[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: CC Non-waivable Compulsory License Scheme (was: Anti-TPM clauses)

Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:06:12 +0200 Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> > So it seems to me that CC does not make any more limitations or
> > restrictions then those that are already there in the law (e.g. the
> > restriction "you can only buy blank CDs and DVDs if you pay a fee").
> > So this part basically says "we can't circumvent the law". Not much
> > news there, so I would consider the CCv3 equivalent if it simply had
> > this part removed. So in my view this is a non-issue.
> Thanks for adding useful information.
> What is not clear to me is: if "Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes"
> are absurd things such as sort-of-taxes on virgin media (recordable CDs,
> DVDs, ...), why does the clause included in CC-v3.0 licenses talk about
> the right to collect royalties "for any exercise by You of the rights
> granted under this License" ?
> Here's the text of the clause, again:
> |  e. For the avoidance of doubt:
> | 
> |      i. Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes. In those
> |         jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through
> |         any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme cannot be
> |         waived, the Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect
> |         such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted
> |         under this License;
> I fail to see any connection between buying a CD-R(W) and exercising the
> rights granted under the license...
> Hence I cannot understand how can those "Non-waivable Compulsory License
> Schemes" be things like sort-of-taxes on virgin media.

I read this as saying that no-one else can claim the money on his
behalf. If there is a CC-licenced piece of music, presumably someone is
entitled to collect some amount of royalties from the blank media
scheme. I read the whole section as saying "where possible all royalties
are waived, where not possible, no-one else can claim royalties from the

I certainly don't think it can be _worse_ than not including that block.
I'm not necessarily sure such schemes have to exist, it's more covering
their ass; like not using public domain, but an explicit licence, since
not everywhere has PD.


Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: