if hte upper class can see a way to
make a buck promoting
> > >> other values.
> > >>
> > >>> (Not that upper class values
shouldn't be represented, but my
> > >>> point is that biases are introduced
because of the model)
> > >>
> > >> True, but in the big money models under
"all rights reserved"
> > >> isn't this the case already?
> > >
> > > To a degree, but this relates to the
"making a buck promoting other
> > > people's values" argument. Selling
copies of something does that:
> > > the distributor can accumulate enough sales
to offset the cost and
> > > make a profit.
> > >
> > > But in the patronage model, the patron
doesn't make direct income
> > > off of the work from lower class consumers,
so he has little
> > > motivation to pay for something to their
taste.
> >
> >  There is no reason why patrons cannot make or
save money off of the
> >  results of that patronage.
> >
> >  For example. Stores pay good money to have music
playing. If they
> >  would fund copyleft music with a part of this,
they could play that
> >  instead and save. (I can think of other
possibilities.)
>
> Okay. So the "patron" is a club or store
owner, who collects money from
> people who listen to music in his place. The music is
part of the
> atmosphere,
> so there's a clear motivation to keep purchasing new
(or paying for more
> art to be created).

That is one possibility. Hotels who want to pipe music
throughout the 
property. Radio stations. Churches. It is a big group.
>
> This is very close to the "internet radio"
or "bulk download" models.
>
> It also suggests patronage pricing systems -- e.g. the
most requested
> artists get scored and the top 100 or so get paid more
for their work
> than others, hence there is competition to be the most
popular work,
> encouraging quality in the work developed (but leaving
entry wide-open
> nevertheless).

I have some ideas for a business along these lines that if I
can ever figure 
out how to effectively do business online from here I want
to have a go at.
>
> > >>> The thing is, copyright monopoly
rules undeniably *have*
> > >>> benefited creative works during the
time they have been in
> > >>> force. There are many, many writers,
musicians, singers,
> > >>> artists, and illustrators who are
gainfully employed because of
> > >>> the ability to excercise monopoly
control over the sales of
> > >>> copies of their work -- the
"masquerade of information as
> > >>> matter". So it's pretty hard
for me to scoff at this model:
> > >>> it's a proven reality.
> > >>
> > >> We can see the benefits, but we can't
see what we may have
> > >> missed. This goes back to the issue
brought up very early in this
> > >> post.
> > >
> > > Sure. And there probably was a cost.
> > >
> > > But do you really believe that, without
copyright protection that
> > > we would have the vast collection of
literature, music, and art
> > > that we do today?
> >
> >  I doubt it, but I think we have gone over the top
now and the laws
> >  and practices currently in place are harming the
situation now. At
> >  least in some realms.
>
> Yes, of course. I'm only defending the underlying
concept, not the
> extremity that we see today.  I see copyleft art as
existing alongside
> proprietary for some time to come, though.  I don't
think it can quite
> supplant the old system entirely, because I believe
there are many
> niches it can't fill that the old system can.

I don't mind the underlying concept if it understood that
once you publish 
your creation, it becomes free to the public and that the
deal we make in 
restricting this is for the good of the public. I don't buy
the "intellectual 
property" concept at all though.
>
> > >> One difference between the public domain
and the copyleft-commons
> > >> is that there still exists the
dual-license monetisation option
> > >> for works original to the author.
> > >
> > > Of course, I meant that the non-copyleft
free-license commons is
> > > conceptually equivalent to public domain.
Copyleft is conceptually
> > > distinct, although related, and some
different aspects apply.
> >
> >  I am not really that interested in the
non-copyleft free-license
> >  commons except that I appreciate those who have
made the works and
> >  made them available to me. I personally would
have preferred that
> >  they made them available to me under a copyleft,
but the gift horse
> >  and mouth warning from my younger days comes into
play.
>
> Well, the point is that as a copyleft artist, you are
free to use material
> that is public domain, non-copyleft free, or
copyleft-free (*using the
> same copyleft system you chose!*).  The PD or NCF
commons is the
> 'true' commons, though, shared by all.  The CL
commonses are divided
> due to multiple CL licenses which are generally
incompatible.  Fortunately,
> there isn't that much division as yet (except for the
prominent and
> worrying case of the "NC commons").

