Intellectual Highway Department

On Wednesday 31 May 2006 02:24 pm, Greg bond wrote:
> On 5/31/06, robrobmyers.org <robrobmyers.org> wrote:
> > Quoting Greg bond <teloscorbingmail.com>:
> > > Yes. This morning on the commute to work, the
idea of using
> > > a sunset approach to a certain niche of
projects could possibly
> > > modify the terrain on which it's built. The
specific project that
> > > came to mind was "Elephant
Dreams".
> >
> > Elephants dream was paid for by pre-sales
(effectively SPP)
> > and is now available BY as a torrent. I believe
that a sunset clause
> > would have killed interest and pre-sales.
>
> I did mention I'd like to see a sunset license tried
on the the
> other side of a blast-door first, didn't I? If it
blows up in someone's
> face, which I'm not entirely convinced that it
wouldn't, I'd rather not
> be pulling shrapnel out of CC for the next few years,
that and end
> up walking with a limp.
>
> > The project would not have happened. Sunset is bad
for people who
> > use it, as they create uncertainty around their
own sales. People will
> > just wait for the sunset.
>
> Well, I think some software businesses GPL the old
versions of code,
> but you have to pay to get the latest rev, so the idea
seems to be
> workable, I just question whether implementing an
artificial barrier via a
> sunset will have the same effect that comes naturally
from software
> revisions.
>
> Some people will just wait for the current version of
the software to
> get released GPL rather than pay for it. But that
doesn't mean that
> you couldn't stilll make an income on the people who
are willing ot pay.
>
> > most software is written in-house, not for
external sales.
> > Money is not made directly on it.
>
> I also believe I said this would be a niche thing,
right?
>
> > But movies are chunkable. The average blockbuster
is now
> > rendered by a number of different effects houses.
The script
> > is derived multiple times before shooting.  And
actors need
> > never meet. I'm not saying this is a good way of
doing things,
> > but it is chunked. 
>
> Yes, yes. When I use a word, it means exactly what I
want it
> to mean. And when I say "chunkable", I mean
chunkable to the
> point that a complete newbie to the project could surf
to the site,
> find something valuable (entertaining) to them, and
then see an
> "edit" button, and spend all of two minutes
adding some improvement
> to the project that would be equivalent to two minutes
of contribution
> by the most experienced editor. And have none of that
two minutes
> be lost by overhead trying to integrate it into the
project.
>
> Wikipedia is chunkable. Grandma could go to an article
about
> knitting because she wants to learn something about
knitting,
> and then notice a spelling error and fix it in less
than a minute.
> No overhead is involved rolling this contribution into
the project.
>
> Maybe chunkable isnt the right word, but it's all I
got so far.
> It basically means a project that fails to follow the
mythical
> man-month that inter-person communication/overhead goes
> exponential as you add people to the project. That
overhead
> remains relatively constant regardless of the number of
people
> because the project requires little or not
communication and
> coordination.
>
> And if you want a hundred thousand people all
contributing
> one hour's worth of work to your project and end up
with
> a 90,000 hour result (10 percent overhead), then you
need
> to figure out how to make the project chunkable or
> (insert better terminology here)

Greg, if this is what you mean by chunkable, do you know of
any significant 
GPL software that is chunkable?

All of the ones I want to make changes to generally take
some significant 
effort at understanding and getting up to speed before I can
even think of 
making some real changes.
>
> > > but there isn't a natural boundary for
versioning that makes a
> > > new version better than an older version.
> >
> > They could get some money to fix the character
animation.
> > I'd pay for that.
>
> Yeah, I don't know. some people would pay for a
re-released version
> of an old disney cartoon with the images cleaned up and
recolored.
> Maybe it translates.  I did purchase a leather bound
copy of
> Hitchhiker's guide even though I owned the individual
paperbacks.

Will someone be so kind as to comment of possible outcomes
if CC were to 
change from licensing the "work" to the
"instance" and if that would allow 
the purchasing of the "freedom" of multiple
quality versions of the work in a 
planned fashion?
>
> > Back to the old Flash Gordon shorts then. Yay!

>
> We showed a Flash short at my old university
> in the main movie theater before every main attraction.
> Imagine my surprise when the first short started
> and I saw the Star Wars crawl of text and thought,
> HEY! But! You! He! How! What!
> After that initial shock, they were actually
entertaining
> in their own way.

Some of the movies available on the internet archive are not
bad to watch 
either.
>
> > Yes, it is a licensing solution to a perceptual
problem.
>
> Well, there may be a real problem that is preventing
> a project from succeeding as a simple commons model,
> such as a lack of chunkability. but I would say that
> licenses don't fix those problems.
>
> Licenses don't change the terrain.
>
> > http://geekz.co.uk/l
ovesraymond/
>
> I've been out of the loop for a bit, apparently.

