Creative Commons struggle

Doug Kaye, the producer of IT Conversations , is questioning his Creative Commons license.

The reason he mentions: “They (Advertisers), need to know how many people are hearing their promotional announcements, and for that reason I need statistics: counts of the number of listeners. … But if you copy an IT Conversations recording and host it on your own web site (as currently allowed by our Creative Commons license), we won’t be able to include your listener counts in our totals.”

And further: “You don’t let others just copy and re-host your complete web pages; you want readers to come to your site to read what you’ve written. Google page ranks and all that. It’s no different with audio programming.”

This is an interesting case for me. In the comments, people advise different things. This goes from suggesting a “derivation of the CC license”, “understanding” and the opposite “I’ll start removing my links to IT Conversations if you restrict the licenses to non-CC”.

I already wrote about my choice for non-CC.

Two simple reasons: I want to know what happens with my content (page ranks, advertising) and I consider my blog as a book where the posts are the pages.

CC license is great, but people shouldn’t make it a religion.

Update 06/03:
There seems to be “a license designed specifically to permit sampling”.

U zegt?
  1. VH says:

    What’s wrong with CC, Smetty?
    Maybe the situation is different for audio, but for images it works well. I always look at the CC button, and it gives me a clear option. Can I use these images or not? After all, I’m tired of mailing sites whether I can use their stuff, and explain how I want to do it, and how I want to give them credit. And if you want to track where all your visitors come from, just use a referrer tracker. Or did I get it all wrong? (don’t worry, I’m wrong often 😉 )

  2. Smetty says:

    Oh no, CC license is great. My next project will go with CC by the way. (serious)

    I just want to have the freedom to decide when I don’t want it. People should not have to defend themselfs when they want full copyright.

    That’s why I say, don’t make it a religion. What about the freedom to choose what to do with your own content and material?

    I know that lots of people don’t agree with me on that. So be it.

    Don’t forget what I said in the first sentences. And if I would have only a few people asking me to copy my content, I would reconsider.

    Keep on asking Hugo, and I’ll change my mind 😉

  3. Dafke says:

    Euhm (ja sorry niet in het engels, tis nog vroeg!) maar is die CC licensie dan iets nuttigs of juist niet. Want ik weet het eig niet zo goed!

  4. LVB says:

    I don’t question your non-CC license, but your explanation:

    “I want to know what happens with my content (page ranks, advertising)”.

    First, with a non-CC license, nothing much will HAPPEN with your content outside of your own blog. When you have a CC license with attribution (which, on the web, comes down to linking), things will happen with your content, and the linking will probably improve your page rank.

    Because attribution comes down to linking, you will KNOW what happens with your content outside of your blog, by looking at your referer stats.

    But when you wrote “I want to KNOW what happens with my content”, you meant “I want to CONTROL” what happens with your content. That’s something different. Control is possible, but it has a price in terms of the ‘mindshare’ your content will have.

  5. Smetty says:

    Yeah, yeah… I’ll listen to the advice of all those old wise men. Copyright deleted, creative commons added.

    I hate old wise men.

Leave a reply.