> I > only have a problem with the "non-commercial only" part of some > licenses (I think, it's only one of the CC licenses), because this > like "pollutes the environment", that CC also tries to create. I'm not sure that it does damage the commons. For professional artists to contribute to the commons, there has to be a safeguard against loss of livelihood. Bear in mind that reserving the right of commercial exploitation for yourself doesn't mean that work can't be commercially distributed - it just means a prospective commercial distributor would have to have the artists' blessing to do it, and I don't see what's wrong with that. I don't think any musician (professional or otherwise) would put out a CD if they knew a commercial rival - who hadn't put a cent into artist wages or album production - could duplicate that CD legitimately and sell it at a lower price in the same market, perhaps with better distribution. Even independent releases by amateur artists have to be paid for, and just imagine how upset you'd be if your CD became popular and some label that didn't care about your music made a lot of money on it, while you couldn't even afford to record a follow-up. If musicians had been able to preserve this right for themselves, instead of signing it over to labels, then maybe the record industry would have been very different. I believe the opera singer Caruso, who was one of the very first musicans to record, was able to negotiate a deal where he would get a 10% of retail royalty. I've heard the standard these days is more like 12% of wholesale before deductions - so much for a hundred years of progress! Cheers Daniel