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 Wednesday 31 May 2006 09:49 am, Greg bond wrote:
> > NC *is* a commons, or so CC would have us think.
>
> if you can show me where CC uses the word
"Commons"
> to describe CC-NC, I will forward them my request
> that they fix it.
>
> > There is no point in it otherwise
> > (ND would serve the same purpose).
>
> Of course there is.
> If an artist wants to give away free samples,
> they need to use CC-NC.
>
> If they give away free samples with CC-ND,
> then I could take their song, upload it to
> Lulu.com and sell CD's on demand.
>
> NC prevents everyone else from SELLING the free sample.
>
> >>  No one should be doing anything
"commons" like with anything licensed
> >>  CC-NC or CC-ND or any other market economy
license.
> >
> > Nevertheless, people do exactly that.
> >
> > What do I tell them?  "Naughty,
naughty"?
> > "What you're doing can't be done!"?
>
> No, you tell them that whatever work they're adding
> to the original will always be at a disadvantage
> compared to the original artist. If they wish to
> contribute anyway, that's their choice. Some people
> like to write fan fiction, and most fanficcers do
> NOT expect to ever get paid. It isn't right or wrong,
> it's just that fanficcers know what they're getting
> into.
>
> Usually.
>
>  >>  What's the problem is that you're relating
to CC-NC as if it should
> >>
> >>  be a commons or it should put works into a
commons area. It doesn't.
> >>  But then, it was never meant to do that.
> >
> > Repetitive, but simply wrong:
> >
> > It certainly /was/ meant to be a commons license,
or there never
> > would have been a CC-By-NC-SA license option.
It's completely
> > illogical from the perspective you describe --
yet, there it is:
> >
> > (From CC's current "meet the
licenses" page).
> >
> > Sure sounds like a promise of commons-like
viability to me.
>
> I ***never*** read it that way. (six asterisks)
> It allows fanfiction and other derivatives that
> aren't commercial.
>
> I think one of CC's first mottos was "spectrum
of rights".
> Only one end of the spectrum is a commons. the other
end
> is various stages of cathedral models.
>
> > As you describe this business model, NC should be
abolished, because
> > it offers nothing you can't get with ND. NC is
fairy gold entirely.
>
> I don't have a problem with CC-NC not being a commons
license.
> Commons licenses are not the only way to solve a
problem.
> Cathedral licenses also solve various problems as well.
> And some of CC's cathedral licenses allow poeple who
want
> to use cathedral approaches do so without signing up
for
> the DRM-DMCA gestapo clauses that they could use.
>
> Cathedral licenses that are more liberal than simple
> All Rights Reserved are a good thing.
>
> > Those people should be using ND, then.  That would
make their
> > no-commons intent clear.
>
> But if they want to allow fanfiction and similar
derivative
> works, they just don't want anyone to charge money for
it,
> CC-NC is exactly what works.
>
> > But you're wrong -- artists are in fact using NC
in a false hope that the
> > collaborative magic will help them. Creative
Commons is contributing
> > to this fallacy.
>
> I'd have to say that this is the first time I've
heard
> anyone say they expected a collaborative, commons-like
> project to spring forth from their CC-NC licensed work.
>
> But I don't get out much.
>
> > Artists using CC-By-NC-SA, in particular, are the
ones I'm interested in,
> > and they do exist.  They are indeed fence-hangers
on the NC/SA line,
> > and I hate to say this, but I have both
theoretical and empirical reasons
> > to believe that as things stand, they mostly
don't shift to the SA side,
> > but to the NC side.  So SA loses content it might
otherwise get.
>
> Way back when CC was first starting it's licenses,
> I was adamant that ShareAlike not be combinable with
> any other license, for the very reason that ShareAlike
> implies a commons and NonCommercial is the antithesis
> of a commons.
>
> I don't have a problem with CC-NC but I do have a
problem
> with CC-NC-SA. If anyone is using CC-NC-SA, they may as
> well switch to CC-NC because there is no share-aliking
> that will occur on any "commons" sort of
scale that would
> need ShareAlike to protect it.
>
> If you want to get rid of a license, get rid of that
> combination that is CC-NC-SA.

I don't like it either, and I remember some of those old
threads. However, the 
one thing NC-SA gives over plain NC is that the derivatives
will not be taken 
to NC-ND. (I don't know if some would consider this an
advantage or not.)

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

drew Roberts wrote:
>  On Wednesday 31 May 2006 02:24 pm, Greg bond wrote:
> > On 5/31/06, robrobmyers.org <robrobmyers.org> wrote:
> >> Quoting Greg bond <teloscorbingmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> Yes. This morning on the commute to work,
the idea of using a
> >>> sunset approach to a certain niche of
projects could possibly
> >>> modify the terrain on which it's built.
The specific project
> >>> that came to mind was "Elephant
Dreams".
> >>
> >> Elephants dream was paid for by pre-sales
(effectively SPP) and
> >> is now available BY as a torrent. I believe
that a sunset clause
> >> would have killed interest and pre-sales.
> >
> > I did mention I'd like to see a sunset license
tried on the the
> > other side of a blast-door first, didn't I? If it
blows up in
> > someone's face, which I'm not entirely convinced
that it wouldn't,
> > I'd rather not be pulling shrapnel out of CC for
the next few
> > years, that and end up walking with a limp.