Yes, like I say, I do appreciate those who give make their
works available to 
me as PD or BY (BSD fixed) such that I can use them in my
copyleft work. I 
would be just as happy, actually more happy,  if they made
it copyleft 
instead though.

>
> So from a raw-materials point of view, they are all the
same. The CL
> commons, however, is your "edge" over
proprietary works.

Bingo. Something the commons players can use that the
non-commons players 
cannot. this does bring up the thought though if the
"mere aggregation" 
clause should be halted, at least for a time in oder to
increase this edge?
>
> > >>> As such, I would argue that the
benefits of a time-release are
> > >>> similar to those gained by sharealike
licenses. But they work
> > >>> for different business models, which
may incorporated better,
> > >>> more optimized coverage of artists'
endeavors. Both aspects are
> > >>> meant to be means of restoring the
original balances of
> > >>> copyright law. Convincing artists of
the value to them of these
> > >>> balances is tricky, but that's
precisely what CC's mission is
> > >>> (as I understand it).
> > >>
> > >> Can we start a copyleft "art"
registry? How about here for a
> > >> start:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/111124
> > >
> > > That's a lonely looking page.
> >
> >  It is very lonely indeed.
> >
> > > Actually, I've been going through my old
artwork, and I have
> > > decided that as soon as I can figure out how
to scan it (it's
> > > oversize), I'm going to probably release my
1980-1990 work under
> > > By-SA. I did a number of science fiction
illustration series back
> > > then for concepts I was working on, but never
finished. It's not a
> > > huge body of work, and I'm not actively
drawing anymore, but it's
> > > something I'd like to make available so it
doesn't go to waste.
> >
> >  I know there is not enough time in the day.
>
> Actually, it's not so much the time, as I don't yet
know how to get
> 18"x24" artwork scanned.  I have a flatbed
scanner, but that's only
> about 9"x14", and knitting together
multiple pieces of a picture is
> a nightmare. There's probably a copy shop, or maybe an
equipment
> rental I could use to solve this, but that will take
some research.
>
> (Suggestions welcome)

Off the top of my head, I would ask around at architects
offices and 
newspapers.

Other than that, scan with what you have and leave the
knitting up to others.
>
> > >> Oh, but it might. we will not really know
until there have been
> > >> large scale experiments to see what
happens.
> > >>
> > >> I see synergies between copyleft code and
copyleft art where we
> > >> can offer things that regular players
might fear to compete with.
> > >
> > > Clearly computer games are a cross-over
point.
> >
> >  There are other areas I have in mind as well.
>
> Yeah, well there are many, in fact.
>
> First of all there are two major classes of synergy:
>
> 1) Artists using copyleft tools are more likely to
favor copyleft
> distribution.
>     (The existence of Gimp, Inkscape, and Ardour make a
powerful point
>      to artists who use them).
>
> 2) Artists may target copyleft tools as objects of
copyleft art (e.g.
> skins, themes, etc.)
>
> > >>> I'm not opposed to that, but it
doesn't excite me that much.
> > >
> > > [to clarify 'it' means
'loss-leader/free-sample strategies using a
> > > copylefted work as the freebie']
> > >
> > >> Are you a big user of Free Software?
> > >
> > > You could say that, yeah.  I
actually don't use anything else --
> > > at least w.r.t to everyday tasks.
> > >
> > >> This is not what I am advocating. I am
advocating running a real
> > >> experiment with copyleft works. See if
you can't come up wtih
> > >> profitable avenues that would be
unavailable to you with other
> > >> licenses.
> > >
> > > Hmm. Well, there are a few, and you've
raised some ideas for models
> > > I haven't considered.
> > >
> > >> It is how you might be able to make money
off of the work of tens
> > >> of thousands of other like minded
creative people that I find
> > >> interesting.
> > >
> > > Well that's what the big recording labels
are interested in, isn't
> > > it. 
> > >
> > > The point is, though, can the 10,000 make
money off of the 10,000's
> > > work?
> >
> >  I think so. And as the laws and their enforcement
become more
> >  draconian, I think it will become more and more
clear to people. We
> >  shall see.
> >
> > >> Another thought, the infrastructure of
freedom still has to
> > >> develop. It is hard to find works by
license along with type.
> > >
> > > This is a MAJOR problem, I agree 100% on this
one.
> > >
> > >> For instance, if someone knows of a good
way to find BY-SA music
> > >> with a high signal to noise ration on the
searches, I would be
> > >> very interested in hearing of it.
> > >
> > > I have no reliable mechanism, but I have
certainly tried. So far, I
> > > find that there are "knots"
created by individual registry sites
> > > (BTW, there's some useful starting points in
the LinuxUser &
> > > Developer (#62) that should be hitting
newstands just about now. I
> > > believe the article is titled "Music on
the Lam".
> > >
> > > Again though, a major problem is the "a
Creative Commons license"
> > > problem -- CC-By-NC comingles with CC-By-SA.
It's the primary
> > > source of the noise you refer to, in my
experience.
> >
> >  I have a different experience. I can often find
BY-SA fine, I just
> >  get text with a BY-SA license instead of the
music I am looking for.
>
> Never had that problem myself. I guess I'm probably
not using the
> same tools.

