Lazerbeat wrote:While I applaud the effort I have a couple of fundamental issues with CC. First it feels a bit toothless, even assuming it gives me a robust legal platform from which to ask someone not to do whatever with my songs I still need the time, money and effort to make said someone stop doing it. It doesn't seem better than traditional copyright in that way.
I agree with this, that's why Lessig turned into an anti-corruption crusader. He knows that as long as money is lingua franca it really doesn't matter what our licenses and laws say.
Lazerbeat wrote:CC seems very vauge on a couple of salient points, most notable cover versions and samples. No idea at all what it covers there.
There is copyright on the lyric/music and there is copyright on a sound recording. Sampling requires a license to the recording as well as the song, cover requires license of only the song. Any license, including CC, can cover either of the bits (lyric, music, recording) separately, and you can give different parameters to each.
Lazerbeat wrote:Lastly quite a few people dont understand what the licenses mean, i have seen numerous cc-nc-nd works on weeklybeat for example which contain large samples of commercial music and movies which surely cant be right.
They probably violate terms of service... can't really say what would come of the works until somebody gets brought to court, though. I think it's safe to agree that they're just rubber-stamping their music in ignorance of the law behind it.