Greg's probably right.  A proof-of-principle test is
probably the
best next step if it's this hard to convince people.

But my point is this: CC is already eating lead over
promoting NC
licenses to begin with.  Nevertheless, CC folks stubbornly
support
NC because "it's the most popular license".

Lessig called this phenomenon "Is-ism" in his
'Code' book.  These
folks are stuck on the way things are, and are using it as
an excuse
for not changing.

Of course NC is the most popular license, but what does that
mean?

People who don't want a commons aren't going to use CC
licenses
at all.  Even if they do, the NC-ND serves the purpose.  By
this
reasoning, the NC-SA should be almost unused, a marginal
edge-case
license.  In the "loss leader" or "try
before you buy" strategy, where
NC is just an addendum to ARR marketing, the NC-ND ought to
be
the most popular license (it gives the artist the most
control, while
allowing extensive marketing).

But look at the stats: NC-SA /is/ quite popular --

34.03% -- and THE SINGLE MOST POPULAR LICENSE.
               (Source: ht
tp://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_statistics)

Compared to 11.44% By-NC and 21.32% By-NC-ND, or
collectively
32.76% -- still less than By-NC-SA.

And By-SA (13.72%) and By (9.77%) only collectively amount
to 23.49%.

Obviously NC-SA is capturing some serious mindshare with
artists.

What do those people want?  You mention a couple of edge
cases
'makes fanfics legal'.  So what? No one had problems
making fanfics
before -- the non-commercial use is itself a shield against
litigation
(you may technically be infringing, but if there are no
financially
deleterious effects from it, you won't win anything for
your trouble).

So maybe it has a tiny, tiny use-case. But it isn't worth
it. And I
guarantee you that those stats are not coming from that
single
use case.  No way.  There's something more general going on
here --
a market for a non-commercial clause, because the artists
perceive
a value that you and I agree isn't there.

I think they want what SA offers (a commons), but are too
hooked
on the license fees, and find our suggested SA money-making
plans far too marginal to embrace.  What works pretty well
for
software (and it was no clear win -- we are still engaged in
a long
struggle for mindshare from the proprietary software
marketplace),
doesn't work as well for art.

The strategy that made a marginal win for software is a
marginal
loss for art.

Can't we find a way to deliver what these artists want,
instead of a
fake?

> >> The project would not have happened. Sunset is
bad for people who
> >> use it, as they create uncertainty around
their own sales.
> >> People will just wait for the sunset.

Pre-sales create even more uncertainty, because the product
may never
even happen, much less be of sufficient quality. Many people
will just
wait to see if the project succeeds -- we can't all afford
to be patrons.

> > Well, I think some software businesses GPL the old
versions of
> > code, but you have to pay to get the latest rev,
so the idea seems
> > to be workable, I just question whether
implementing an artificial
> > barrier via a sunset will have the same effect
that comes naturally
> > from software revisions.
> >
> > Some people will just wait for the current version
of the software
> > to get released GPL rather than pay for it. But
that doesn't mean
> > that you couldn't stilll make an income on the
people who are
> > willing ot pay.

I think you are seriously underestimating the power of
fashion.

How many people do you know who would listen to an oldies
station
instead of buying new music?  Yes, it probably cuts into the
cost
that the market will bear -- but not brutally.

How many people pay top-dollar ticket prices to see a movie
*now*,
instead of waiting to rent it for cheap on DVD (next year)?

Of course, there *are* people who wait for the DVD rental,
but enough
people go to the movies that there is still money to be made
from
movie houses.

> >> Back to the old Flash Gordon shorts then. Yay!

> >
> > We showed a Flash short at my old university in
the main movie
> > theater before every main attraction. Imagine my
surprise when the
> > first short started and I saw the Star Wars crawl
of text and
> > thought, HEY! But! You! He! How! What! After that
initial shock,
> > they were actually entertaining in their own way.
>
>  Some of the movies available on the internet archive
are not bad to
>  watch either.

SPP might work quite well for an true series or serial. The
first
problem is probably overcoming the perception that
free-licensed
works are automatically of poorer quality (and that mainly
in
getting talent to work for you).

I can imagine something like a typical anime serial -- 13 to
52
25 minute episodes, where each episode is paid for by
pre-sales,
advertised by the previous episode (want to see what happens
next?
buy a copy now!). Somebody has to front the money for the
first
episode though (realistically, if this is a business plan,
they need
to front money for the first 6 episodes to accomodate the
ramp-up
effect as people get into the series).