When we get a chance, you show me how you look for BY-Sa
music and I will show 
you my methods for the same.
>
> > >> it is early days yet and I am in it for
the long haul. I would be
> > >> very happy for early successes, but they
are not expected at
> > >> this point.
> > >
> > > Hmm. I guess for CC it is still "early
days". My first copyleft
> > > art project was under the Design Science
License, because CC hadn't
> > > been invented yet. That was 2000. The overall
project has not yet
> > > succeeded, but we got some very interesting
contributions. I'm
> > > trying to kick it off again with a GPL
license on the code and a
> > > combined GPL2+ + CC-By-SA license on the
aesthetics (for piecewise
> > > distribution, the CC-By-SA is superior, but
for inclusion in Linux
> > > distributions, it's desireable to be
compatible with GPL). (I'm
> > > refering to http://light-princess.sf
.net ).
> >
> >  Even six years is not a long time really. These
ideas have to grow
> >  and spread. Then there need to be some successes
or a big enough body
> >  of work available and findable.
> >
> > > I was not able to contact everybody, though,
so there is still
> > > stuff stuck in the copyleft-conflict limbo,
which is why I'm sort
> > > of sensitive to the problems it creates (and
disjoint "commonses"
> > > in general).
> >
> >  Indeed.
>
> (I left a bit more of this conversation in for the
benefit of the
> cc-community
> list thread -- we were originally discussing a variant
type of "NC" license
> on the cc-license list, but it evolved into a
discussion on copyleft and
> business models that you see here).

Cool. This is getting long.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedi
a.org/user/17145

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Quoting drew Roberts <zotz100jamz.com>:

> On Thursday 25 May 2006 11:01 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
>> The trouble is, the result is still going to be an
"NC" license, and it
>> will still be fundamentally incompatible with the
By-SA.  The license
>> proliferation issue is a serious problem, not just
because of the
>> conceptual limitations, but also because even two
licenses which are
>> conceptually identical (or similar enough that no
one cares about the
>> difference) -- at least w.r.t. a particular work --
e.g. the GPL and the
>> By-SA -- are nevertheless *legally* incompatible.
>
> I know, and if we can get his done with pure copyleft
while people can still
> find ways to earn a living, I would prefer that route,
but we may need to
> take some funny paths to get there.

We have some ways mapped out already and a few people trying
them. We 
just need
to distract a few more people from the siren call of NC.

