I’m not criticizing the site for lacking a CC license, though; merely observing the difference. As I said in the post, my sense is the end user is going to find that licenses on both this site and the CC sites give them the freedom they need. Other functionality and content are likely more significant differences.

Mostly what we want to stop is the wholesale reuse of what’s on CDM. We actually do want the right to maintain readership on this site. The biggest problem has been people scraping RSS feeds and putting the whole thing somewhere else automatically. They may not care about CC versus Copyright, but at the same time, I actually really dislike tools like ReBlog. I’d rather read something original by someone with a link and an excerpt that just a cut-and-paste version of lots of other sites.

Beyond that, I don’t think we need a CC license for the ways in which people already excerpt and link to our content, and people certainly haven’t been shy about doing all the things that we do appreciate.

I think sampling and re-use are most legitimate when you pick and choose the stuff that makes the most sense and label it explicitly.

As an example, I think I will go back and turn on CC license for our Flickr stream, which we intend to use more. I’m not sure if any of the video sites do the same. That’s a case where CC really does make sense … you have a link via the image back to the photographer’s stream (as per Flickr’s rules of content), you very often make connections in the Flickr community, you are required by both Flickr and CC to give credit, and there are very often cases where sampling an image is something you need to do and could not do easily with copyrighted content.

I guess I like the creative commons idea - that “You can use CC to change your copyright terms from “All Rights Reserved” to “Some Rights Reserved.” - which I thought would cover your needs anyway? Mostly I imagine you want to stop commercial re-use of your work, which various creative commons licenses exist specifically to prevent… http://creativecommons.org/license…

Not a biggie - and I only mentioned in the first place, because you were critiquing a sound site for not having a creative commons license, which seemed to make the copyright symbol at the bottom of the post stand out all the more….

As for why my Flickr stuff isn’t CC; um, there I just need to take the time and set up the license, which I do intend to do. Thanks for the reminder. ;)