I think the Orange project has this in mind, but they don't
have the
'series' concept -- just separate short film projects.
That doesn't
seem nearly as strong.  'Story completion' is a powerful
motivator.

Of course, it goes without saying that you need real talent
to make
that work -- writers, directors, actors, etc.  A half-***ed
attempt is
not going to get anywhere, and it'd have to be a gutsy
entrepreneurial
filmmaker who would try this.  On the other hand, it could
become
globally popular.  Maybe Elephants Dream is enough to sell
the
idea, though.

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

drew Roberts wrote:
>  On Wednesday 31 May 2006 09:49 am, Greg bond wrote:
> >> NC *is* a commons, or so CC would have us
think.
> >
> > if you can show me where CC uses the word
"Commons" to describe
> > CC-NC, I will forward them my request that they
fix it.

That's just playing with words.  CC doesn't have to use
the word
commons with specific reference to CC-NC.  There are many
other
ways of expressing the same concepts, and the mere fact that
the
organization promoting it is called the "Creative
Commons"
biases all of its statements to imply commons functionality.

If your name contains "Commons" and you promote
a license at
all, then you are calling it a "Commons License"
unless you explicitly
say otherwise each and everytime you sell it.  It's like
cigarettes --
you need a health label, or you're being irresponsible.

Drew:
 > Greg:
> > Way back when CC was first starting it's
licenses, I was adamant
> > that ShareAlike not be combinable with any other
license, for the
> > very reason that ShareAlike implies a commons and
NonCommercial is
> > the antithesis of a commons.
> >
> > I don't have a problem with CC-NC but I do have a
problem with
> > CC-NC-SA. If anyone is using CC-NC-SA, they may as
well switch to
> > CC-NC because there is no share-aliking that will
occur on any
> > "commons" sort of scale that would
need ShareAlike to protect it.
> >
> > If you want to get rid of a license, get rid of
that combination
> > that is CC-NC-SA.
>
>  I don't like it either, and I remember some of those
old threads.
>  However, the one thing NC-SA gives over plain NC is
that the
>  derivatives will not be taken to NC-ND. (I don't know
if some would
>  consider this an advantage or not.)

I certainly think it is too minor a point to be worth the
negative effects.

Amazingly, we three seem to agree on something.  The
existing
CC-By-NC-SA should be withdrawn.

I'd then like to see NC imply the terms of existing NC+ND. 
People could
always keep using the NC 2.0 if they are really attached to
it.

I'd like to see a new NC-Sunset-to-SA option.  Greg and Rob
feel that it would sap works from the SA pool (note that,
using Greg's
reasoning, it can't possibly do this because of copyleft --
they both mean
actually that it would attract works which might otherwise
go straight
into the SA commons), while simultaneously disagreeing with
me that
it will attract a class of artists who currently use
By-NC-SA.

We have no real data, so I'm not sure how to proceed with
that idea.

But as Greg bond and Mike Linksvayer have both noted, it is
possible
to do this outside of CC.  A pilot project could try it out
via a 
super-license
that just references the two CC licenses (during proprietary
period and
after).  It'd be complicated, and start out at a
disadvantage because of
the lack of endorsement, but it could be done.

I would suggest not calling this sunset option
"NC+SA", but instead
giving it a new identity, and *always* applying a sunset.
This would me
that NC 2.x licenses don't automatically upgrade to it, so
the sunset
doesn't affect existing works.

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 Wednesday 31 May 2006 06:14 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> >  On Wednesday 31 May 2006 02:24 pm, Greg bond
wrote:
> > > On 5/31/06, robrobmyers.org <robrobmyers.org> wrote:
> > >> Quoting Greg bond <teloscorbingmail.com>:
> > >>> Yes. This morning on the commute to
work, the idea of using a
> > >>> sunset approach to a certain niche of
projects could possibly
> > >>> modify the terrain on which it's
built. The specific project
> > >>> that came to mind was "Elephant
Dreams".
> > >>
> > >> Elephants dream was paid for by pre-sales
(effectively SPP) and
> > >> is now available BY as a torrent. I
believe that a sunset clause
> > >> would have killed interest and pre-sales.
> > >
> > > I did mention I'd like to see a sunset
license tried on the the
> > > other side of a blast-door first, didn't I?
If it blows up in
> > > someone's face, which I'm not entirely
convinced that it wouldn't,
> > > I'd rather not be pulling shrapnel out of CC
for the next few
> > > years, that and end up walking with a limp.
>
> Greg's probably right.  A proof-of-principle test is
probably the
> best next step if it's this hard to convince people.

I have not problem with that.
>
> But my point is this: CC is already eating lead over
promoting NC
> licenses to begin with.  Nevertheless, CC folks
stubbornly support
> NC because "it's the most popular
license".
>
> Lessig called this phenomenon "Is-ism" in
his 'Code' book.  These
> folks are stuck on the way things are, and are using it
as an excuse
> for not changing.