>> What I'm saying here is that if I have an
"artistic" work which is under
>> the GPL license and another which is under the
By-SA, I can't combine
>> them and release them under either the GPL or the
By-SA.  Because,
>> even though the authors probably wouldn't object
(two licenses with
>> very similar intent -- namely 'copyleft'), the
legal language doesn't
>> specify
>> that hte
>
> This is indeed a problem. It remains to be seen if it
can be fixed.

People should not be licensing cultural works under the GPL
(and they
*certainly* shouldn't be licensing software under NC, which
I saw for 
the first
time recently). End of story in theory. 

>> Well, actually, there is something
"wrong" with the service model: It's
>> labor-intensive.  And so it puts a pretty firm cap
on how much money
>> you can make with it.
>
> Some actors seem to do pretty good selling their
labour. On top of that. I
> have no great desire to push a system where the goal is
that some be able to
> get super rich. I prefer to push one where many can
earn a decent living. If
> some can get super rich while not really harming the
ability of the many to
> earn their decent living, that is their problem and I
will not worry about
> it.

The promise of unlimited riches is a seductive one and works
very well to keep
people from making what little money they can. Very few
artists, authors or
musicians make a living by exploiting copyright.

>> It also suggests patronage pricing systems -- e.g.
the most requested
>> artists get scored and the top 100 or so get paid
more for their work
>> than others, hence there is competition to be the
most popular work,
>> encouraging quality in the work developed (but
leaving entry wide-open
>> nevertheless).
>
> I have some ideas for a business along these lines that
if I can ever figure
> out how to effectively do business online from here I
want to have a go at.

Patronage is always not a good idea culturally, because then
you can get the
taste of the patron dominating. And it's undemocratic.

>> So from a raw-materials point of view, they are all
the same. The CL
>> commons, however, is your "edge" over
proprietary works.
>
> Bingo. Something the commons players can use that the
non-commons players
> cannot. this does bring up the thought though if the
"mere aggregation"
> clause should be halted, at least for a time in oder to
increase this edge?

BY-SA seems to be more similar to LGPL than GPL. The way you
can use 
BY-SA work
surprises many people in my experience. But mere aggregation
is there in the
GPL. And requiring that a CD (say) with a BY-SA track on or
a magazine with
(say) a BY-SA article in be all BY-SA is coercive and a
barrier to entry for
BY-SA. That said if BY-SA tracks couldn't appear on
non-BY-SA CDs that would
reassure a lot of people about getting "ripped
off" by having their 
work widely
distributed professionally by recordi- well you get the
idea.

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Friday 26 May 2006 06:19 am, robrobmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting drew Roberts <zotz100jamz.com>:
> > On Thursday 25 May 2006 11:01 pm, Terry Hancock
wrote:
> >> The trouble is, the result is still going to
be an "NC" license, and it
> >> will still be fundamentally incompatible with
the By-SA.  The license
> >> proliferation issue is a serious problem, not
just because of the
> >> conceptual limitations, but also because even
two licenses which are
> >> conceptually identical (or similar enough that
no one cares about the
> >> difference) -- at least w.r.t. a particular
work -- e.g. the GPL and the
> >> By-SA -- are nevertheless *legally*
incompatible.
> >
> > I know, and if we can get his done with pure
copyleft while people can
> > still find ways to earn a living, I would prefer
that route, but we may
> > need to take some funny paths to get there.
>
> We have some ways mapped out already and a few people
trying them. We
> just need
> to distract a few more people from the siren call of
NC.

Can you let us in on any of them at this time?
>
> >> What I'm saying here is that if I have an
"artistic" work which is under
> >> the GPL license and another which is under the
By-SA, I can't combine
> >> them and release them under either the GPL or
the By-SA.  Because,
> >> even though the authors probably wouldn't
object (two licenses with
> >> very similar intent -- namely 'copyleft'),
the legal language doesn't
> >> specify
> >> that hte
> >
> > This is indeed a problem. It remains to be seen if
it can be fixed.
>
> People should not be licensing cultural works under the
GPL (and they
> *certainly* shouldn't be licensing software under NC,
which I saw for
> the first
> time recently). End of story in theory. 
>
> >> Well, actually, there is something
"wrong" with the service model: It's
> >> labor-intensive.  And so it puts a pretty firm
cap on how much money
> >> you can make with it.
> >
> > Some actors seem to do pretty good selling their
labour. On top of that.
> > I have no great desire to push a system where the
goal is that some be
> > able to get super rich. I prefer to push one where
many can earn a decent
> > living. If some can get super rich while not
really harming the ability
> > of the many to earn their decent living, that is
their problem and I will
> > not worry about it.
>
> The promise of unlimited riches is a seductive one and
works very well to
> keep people from making what little money they can.
Very few artists,
> authors or musicians make a living by exploiting
copyright.

Indeed it is as is the lure of great fame. Again. I am not
out to design a 
system to actively work against great wealth. Just one with
an important of 
letting "artists" earn a living from their art
if that is their wish and they 
have the talent to do so. (While still retaining the
"ownership" of their 
copyrights.)

Like you say, the present system doesn't seem to do that
very well, at least 
for certain forms of art. Especially if the criterion(?) is
earning enough on 
residuals and not current work. Not that I see that last
part as necessary 
for the system I am thinking of.
>
> >> It also suggests patronage pricing systems --
e.g. the most requested
> >> artists get scored and the top 100 or so get
paid more for their work
> >> than others, hence there is competition to be
the most popular work,
> >> encouraging quality in the work developed (but
leaving entry wide-open
> >> nevertheless).
> >
> > I have some ideas for a business along these lines
that if I can ever
> > figure out how to effectively do business online
from here I want to have
> > a go at.
>
> Patronage is always not a good idea culturally, because
then you can get
> the taste of the patron dominating. And it's
undemocratic.

Well, isn't that really what you have in a large many of
the current systems 
that people point to as the successes under the current
system?

So, all of these sorts of things are a bad idea:

http://www.google.com/sea
rch?hl=en&q=national+art+foundation&btnG=Google+Sear
ch

I am not so sure. Now, perhaps all of the common ways of
patronage end up with 
the patron calling the shots, but is that really the only
way to go about it?
>
> >> So from a raw-materials point of view, they
are all the same. The CL
> >> commons, however, is your "edge"
over proprietary works.
> >
> > Bingo. Something the commons players can use that
the non-commons players
> > cannot. this does bring up the thought though if
the "mere aggregation"
> > clause should be halted, at least for a time in
oder to increase this
> > edge?
>
> BY-SA seems to be more similar to LGPL than GPL. The
way you can use
> BY-SA work
> surprises many people in my experience. 

This is an interesting statement. Would you give some
illustrative examples?

> But mere aggregation is there in 
> the GPL. And requiring that a CD (say) with a BY-SA
track on or a magazine
> with (say) a BY-SA article in be all BY-SA is coercive
and a barrier to
> entry for BY-SA. 

Could be, but it might (only might mind you, and if so, I
think it would be a 
shame) be necessary to get something more copyleft like
going full tilt for 
art. (If it is, perhaps that part should be sunsetted.)

> That said if BY-SA tracks couldn't appear on non-BY-SA
CDs 
> that would reassure a lot of people about getting
"ripped off" by having
> their work widely
> distributed professionally by recordi- well you get the
idea.

Bingo. And in other similar situations really. There are
some thorny issues 
around these thoughts that it would be better not to have to
deal with if 
BY-SA could take off as is.
>
> - Rob.

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedi
a.org/user/17145

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On 26 May 2006, at 12:44, drew Roberts wrote:

> On Friday 26 May 2006 06:19 am, robrobmyers.org wrote:
>> Quoting drew Roberts <zotz100jamz.com>:
>>>
>>> I know, and if we can get his done with pure
copyleft while  
>>> people can
>>> still find ways to earn a living, I would
prefer that route, but  
>>> we may
>>> need to take some funny paths to get there.
>>
>> We have some ways mapped out already and a few
people trying them. We
>> just need
>> to distract a few more people from the siren call
of NC.
>
> Can you let us in on any of them at this time?

