At 3/5/11 07:19 PM, SBB wrote:
Please, I want a proper source other than yourself if you claim a) that releasing something under a creative commons license completely obliterates your intellectual property and b) that the licenses themselves are completely useless and thus a fraud.
No, it doesn't 'obliterate' your intellectual property. But by publishing under Creative Commons, you are legally waiving the exclusive rights you get under a full copyright.
Creative Commons licenses do what copyright law was actually intended to do in the first place -- releasing work so that the public could benefit from it.
I'm not saying Creative Commons is a useless license or that it's a fraud. It's allowing people to cover your song, create derivative works, and perform it in public without worrying about someone trying to sue them for everything they own. It's getting stuff into the public domain and allowing people to experience it without worrying if they're breaking copyright law.
But you're releasing music on the internet and FOR FREE, and you're doing so willingly, under a license that is not a copyright license and does not -- and cannot -- provide the benefits and protections that come with a real copyright license. So you should expect something like this to happen every once in a while.
But, hey, if you want to try and call me out on it, fine. The way I see it, you can wait until someone steals your music, you can try and sue them, and you can provide "Creative Commons" as your defense. You can then proceed to watch the case get thrown out by the court as the Copyright Office laughs at you, and then you can come back here, formally apologize, and then tell everyone, "Hey, Creative Commons isn't a real Copyright."