Imagine if RMS had that attitude. I am sure the GPL was not
the most popular 
license when it was first invented.
>
> Of course NC is the most popular license, but what does
that mean?
>
> People who don't want a commons aren't going to use
CC licenses
> at all.  Even if they do, the NC-ND serves the purpose.
 By this
> reasoning, the NC-SA should be almost unused, a
marginal edge-case
> license.  In the "loss leader" or
"try before you buy" strategy, where
> NC is just an addendum to ARR marketing, the NC-ND
ought to be
> the most popular license (it gives the artist the most
control, while
> allowing extensive marketing).
>
> But look at the stats: NC-SA /is/ quite popular --
>
> 34.03% -- and THE SINGLE MOST POPULAR LICENSE.
>                (Source: ht
tp://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_statistics)
>
> Compared to 11.44% By-NC and 21.32% By-NC-ND, or
collectively
> 32.76% -- still less than By-NC-SA.
>
> And By-SA (13.72%) and By (9.77%) only collectively
amount to 23.49%.
>
> Obviously NC-SA is capturing some serious mindshare
with artists.

I think you could be onto something here? Should CC run a
questionaire/poll to 
try and find out?
>
> What do those people want?  You mention a couple of
edge cases
> 'makes fanfics legal'.  So what? No one had problems
making fanfics
> before -- the non-commercial use is itself a shield
against litigation
> (you may technically be infringing, but if there are no
financially
> deleterious effects from it, you won't win anything
for your trouble).
>
> So maybe it has a tiny, tiny use-case. But it isn't
worth it. And I
> guarantee you that those stats are not coming from that
single
> use case.  No way.  There's something more general
going on here --
> a market for a non-commercial clause, because the
artists perceive
> a value that you and I agree isn't there.

I know I agree it isn't there.
>
> I think they want what SA offers (a commons), but are
too hooked
> on the license fees, and find our suggested SA
money-making
> plans far too marginal to embrace.  What works pretty
well for
> software (and it was no clear win -- we are still
engaged in a long
> struggle for mindshare from the proprietary software
marketplace),
> doesn't work as well for art.

Also, as in most things, I think it is most apparent to
people who like to 
reference and / or reuse other works in some of theirs.

People who only make completely new works and ony ever
intend to may never see 
any benefit in using a commons friendly license. (The one
thing they may have 
to deal with is having their ARR works compete in the market
with BY-SA works 
when (hopefully not if) the pool of works grows.
>
> The strategy that made a marginal win for software is a
marginal
> loss for art.

Why? If most programmers are paid to develop USE software
and not SALE 
software, why can't most musicians get paid for USE music
and not SALE music?

Now, of those USE programmers, how many only get paid for
their labour when 
writing the software? I would guess most. If you employed by
a bank to write 
software for in house use. Are they really going to let you
have the 
copyright to the program and pay you royalties on it year
after year? If most 
programmers only get paid for "performing" what
is the big deal if most 
musicians only get paid for performing?

Now, here is a benefit from performing Free Music... The
venue will not be 
liable for performance royalties on your show. (If they are,
something else 
is seriously broken. Does anyone know for sure?) You should
eb able to 
negotiate for some of that savings in extra pay.)
>
> Can't we find a way to deliver what these artists
want, instead of a
> fake?

I intend to keep at it. Any ideas for some seed projects?
>
> > >> The project would not have happened.
Sunset is bad for people who
> > >> use it, as they create uncertainty around
their own sales.
> > >> People will just wait for the sunset.
>
> Pre-sales create even more uncertainty, because the
product may never
> even happen, much less be of sufficient quality. Many
people will just
> wait to see if the project succeeds -- we can't all
afford to be patrons.

Which is why I like a combo dollar amount and time period to
freedom. (As an 
idea to be kicked around at this point, not necessarily
implemented as a 
module.)
>
> > > Well, I think some software businesses GPL
the old versions of
> > > code, but you have to pay to get the latest
rev, so the idea seems
> > > to be workable, I just question whether
implementing an artificial
> > > barrier via a sunset will have the same
effect that comes naturally
> > > from software revisions.
> > >
> > > Some people will just wait for the current
version of the software
> > > to get released GPL rather than pay for it.
But that doesn't mean
> > > that you couldn't stilll make an income on
the people who are
> > > willing ot pay.
>
> I think you are seriously underestimating the power of
fashion.
>
> How many people do you know who would listen to an
oldies station
> instead of buying new music?  Yes, it probably cuts
into the cost
> that the market will bear -- but not brutally.
>
> How many people pay top-dollar ticket prices to see a
movie *now*,
> instead of waiting to rent it for cheap on DVD (next
year)?
>
> Of course, there *are* people who wait for the DVD
rental, but enough
> people go to the movies that there is still money to be
made from
> movie houses.

