Re: [LAU] OT: releasing music under Creative Commons

Quick follow up with a couple of links. Shows some of the confusion
around the definition and understanding of what non-commercial means
in practice, and why I generally don't like it.

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial

It's also interesting in comparison to the GPL, which specifically
disallows restrictions on commercial usage (I'm not saying that I
think a direct translation of the conditions of a software licence
necessarily are right in the artistic / music field).

Best wishes,

Neil

-- 
Neil C Smith
Artist : Technologist : Adviser
http://neilcsmith.net
Praxis - open-source intermedia system for live creative play -
http://code.google.com/p/praxis
OpenEye - specialist web solutions for the cultural, education,
charitable and local government sectors - http://openeye.info
On 19 July 2012 23:45, Burkhard Wölfel <versuchsanstalt@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Am 18.07.2012 um 22:58 schrieb mn0 <mn0@email-addr-hidden-up.de>:
>
>
>> On 18.07.2012 22:03, Folderol wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:27:37 -0700
>>> Kris Calabio <kriscalabio@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, to bump an old thread, but I want more feedback about this.
>>>> With a
>>>> cc-by-sa, what are the pros and cons of other people selling my music
>>>> without requiring my permission?
>>
>>
>> Pro
>> -exposure for free
>> -links to your page
>> -SA stops them to use it where big money is involved. (They'd buy a
>> license from you instead of putting latest hollywood movies under sa)
>> -easier to manage for small broadcasters of all kinds.
>>
>> Con
>> -Other people can distribute physical devices of your work and earn
>> money. You better offer these yourself, too. If you can't afford
>> pressing a cd, that would blockbust the music world... maybe someone
>> else is going to do it for you.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In theory the SA (share alike) should stop them, as if you've given it
>>> free,
>>> they would have to do the same.
>>
>> SA means derived works are given away under the same license, not same
>> conditions. You may sell them.
>>
>>> How precise the wording is and strong the
>>> protection is, I don't know.
>>>
>> read it here:
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
>>
>> quoting 4b)
>> "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the
>> terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with
>> the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons
>> jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that
>> contains the same License Elements as this License"
>>
>> /mn0
>
>
> Anybody failing to state author and license appropriately will void the
> license. So the radio station of any size will have to return to the golden
> age of announcing what's being played _and_ the license. With all the other
> stuff playing without mention, this can be excellent PR.
>
> If they wouldn't comply, they could be sued. Which can be turned into good
> advertising once again, because your original offer was honest and good.
>
> NC may exclude any distribution where there is payment or advertising
> involved. So I would not use the NC clause without offering an alternative.
> ("please ask for an individual license that will fit your needs, like
> $example (Link!) and $other_example have done").
>
> The pricing of individual licenses should be like the name says: individual.
> There are many use cases: Small and big budget, with and without a lawsuit,
> big or small label or radio station, ymmv.
>
> Gotta cut it down to one point here, sorry to be in a hurry.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user