I used to be a big fan of the NC, until I realized that I was only using it to prevent other people from making money from something I did. And then I realized that that made me just as bad as all the other culture cops out there, and since I didn't care if people copied my stuff, why should I care if they profit off of it? Ultimately, what I wanted was the credit for the parent work, and as long as there's a CC-BY, I'm still good.
I still do SA, though, as a matter of principal.
That being said, I think that NC and ND are good things to have to promote openness in otherwise gated content. I think if CC did away with these clauses, they would get fewer new adopters. The better solution is to keep these clauses around to encourage growth, but to educate people (as I was educated) that while it might be comforting to have the NC/ND clauses, they should only be used as a gateway to better access to content.
Also, if the CC got rid of NC, Cory Doctorow's new books wouldn't be released under CC-4.0 licenses due to an agreement he has with his publisher.
Maybe Google is just trying to bring awareness to the ridiculousity of patent laws and how they only manage to harm the general public and stifle innovation, and is doing this by targeting the squeakiest wheel on the block, Apple users.
I just hope that someone will appreciate the irony.
Di Filippo's regular column in FSF is called "Plumage from Pegasus" in which he satirizes "current events" with a somewhat humorous sci-fi twist. This particular article's title is "What Immortal Hand or Eye Could Frame Thy Dreadful Copyright?".
Also, in a 1953 issue of the same magazine, Donald F. Reines contributed his satire "The Shape of Copyright to Come" (sometimes called "Interplanetary Copyright"). It was originally published in the Information Bulletin of the Library of Congress that year, but I can't seem to find a link. It's well worth reading copyright satire if you can get your eyes on it.
While I'm not a lawyer, I believe the answer is yes to both of those questions. You can dedicate your works to the public domain prior to the 70 years after your death (take at look at the Creative Commons licenses CC0 or Founders Copyright for two such examples).
Likewise, in the US if you have assigned your copyright to another entity, you can reclaim it after (I think) 30 years. The ultimate question though is: does the publisher actually hold the copyright to the work, or have you just exclusively licensed that work for them to publish?
Re: Re: Re: Re: This allows them to 'remix' the past and resell it.... who wouldn't want that?
According to Wikipedia, the top 10 grossing films in 2011 were as follows:
1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (second part, sequel, based on a book)
2. Transformers: Dark of the Moon (sequel, based on toy line, etc.)
3. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (sequel, based on amusement park ride and unrelated pirate book)
4. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 (sequel, based on book)
5. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (sequel, based on television series)
6. Kung Fu Panda 2 (sequel)
7. Fast Five (sequel)
8. The Hangover Part II (sequel)
9. The Smurfs (based on television series, comic)
10. Cars 2 (sequel)
I'm wondering how many films released lately are actually original...
This would be like if I sued Joss Whedon for his film "The Cabin in the Woods" because it, like my 2010 novel "In a Cabin, in the Woods" features an isolated cabin in the woods and sleeping elder gods awakening.
(Of course, this completely ignores the fact that, according to Wikipedia, the filming was complete in 2009, but had some release delays due to bankruptcy. However, since I had never heard of this film until after I wrote my novel, I'm sure I'd have a case...)