Bingo. And if the fashion trend setters get to sell copies
for a profit?
>
> > >> Back to the old Flash Gordon shorts then.
Yay! 
> > >
> > > We showed a Flash short at my old university
in the main movie
> > > theater before every main attraction. Imagine
my surprise when the
> > > first short started and I saw the Star Wars
crawl of text and
> > > thought, HEY! But! You! He! How! What! After
that initial shock,
> > > they were actually entertaining in their own
way.
> >
> >  Some of the movies available on the internet
archive are not bad to
> >  watch either.
>
> SPP might work quite well for an true series or serial.
The first
> problem is probably overcoming the perception that
free-licensed
> works are automatically of poorer quality (and that
mainly in
> getting talent to work for you).
>
> I can imagine something like a typical anime serial --
13 to 52
> 25 minute episodes, where each episode is paid for by
pre-sales,
> advertised by the previous episode (want to see what
happens next?
> buy a copy now!). Somebody has to front the money for
the first
> episode though (realistically, if this is a business
plan, they need
> to front money for the first 6 episodes to accomodate
the ramp-up
> effect as people get into the series).
>
> I think the Orange project has this in mind, but they
don't have the
> 'series' concept -- just separate short film
projects. That doesn't
> seem nearly as strong.  'Story completion' is a
powerful motivator.
>
> Of course, it goes without saying that you need real
talent to make
> that work -- writers, directors, actors, etc.  A
half-***ed attempt is
> not going to get anywhere, and it'd have to be a gutsy
entrepreneurial
> filmmaker who would try this.  

Not necessarily. It could start with lame things and a top
that approach.

How about a series of howto videos for children? Short. Home
made. Here is 
mine. Do better if you can.

I have also suggested a collection of every country's and
cultures traditional 
music. We could also do a collection of traditional stories.
Traditional 
ghost stories.

There are a lot of useful things to make well short of a big
budget, 
blockbuster movie.

> On the other hand, it could become 
> globally popular.  Maybe Elephants Dream is enough to
sell the
> idea, though.

I think it is likely to take more. We can hope though. It
will be interesting 
to see if we get any decent derivatives any time soon.

>
> 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

On Wednesday 31 May 2006 06:23 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> >  On Wednesday 31 May 2006 09:49 am, Greg bond
wrote:
> > >> NC *is* a commons, or so CC would have us
think.
> > >
> > > if you can show me where CC uses the word
"Commons" to describe
> > > CC-NC, I will forward them my request that
they fix it.
>
> That's just playing with words.  CC doesn't have to
use the word
> commons with specific reference to CC-NC.  There are
many other
> ways of expressing the same concepts, and the mere fact
that the
> organization promoting it is called the "Creative
Commons"
> biases all of its statements to imply commons
functionality.
>
> If your name contains "Commons" and you
promote a license at
> all, then you are calling it a "Commons
License" unless you explicitly
> say otherwise each and everytime you sell it.  It's
like cigarettes --
> you need a health label, or you're being
irresponsible.
>
> Drew:
>  > Greg:
> > > Way back when CC was first starting it's
licenses, I was adamant
> > > that ShareAlike not be combinable with any
other license, for the
> > > very reason that ShareAlike implies a commons
and NonCommercial is
> > > the antithesis of a commons.
> > >
> > > I don't have a problem with CC-NC but I do
have a problem with
> > > CC-NC-SA. If anyone is using CC-NC-SA, they
may as well switch to
> > > CC-NC because there is no share-aliking that
will occur on any
> > > "commons" sort of scale that
would need ShareAlike to protect it.
> > >
> > > If you want to get rid of a license, get rid
of that combination
> > > that is CC-NC-SA.
> >
> >  I don't like it either, and I remember some of
those old threads.
> >  However, the one thing NC-SA gives over plain NC
is that the
> >  derivatives will not be taken to NC-ND. (I don't
know if some would
> >  consider this an advantage or not.)
>
> I certainly think it is too minor a point to be worth
the negative effects.

I am certainly not saying it is worth it, just pointing out
a fact.
>
> Amazingly, we three seem to agree on something.  The
existing
> CC-By-NC-SA should be withdrawn.

I think we actually agree on quite a bit more than that.
Hopefully by going 
back and forth this will become more clear. If we can reach
greater agreement 
as well, so much the better.
>
> I'd then like to see NC imply the terms of existing
NC+ND.  People could
> always keep using the NC 2.0 if they are really
attached to it.

So, you want to kill the NC fanfics?
>
> I'd like to see a new NC-Sunset-to-SA option.  Greg
and Rob
> feel that it would sap works from the SA pool (note
that, using Greg's
> reasoning, it can't possibly do this because of
copyleft -- they both mean
> actually that it would attract works which might
otherwise go straight
> into the SA commons), while simultaneously disagreeing
with me that
> it will attract a class of artists who currently use
By-NC-SA.
>
> We have no real data, so I'm not sure how to proceed
with that idea.
>
> But as Greg bond and Mike Linksvayer have both noted,
it is possible
> to do this outside of CC.  A pilot project could try it
out via a
> super-license
> that just references the two CC licenses (during
proprietary period and
> after).  It'd be complicated, and start out at a
disadvantage because of
> the lack of endorsement, but it could be done.
>
> I would suggest not calling this sunset option
"NC+SA", but instead
> giving it a new identity, and *always* applying a
sunset. This would me
> that NC 2.x licenses don't automatically upgrade to
it, so the sunset
> doesn't affect existing works.

