These are possible changes I would make.

"Because of Creative Commons, a whole new feeling of enthusiasm is arising when in comes to the music industry."

- "in" should be "it"

"This paper will explore the copyright law before Creative Commons, the impact Creative Commons has had on the music industry thus far, the Creative Commons license itself, what Creative Commons allows artists to do, and the possibilities for the future of Creative Commons."

- Try doing this with bullets. It will be easier to read and comprehend.

"With a Creative Commons license, users need not be afraid of finding themselves in court for using the material and creators of the product can be at ease knowing that others are seeing their material."

- Split this into two different sentences. It reads as if the users won't need to be afraid of using the materials and creators of the product.

This is as far as I have gotten. I'll try to post again later.
Good job on the paper.

-1 or 1.5 spacing should be used.
-putting a link within the paper is a bit awkward, I would put it in your list of sources at the end.
-good format of the paper and less repetition from the first time i read it. I saw little to no grammar/spelling errors.
-maybe expand a little more on the International aspect of creative commons. you mention it in the executive summary but don't really follow up on it.
-you have footnotes such as (1) or (2) after quotes, obviously denoting some type of reference but where is it at the end of the paper?
-overall I think it has improved from the last time i read it, I recommend revising it a few more times and think about if you need any other sections that deal with music in the creative commons industry

First thing that struck me is that the executive summary is still pretty long and kind of a pain to read through. Cutting it down or at least breaking it into smaller paragraphs would be helpful.

The way your introduction sets the order of things up doesn't seem to quite carry through to the paper. Synching those two things up a little better might be helpful.

I only skimmed this...but in your section about licensing you don't seem to actually get into the individual licenses. I realize you don't want to talk about all of them, but there are three that were created with the music industry in mind. Why wouldn't you detail how those work?

I think when you're explaining the problem that creative commons hopes to solve you could be more specific to the music industry. There must be a case study or two out there about an artist who has had legal problems related to sampling.

A lot of paragraphs look like they could be broken down some, that would certainly help with readability. Doesn't look like a bad paper, but I think it needs a little more meat and good amount of editing.

• Since the paper is about CC in the music industry, it would make sense to me to try to organize it more around that principle. So, for example, does the copyright section of the paper need to be that long since it talks neither about CC or the music industry. Could it be condensed? Could the copyright section somehow be worked into the CC license section (with subsections of course) so that it fits in where needed if the user needs to know about it? That way, the paper jumps right into Creative Commons rather than having to wait for the backstory. So I would start off after the introduction with "The Change Creative Commons Brings." Then decide whether you need a whole subsection somewhere in the license section or maybe just a paragraph or two there.
• Creative Commons does not actually offer copyrights. They offer licenses--sort of like a contract--which gives user specific rights to use a work not normally allowed under copyright law (in fact, these licenses are enforceable because of the rights given authors under copyright law). Now I've seen some discussions of CC call CC "copyright" but it tends to confuse people, and I think here, is creating some confusion.
• Paragraph 2 of "The Creative Commons License" section is not clear to me since not all CC licenses specify non-commercial use.
• I think the paper would benefit from more specific examples of CC licensed projects and discussions of those projects. Have you looked at the examples listed on the CC audio page and researched these?

I found the paper to be a pretty good look at what creative commons is and how it is and going to affect the music industry. One problem I do see is how you make no mention of Lawrence Lessig. He is a large part of why creative commons is even an issue right now. Being the leading expert in this field, he would be a good name to throw out if somebody wanted to research more on their own about the topic. I thought you did a good job of going through examples of where it has been used and how it has helped people in the industry already. Also I do find some redundancies in your paper, if you just mention one time about how you could end up in court I think the point could get across.

I had no idea about Creative Commons until reading your paper. I think overall your paper is written very well. There is a lot of information that is clear and easy to understand. The paper also flows very well although I think some headings and sub headings will help this along further.

I would try to explain a little bit more on the traditional licensing agreements and then compare them more closely to the new Creative Commons way. I would also maybe expand on the creators a little bit more with maybe some more background information, how they got together and why they decided to do this project.

Overall the paper is defiantly very well written with lots of different sources for information. I know it is only the rough draft but make sure you have someone proof read the paper because some of the sentences do not flow as well as they should.

The seems to be quite a bit of repetition when discussing the characteristics of the creative commons license and what can be done with it. Much of the information in the first 3-4 paragraphs of the section “The Creative Commons License” was mentioned in the previous section. Be more concise.

I would recommend putting the section “The creative Commons License” before the section “The Change Creative Commons Brings.” Having the explanation before the license first will make it easier to understand the changes.

It seems to me that you should note more references throughout the paper. I am assuming that you found all this information in articles and websites and that it is not your own opinion.

Overall I'd say this is pretty good rought draft. Everything flows well together and teaches the reader what CC is, how it is used, and how it affects the music scene. Some editing needs to be done as far as spelling and grammar goes, and the layout of the paper could use some work. For the content though, considering I had never heard of the CC before, I'd say it taught me a lot. You might want to expand on the 11 licenses mentioned. Good examples given as far as how it affects artists, as well. Repition of what you are saying is kind of a problem too. Overall do some more editing and revise thoroughly and you'll be money.