Sorry I meant the merchandising & performance (Loca) and
Street  
Performer Protocol (Elephants Dream) routes. These are all
used in  
proprietary culture as well, SPP is used by bands and by
Russian  
novelists.

> Now, perhaps all of the common ways of patronage end up
with
> the patron calling the shots, but is that really the
only way to go  
> about it?

It's possible to shop an idea around for patronage. Damien
Hirst  
started this way, and SPP is a kind of distributed
patronage.

>> BY-SA seems to be more similar to LGPL than GPL.
The way you can use
>> BY-SA work
>> surprises many people in my experience.
>
> This is an interesting statement. Would you give some
illustrative  
> examples?

You can use a BY-SA photo in a proprietary essay (IIRC).
You can use a BY-SA essay in a proprietary journal.
You can use a BY-SA song in a proprietary album.
You can use a BY-SA show in a proprietary TV channel.

This is all due to mere aggregation, but it surprises
people.

- Rob.
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Rob Myers wrote:
>  On 26 May 2006, at 12:44, drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Friday 26 May 2006 06:19 am, robrobmyers.org wrote:
> >> Quoting drew Roberts <zotz100jamz.com>:
> >>> I know, and if we can get his done with
pure copyleft while
> >>> people can still find ways to earn a
living, I would prefer
> >>> that route, but we may need to take some
funny paths to get
> >>> there.
> >>
> >> We have some ways mapped out already and a few
people trying
> >> them. We just need to distract a few more
people from the siren
> >> call of NC.
> >
> > Can you let us in on any of them at this time?
>
>  Sorry I meant the merchandising & performance
(Loca) and Street
>  Performer Protocol (Elephants Dream) routes. These are
all used in
>  proprietary culture as well, SPP is used by bands and
by Russian
>  novelists.

I should like to point out that SPP is a means of raising
up-front
capital for a free project that requires it.  Elephants
Dream also
relied on "pre-sales", another useful means of
doing the same:
http://www.blender3d.org/e-shop/product_info.php?
products_id=84

Now you can't copy a pre-sale, because you don't have it:
so that
amounts to a closed license on vaporware, which lasts for a
proprietary period until the vaporware becomes downloadable-
ware. Of course, if you're me, you're going to pay for a
copy
even after completion, because (a) it's just easier and (b)
you
want to make the method work (customer goodwill).

A limited duration NC permits exactly the same model, except
the customer gets to "try before they buy". 
Vaporware sales
are liable to suffer from varying degrees of poor trust in
the
completion of the work (or quality).

Another case is the business model proposed by Free Software
Magazine (and other publishers), which permits you to
free-license
your articles (encourages, actually), but keeps a temporary
blackout until the issue comes out.  This is basically the
same
idea, but with durations of 1-6 months (currently FSM is all
online, has no subscription fee, and essentially no blackout
period -- but it will probably revert to a somewhat longer
period
when it goes back to print publication).
http://freesoftwarema
gazine.com

The advantages of this kind of decentralized, low
trust-requirement fund-raising (over centrally-managed
systems) should be obvious to anyone with a grasp of
capitalist economics, but perhaps the idea of using
capitalism in a sane and non-exploitative way is not so
obvious nowadays. 

It just isn't true that capitalist business models are
fundamentally
opposed to free development or the commons. There are many
different ways for them to interact.

The only problem with that is the guarantee.   (E.g. how
long
has Sun been trying to make us think they're 'about' to
release
Java open-source or that the existing license is 'open
enough'?).

This is one major use-case I had in mind when I proposed the
idea that some form of sunset on NC/ND would be a useful
CC license module.  It would enable a simple way to make
this
guarantee explicit and legally-enforceable (the artist would
already have made the required license grant, post-dated).

It also defuses the whole "siren call" issue by
making an NC
choice possible which lacks the long-term deleterious
effects.
Of course, it is a compromise, but so are RSPP, pre-sales,
etc.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community