So, any ideas? Any energy to start such an experiment?
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew

ps. btw Terry, did you check out any ideas on large format
scanning?
-- 
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 5/31/06, Terry Hancock <hancockanansispaceworks.com>
wrote:
> But my point is this: CC is already eating lead over
promoting NC
> licenses to begin with.  Nevertheless, CC folks
stubbornly support
> NC because "it's the most popular
license".

I support the CC-NC license as a viable tool for cathedral
projects.
I don't care that the organization is called Creative
Commons.
The license works. It solves a problem. It isn't a
"commons"
problem, but to get upset because Creative Commons
should only do "commons" license because of the
word
"commons" is in the name of the organization is
like
getting upset at General Electric because they went and
built a jet engine and that has nothing to do with
electricity.

You've overextended yourself there.
If you think CC's website needs more
education/clarification,
I might support that. But I'm not tied to the name so
closely
that CC must be a one-horse shop.

> But look at the stats: NC-SA /is/ quite popular --
>
> 34.03% -- and THE SINGLE MOST POPULAR LICENSE.

> Obviously NC-SA is capturing some serious mindshare
with artists.
>
> What do those people want?

I don't know for sure. I think there are some who want to
maintain
controll of their work, but think putting a CC-NC-SA license
on their
work will somehow magically invoke the ShareAlike fairies to
come
and work on their stuff.

But I also think there are some who wouldn't mind
contributing
their stuff under a straight CC-SA license, but simply
can't
figure out how to do that and still make some money doing
it.

And, like I keep saying, the license doesn't solve that
problem.
If the project is in rocky terrain, and they can't figure
out how
to make it work, they fall back to the license they figure
is safe.

That isn't CC's fault. That isn't the creator's fault.
It's simply the nature of the terrain. If you want
to fix that, I suggest finding something that interests
you, something that you know really well, figure
out a way to make that space friendly
to a bazaar model, figure out a way to make it
chunkable, find a goal that is big enough to inspire
but small enough to be realistic in some timeframe,
come up with some short term milestones, and
let 'er rip.

If you solve the terrain problem, a simple copyleft
license will suffice, and it will be easy and natural
for people to contribute their time freely.

> Can't we find a way to deliver what these artists
want,
> instead of a fake?

If they want a commons project but aren't usign a commons
license,
it's probably because the project terrain hasn't been
leveled yet.
The license won't do that, but some tool or other
capability might.

floss encyclopedias had been tried before.
I believe there was one that someone tried
that required people submit their changes and
then had to wait for those changes to get
"approved"
and it was all very rocky terrain.

Then someone invented the wiki tool,
and someone else figured it would be good for
an encyclopedia, and pow.

the wiki was a tool that bulldozed a lot of
previously rocky terrain to make it easy to
contribute to text=based projects. Combine that
with the natural chunkability of encyclopedia
articles, and a bazaar solution becomes natural.

What project, exactly, were you interested in
creating?
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Wednesday 31 May 2006 07:44 pm, Greg bond wrote:
> On 5/31/06, Terry Hancock <hancockanansispaceworks.com> wrote:
> > But my point is this: CC is already eating lead
over promoting NC
> > licenses to begin with.  Nevertheless, CC folks
stubbornly support
> > NC because "it's the most popular
license".
>
> I support the CC-NC license as a viable tool for
cathedral projects.
> I don't care that the organization is called Creative
Commons.
> The license works. It solves a problem. It isn't a
"commons"
> problem, but to get upset because Creative Commons
> should only do "commons" license because of
the word
> "commons" is in the name of the
organization is like
> getting upset at General Electric because they went and
> built a jet engine and that has nothing to do with
electricity.
>
> You've overextended yourself there.
> If you think CC's website needs more
education/clarification,
> I might support that. But I'm not tied to the name so
closely
> that CC must be a one-horse shop.
>
> > But look at the stats: NC-SA /is/ quite popular --
> >
> > 34.03% -- and THE SINGLE MOST POPULAR LICENSE.
> >
> > Obviously NC-SA is capturing some serious
mindshare with artists.
> >
> > What do those people want?
>
> I don't know for sure. I think there are some who want
to maintain
> controll of their work, but think putting a CC-NC-SA
license on their
> work will somehow magically invoke the ShareAlike
fairies to come
> and work on their stuff.
>
> But I also think there are some who wouldn't mind
contributing
> their stuff under a straight CC-SA license, but simply
can't
> figure out how to do that and still make some money
doing it.
>
> And, like I keep saying, the license doesn't solve
that problem.
> If the project is in rocky terrain, and they can't
figure out how
> to make it work, they fall back to the license they
figure is safe.
>
> That isn't CC's fault. That isn't the creator's
fault.