**One group of musicians that have really taken a liking to creative commons would be the garage bands.

Try: A group of musicians that utilize creative commons are garage bands.

**In addition to assuming ownership of nearly the whole MP3.com catalog, GarageBand.com now offer musicians an easy way to license their music through the creative commons

GarageBand.com, owner of MP#.com catalog, offers this group of musicians an easy way to license their music using creative commons.

**Garagebands.com is a site that both hosts independent music and uses a peer-review process to identify hot bands is now offering the Creative Commons Music Sharing License to artists who want to distribute their tunes for free. The site has focused its efforts on building a community of musicians and has also uses the internet to find talented new groups.

Try: This site hosts independent music and uses a peer-review process to identify to bands. It is now offereing the Creative Commons Music Sharing License to artists who want to distribute their tues for free. Garageband.com focuses its efforts on finding new talented groups by building a community of musicians.

**Work in the GarageBand link within the text, not just a link out in the middle of no where.

**Legal” music sharing sites have now been showing up on the internet. This may be the future of audio file sharing, but first we would need to see how these programs are different from their predecessors, and why, hopefully, they are better.

Try: Internet sites that share music legally are present possibly being the future of audio file sharing, but they need to be better compared to their predecessors.

For the most part when doing this rough draft we were going for content, trying to get as much information as we could. We know that we need to do more research and were going to work on that. We were kind of iffy about our executive summary, we probably need to look more into other groups examples to try to perfect ours. With the sentence on "The main benefit of Creative
Commons is that artists can get there music to a broader audience." We meant it used for this topic, like you said there is many other benefits, maybe we will think about cutting that out, or going into more detail about it. Were going to make our paper more formal for the next draft by adding bulleting, headings, and reshaping it inot a more formal document.

As for researching our topic more, we will get on that soon. I think that our group has a better understanding of the basis for our white report, during last week we felt rushed and questionable about what we were doing. MOst of us havent written reports for a couple of years and especially on something that we didnt have any clue about to begin with.

With our articles that we added, we all tried to find one. THe one in question is mine, i found it in Rolling Stone and it talked about the blog side of Creative Commons sharing in the music industry. I am going to reword some of it and try to make it more fitting for our topic. Let me konw if i need to just drop it, i thought that it would be a great article to add. What are the problems that you see with it??

Once again being that it is a rough draft, we still have more work ahead of us, thanks for the comments to give us a start.

When you are making refrence to a person or source you need to identify who they are and what relevance they have to the topic. Who is Matt Haughey? "Matt Haughey says..." You could say "Matt Haughey of such and such company, says..." to that extent.

You say the main project for creative commons "is starting with is introducing their technology for music sharing", so make this part of the beginning of the statement.

The topics do relate to each other, but they tend to overlap in content.

When changing topics within the paper follow the white paper outline by making a header for the topic. (refer to the first white paper reading assignment)

When making refrence to a sournce do not put in the complete URL. create a hyperlink to the site with text. This way the text does not look so cluttered.

Hope this helps :-)

"Creative Commons is a non-for-profit company that is using creative ways of copyrighting works of art and then enabling others to download it"--for this part, it may be more clear to the reader if you just list examples of such creative ways, and then later explain them in the paper. This will help keep the attention of the audience and want them to continue to read on.

"This has been a debatable and hot topic over the past five years with Napster, Kazaa, and Bearshare undergoing investigations for copyright infringement."---providing a real-case example of someone prosectuted for illegal file sharing on one of these sites might make the issue more realistic to your audience.

"The music sharing license that Creative Commons uses a three-layer interface to incorporate the legal bindings of the music."---before going on to explain the elements of the three-layer interface, you may want to create a bulleted list to make these stand out to the reader, then insert the paragraph summary of each element.

"They offer different types of copyrights for your works like Attribution, Noncommercial, Derivative Works, and Share Alike."--this part is confusing to me, and may be to other unfamiliar readers. Define each of these copyrights so that users will know which type is appropriate for their use.

"Once you have made your choices, you will get the appropriate license expressed to you in three different ways."--this might be another good area to create a bulleted list to make an impact of the 3 ways before explaining each.

The executive summary is explaining too much of what you went through to compose the paper. I think it should be more of an overall summary of your paper, not your hardships, because your reader doesn't really care about that when they are looking for information.

"Creative Commons has incorporated web blog use in with their file sharing"---A weblog and a blog are the same thing.

Open source Morpheous is talked about...but what is open source? What does it mean?

The "Analysis of my article" sections seems very out of place and not really realted to the rest of the paper.

Where any sources used? And if so, where are they?

Overall, the topics flowed well and tied into each other. I feel as if the overall issue was addressed pertaining to music, being copyrighted and also being shared.

The CC weblog regular features new intiatives using CC licenses.