Mass Appeal					GangStarr
America						M83
Piano Overlord (Diplo Electric Manatee Remix)	Piano Overlord  
Music And Wine					Blue Six
Love Music (Twisted Jazz Mix)			East West Connection
Everything To Gain				Fischerspooner 
Check The Technique				GangStarr
I Can't Go For That				Hall & Oates
Disco Love					Ian Pooley
West End Girls					Pet Shop Boys

Working on DB project ish. Back to it.

Current Listening: Phunkie Decknicians, Volume Two - The Next Departure... bosh bosh filter bosh... bosh bosh jack jack jack... here's a setlist.

I wrote about this recently from the "who and why?" (of CC -ed.) perspective not too long ago. In there I asked ...where's the moral/ethical high ground in making Mariah Carey's "We Belong Together" public domain? Folks like Mariah Carey and Dvorak are not prime candidates for CC licenses. And when you draw audiences like either of them do (deservedly or not) a CC license is probably a hindrance. Unless you really think your work can and should pass more quickly into public domain. ("We Belong Together" going to go down in history alongside "Happy Birthday" and the anthems of Francis Scott Key?)

From my perspective, the question of whether or not a CC license on Work X would be a hindrance for someone who is compensated for their role in the content industry is largely unresolved. Fair use rights alone have given Dvorak's column all the air it could have reasonably expected to generate, so I don't see a real application for the license in that case. A CC'd release of a pop hit hasn't been tried, though you have to wonder what the effect would be given the studies we've seen of the effects of p2p (an ostensibly illicit commons, but a commons none the less). It's fair to think that benefits might outweigh negatives if the release were used effectively as a promotional tool (say, by making producer-friendly acapellas and instrumentals available for indie remixing and mashups).

Note that I'm not making a, "the author is morally compelled to grant access to the work" argument here. My point is that there are potential upsides for the author, regardless of their role in the content ecosystem; the issue is determining, empirically, what those opportunities are. This isn't to say that there isn't a compelling argument that the balance of power between rights holders and consumers hasn't been skewed, or that there are questions of the public good that need to be addressed, just that I'm not going there right now.

As a side note, and I'm picking a nit here, a CC doesn't hasten a work's entry in to the public domain unless the rights holder specifically chooses one like the Public Domain or Founder's Copyright deeds. The public has more access to the material than they might have had otherwise, but generally the term of the author's lifetime plus seventy years is still in effect (or 95 years from publication if the work has a corporate owner, etc).

Finally, a total aside: Cornell has a nice term of ownership table.

The best part is that the concert is at the CapCenter (saw Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson there in, like, 1995) so the crowd is simply chock with Murland accents. They're goin' down Ocean City after da show!