Insofar as CC is unwilling to take the ethical stand that
the FSF does, it may 
be. On the other hand. CC might have the better approach.

Insofar as the creator is unwilling to experiment with
different licenses and 
business models, it may be. I will be the first to admit
that I do not have 
any proven models with a history of success for most of
these areas we are 
discussing. I am running experiments and seeding the commons
though. I have a 
feeling that the accumulation of a large body of copyleft
works may be all 
that is needed to level the terrain in many areas. There is
no way to prove 
that until such a body of copyleft works are in existence
though.

> It's simply the nature of the terrain. If you want
> to fix that, I suggest finding something that interests
> you, something that you know really well, figure
> out a way to make that space friendly
> to a bazaar model, figure out a way to make it
> chunkable, find a goal that is big enough to inspire
> but small enough to be realistic in some timeframe,
> come up with some short term milestones, and
> let 'er rip.
>
> If you solve the terrain problem, a simple copyleft
> license will suffice, and it will be easy and natural
> for people to contribute their time freely.
>
> > Can't we find a way to deliver what these artists
want,
> > instead of a fake?
>
> If they want a commons project but aren't usign a
commons license,
> it's probably because the project terrain hasn't been
leveled yet.
> The license won't do that, but some tool or other
capability might.
>
> floss encyclopedias had been tried before.
> I believe there was one that someone tried
> that required people submit their changes and
> then had to wait for those changes to get
"approved"
> and it was all very rocky terrain.
>
> Then someone invented the wiki tool,
> and someone else figured it would be good for
> an encyclopedia, and pow.

Actually, I think it was the same people. Here is a
wikipedia link on the 
matter:

http://en.wikipe
dia.org/wiki/Nupedia

I also think that this, again, may actually have been more a
matter of 
philosophy instead of tools. That is, they had the tools but
had a structure 
that did not take advantage of them.

Mind you, this does not work against your contention. By
their rules, they 
were taking something inherently chunkable and making it
artificially 
unchunkable.

I am still awaiting your input on which major free software
projects are 
chunkable to the level you stipulate as being necessary for
free art / 
content projects to succeed.
>
> the wiki was a tool that bulldozed a lot of
> previously rocky terrain to make it easy to
> contribute to text=based projects. Combine that
> with the natural chunkability of encyclopedia
> articles, and a bazaar solution becomes natural.
>
> What project, exactly, were you interested in
> creating?

I know that question was not directed at me but:

http://www.ourmedi
a.org/user/17145

that is my page at ourmedia.org

and there you will find:

short howto videos on making paper planes of different
designs,

some photos of various scenes,

two short stories, (?? are they long enough to be called
that?)

and the first draft of my 2005 nanowrimo novel
"Tings"

all released under a BY-SA license.

If I can ever get organized and on track again, I want to
put up a lot more.

The site is a pain these days for speed, but there are
supposed to be new 
servers due "soon."

I have made some other suggestions, but apparently they do
not even excite 
enough interest to generate a comment. I must be more of an
oddball than I 
imagine.

Oh, and I am working on some simple animated videos using
ktoon as well. 
Coming soon to a theatre near you. [ ~ ]

Here is another idea that just came to me...

"Net Stars International"

What is Net Stars International you ask with great
excitement and worms on 
your tongue?

It is a net based star search competition. Initially
centered around music. 
All performances must be completely BY-SA licensed.

There is a ten dollar entry fee. You must create your own
video of your 
performance (ogg-theora format) and send it in along with an
ardour 
multitrack project file or if you cannot send in an ardour
file, a separate 
uncompressed wav file of each track (or compressed with
flac.)

What else do we need to do for something like that to have a
chance of flying? 

Final winner gets a big chunk of the entrance fees. Winner
also gets featured 
on the front page of _______ for a month. (Come on Google,
step up to the 
plate and help out the commons with this. Would someplace
else be better?)

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

Regarding Greg's suggestion for a system to identify CC
music people 
will like,
here's a Digg-style (user voting) system for CC music:

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/01/digglike_site
_to_tra.html

- Rob.

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

Rob writes:
> Regarding Greg's suggestion for a system to identify
CC music people
> will like,
> here's a Digg-style (user voting) system for CC music:
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/01/digglike_site
_to_tra.html

You triggered a connection here. Recently, I released the
source code
to my Digg-like project Upwarded.com under a GNU GPL/
Creative Commons
license. It can all be downloaded here:
http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2006-03-21-n80.html

(If anyone can tell me, I don't know if it's OK to put the
"Re:"
preceding the subject so I removed it for now to not cause
troubles
with filters.)

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