.CC-ND , Why do we need it?
So, with the inclusion of nd and nc in the different licenses that CC offers, we can actually define Creative Commons License as a license which (at least) allows others to use the work for personal purpose, to distribute the work, to get the work free of cost. “No derivative allowed” basically didn’t (doesn’t?) make sense to me because I usually prefer Free Culture in the sense that I think people should be allowed to use others product in their own product so that the creativity will work upon the existing work rather than to build already existing work. So, with the same thoughts I contacted pornophonique, (Kai basically) and asked him if they could release their songs without nd clause. Well, he was aware of the issues ( I was impressed by that) and gave a good reason for that, quote from his mail
The songs are under nd because we want to know the idea or the script of the video/the remix before someone is using our songs e. g. for some rassist or sexist content. We wouldn’t like to be involved in stuff like that. Also the licence says that everyone should feel free to ask for our permission. And be assured that we got only a few principles that prevent us from giving anyone our authorization.
The reason is pretty genuine. So, I do not know to what extent cc-nd is logical.
Good job on being active again. It’d be cool if you could bcc me on the emails like this that you send in the future.
That is the same response I got from Allison Crowe’s manager, Alex. It’s a genuine concern, but I don’t like it at all. That’s like saying “We aren’t going to waive this right, not because we don’t want our work to get remixed, but because we want to limit free speech.” Under a CC license (apart from CC pd), you can’t use a work in such a way that it looks as though the original author endorses your work. In a case like this, they would probably have to explicitly state, “Pornophonique does not necessarily endorse our views.”
And besides, the whole point of CC is to create a frictionless environment between creators, consumers, and reusers. It’s nice that they will say yes if I ask them, but why should I have to go through the hassle of asking them? What if I didn’t know how to contact them? Copyright persists beyond death, so what happens when they die and I have to hunt down whoever inherits their rights? nd really defeats the point of CC and cripples creativity.
Comment by Conley — October 6, 2007 @ 11:45 am
true, like you mentioned before, we would not have used steep’s songs in drake video if we had to take permission from them.
). The only thing is where you define the limit, which is very subjective. 
…
I wish if some one could come up with a license scheme in which the re-user will explicit state that the remix need not be endorsed by the main author. But still, the concern (Kai has) shown is that the work will still be used by bad guys.
I replied to Kai saying that 99 good guys should not be deprived for 1 bad guy.
“free speech”? well, there has to be a limit in every thing…. (the concept of having society
Comment by rohitj — October 6, 2007 @ 12:18 pm