Creative Commons has just released its second version of licenses. Among other things, version 2.0 cuts the number of available licenses to six (from 12), makes attribution standard, and allows an option that may require hyperlinks as attribution.

Currently, SNTReport.com licenses original content on this site through the first version of CC’s non-commercial, no-derivative-works, attribution license (also known as "Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial 1.0"). SNTReport.com will continue to license original content on this site through version 2.0 of the same license.

Creative Commons. Announcing (and Explaining) Our New 2.0 Licenses. May 24, 2004.

Creative Commons. Choose License. No date.

Update: One of the new licenses is Recombo, which allows artists to "sample, mash-up, or otherwise creatively transform a work for commercial or noncommercial purposes," subject to certain conditions.

Courtesy of the Creative Commons blog, I have just read an interesting story about how a creator might use the Creative Commons licensing program and still manage to make some money in the process. In particular, the story analyzes Lawrence Lessig’s decision (along with his publisher, Penguin) to distribute free electronic copies of his new book Free Culture, and the business model any author might use in order to earn money from a creative work in the age of digital reproduction and distribution.

"Let’s say you’ve written a book. A book that is worth publishing. Let’s say you’ve got a publisher for your book. A publisher that people have heard of. What happens when you convince your publisher to give your book away, for free, to anyone who wants it? This isn’t about giving review copies to journalists, this is about converting the book into an electronic format and giving it away to the general public so that they don’t have to spend their hard-earned cash on buying a hardcopy for their hardwood bookshelf.

"If you believed the RIAA and other proponents of draconian copyright legislation, what happens when there is a choice between a free (legal or otherwise) download and a bought physical product, people will choose the free version over the bought version. Thus, say the RIAA, each time the free version is downloaded a sale is lost and the creators (read: rights holders) lose out financially.

"By this logic, giving away your book, even with the consent of your publisher, is a bad idea. Commercial suicide even. It’s not something that any sane author should do, surely?"

Suw Charman. Something for Nothing: The Free Culture AudioBook Project. Chocolate and Vodka. May 24, 2004.

"On a panel a few weeks ago, I asked the head lawyer for Apple’s iTunes Music Store whether Apple would, if it could, drop the FairPlay DRM from tracks purchased at the Music Store," said Fred von Lohmann, counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "He said ‘no.’ I was puzzled, because I assumed that the DRM obligation was imposed by the major labels on a grudging Apple.

"Thanks to the recent Berkman Center report on the iTunes Music Store, I think I understand. Apple’s warm embrace of DRM here is every bit as reprehensible as Lexmark’s effort to use DRM to eliminate interoperable printer cartridges and Chamberlain’s effort to use DRM against replacement garage door clickers."

Electronic Frontier Foundation. FairPlay: Another Anticompetitive Use of DRM. Deep Links. May 25, 2004.

A Copyfighter’s Musings. Welfare Economics of FairPlay and DRM Lock-in. May 15, 2004.

Digital Media Project, Berkman Center for Internet & Society. iTunes: How Copyright, Contract, and Technology Shape the Business of Digital Media. (.pdf) (Green Paper, v. 1.2) April 10, 2004.

"Xingtone’s new software, which lets anyone create unique cellular phone rings for free, has some record labels worried it will kill the cash cow that is the ringtone. The software evokes the same ‘oh wow, oh no’ reaction from the labels that greeted the original Napster. The fear is that people will make ringtones out of pirated songs, thus compounding the file-sharing problem while robbing the music industry of a new source of revenue.

The quest for a distinctive cell phone ring has created a $3 billion global market for everything from computer-generated renditions of such classics as The Temptations ‘Just My Imagination,’ to near-CD-quality snippets of popular songs like OutKast’s ‘Hey Ya!.’"

Dawn C. Chmielewski. Do-It-Yourself Ringtone Software Encroaching on Potential Profits, Some Record Labels Say. The Mercury News. May 17, 2004.

Xingtone. Getting Started with Xingtone.

Mere days after our luddites and legislation posting, SNTReport.com has learned that Italy’s parliament has voted in favor of imposing jail sentences of up to three years on anyone caught uploading or downloading unauthorized copyrighted material to and from the Net. The legislation makes Italy one of the first countries to enact legislation that specifically criminalizes file sharing and P2P activities.

While several credible studies have published recently have provided reliable evidence that file sharing and peer-to-peer networking are not the sole — or even primary — causes of the music industry’s lost revenue, Leigh Phillips’s brief story in Digital Media Europe suggests that today’s children are simply doing other things.

"Under-25s spend much more money per year on mobile products than on music. Manifestly, this is not simply a case of youngsters downloading music instead of purchasing CDs, it is a wholesale shift in mindset and way of life from earlier generations," said Phillips. "The mobile, to many young people, maintains a place in their life that pop music did for my generation and that of my parents. There was a survey published last year that found that UK teens are also spending far less on cigarettes and chocolate than preceding generations. What are they spending the money on? Why, mobile phones, of course.

"Thus, this shows, once more, that what is affecting music sales is so much broader than the issue of downloading and piracy."

Leigh Phillips. Mobile Phones are the New Rock and Roll. Digital Media Europe. May 24, 2004.

Tony Smith. Italy Approves ‘Jail for P2P Users’ Law. The Register. May 20, 2004.

The Pew Internet & American Life Project presented at a conference some early findings of an online survey it did of more than 2,700 musicians to gather their views on copyright and file-sharing issues.

Among other things, these musicians are very divided about the problems and marketing potential of online file-sharing systems and they are not sure the recording industry campaign against illegal downloading will help them. Many of these artists themselves share some of their songs for free online and find that it helps them sell more CDs, draw bigger concert audiences, and get more playing time on commercial radio.

The survey of musicians and songwriters was conducted online between March 15 and April 15. While the sample for this survey is not representative or projectable to the entire population of musicians and songwriters, it brings many more voices into the debates about copyright laws, the impact of online music swapping, and the long-term prospects for the music industry.

Pew Internet & American Life Project. Pew Ineternet Project Data Memo: Preliminary Findings from a Web Survey of Musicians and Songwriters. (.pdf) May 2004.

Declan McCullagh, Washington, DC correspondent for News.com, wrote another typically incisive column last week, analyzing the nature of privacy advocacy, particularly as it has been illustrated during the recent objections to Google’s Gmail.

"The objections lodged against Gmail are telling, because they illuminate two different views about how to respond to new technologies. The protechnology view says customers of a company should be allowed to make up their own mind and that government regulation should be a last resort. Privacy fundamentalists, on the other hand, insist that new services they believe to be harmful should be banned, even if consumers are clamoring for them."

Declan McCullagh. Gmail and Its Discontents. News.com. April 26, 2004.