Online music distribution companies may not want Creative Commons music • Hacker News Board

Re: Online music distribution companies may not want Creative Commons music

#21

Post by a3_nm » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 9:22 AM UTC

shams93 wrote: post #8

Cc its really pretty nuanced you can have tunes you give away for free for people to enjoy but a commercial company would have to license it to use it in their film. I think CC Music is the future, not these crummy middle men services. Think about it, if you band is able to get shows where you have a $4,000 minimum per night off of "giving away" your music then you've won without having to sell a single song.

Note that your first sentence does not apply to all Creative Commons licenses, only to the ones with the NC clause.

Re: Online music distribution companies may not want Creative Commons music

#22

Post by chmike » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 9:28 AM UTC

hueving wrote: post #15

chmike wrote: post #14

Cc is the open source of creation. I'm fascinated by the power of open source. capitalism pushed to its extream is harmful to humanity. Just look at junk food to convince yourself if you aren't yet. By its incremental enhancement, it leads to exponential growth. It is slow in the start because incremental steps are small, but it leads to a tsunami. I believe we are on the verge to see a fundamental change in the way…

It seems you are implying that food which people like to eat (junk food) wouldn't be created in an 'open source' economy. Why?

That is not what I wrote, but it's an intresting question. It probably would but not to the actual extend US is currently facing.

Let's face it. Looking at what happens in science, we see that there is junk science and there are cheaters. So this would probably still exit in a pure open source economy. However, the incentive to create junk things just for the profit would be much smaller. The main reason, in my opinion, is because the reward of junk food creation is unrelated to its added value to humanity. With open source, the succes is more strongly related to the real added value of the product.

Note that the apparent success of junk food is not only due to people liking them. It's also because of strong marketing efforts, manipulating health tests and reports and organisations that should establish health rules, etc. It's also difficult to find healthy food because they saturate the market with it which leaves hardly any room for healthy food.

Re: Online music distribution companies may not want Creative Commons music

#23

Post by Natsu » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 9:29 AM UTC

andrewaylett wrote: post #18

Surely part of the problem is that content-id is a bit far-reaching for CC-licensed content? That is, as my understanding goes: if I release music under CC then you use that music, per its license, to make a derived work and stick it on YT, now I get paid for (and get to stick adverts on) your fully-licensed work! That seems a bit unfair. So I can see that there would be benefit to a creator being able to monetise th…

Often the people monetizing the CC licensed stuff aren't even the real owners. I've heard of quite a few people whose own work got monetized without their consent.

Re: Online music distribution companies may not want Creative Commons music

#24

Post by makomk » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 9:31 AM UTC

RileyJames wrote: post #4

I was considering releasing some music under the CC SA-NC for exactly this purpose. I want people to share it, but I don't want it expoited without permission (which I'd gladly give, I just want to know by who). To avoid the distribution issue, is it possible to use a CC licence for music downloaded from your website, while using a RR licence when providing to the distributors? (On the same song). Any reason why the…

The problem isn't a distribution issue, the problem is that he wants to be able to tell other people that they're allowed to use his music for free, then turn around and tell YouTube that they need to redirect all the ad revenue from videos using it into his pockets as payment for using it, adding ads if necessary. That's a sleazy, dishonest thing to do. (Even for CC-BY-NC as you're adding ads to non-monetized videos against the creator's wishes - and possibly in violation of the license of other elements of the video.) Also, what matters to the distributors is whether any of the music was ever released under Creative Commons. Releasing a slightly different version probably won't help either for this reason.

Re: Online music distribution companies may not want Creative Commons music

#25

Post by icebraining » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 9:40 AM UTC

john61 wrote: post #19

hueving wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you are implying that food which people like to eat (junk food) wouldn't be created in an 'open source' economy. Why?

Because in an open source environment the quality of the product is not defined by its commercial success but rather by the fun to create and share it. Therefore it is more in line with its intrinsic quality.

Therefore it is more in line with its intrinsic quality.

What is this intrinsic quality, and why does it correlate better with the fun during creation than with the decision by people to buy it?

Re: Online music distribution companies may not want Creative Commons music

#26

Post by makomk » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 9:50 AM UTC

tehwebguy wrote: post #7

I kind of hope YouTube gets mad and tells those distros to eat shit. Aside from rights management do these "distros" do ANYTHING anymore? And they are too lazy to do any rights management work that YouTube isn't performing semi- or fully-automatically? YouTube should not allow them to simply be gate keepers.

I expect YouTube is the one imposing these requirements on the distributors. Licensing your content under the Creative Commons, then going around and telling YouTube that anyone who uses it is infringing your copyright and they need to pay you to keep it up is dishonest and damaging to the YouYube ecosystem as a whole.

Re: Online music distribution companies may not want Creative Commons music

#27

Post by clarry » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 9:56 AM UTC

lucaspiller wrote: post #17

As someone who isn't at all familiar with music distribution, is YouTube really the best way for indie artists to distribute, and monetise, their music? The audio quality seems a lot lower compared to Spotify, and I don't really want to waste bandwidth on a video just to listen to music while I'm working. On the other hand I've noticed some mainstream music is blocked for me on Spotify, but available on YouTube.

I don't know about monetization, but for distribution, youtube has a huge audience. A lot of people just listen to music on youtube because it's free and accessible. So I think it's fair to say you can have great reach on youtube. At the same time, I don't know about discoverability; if you're a small artist (nobody heard of you), your video is going to have very few views, and it's unlikely to be recommended for random people listening to popular music. I don't know if other services fare any better in this regard though.

Bandwidth isn't a consideration for most people as long as it just works, and quality is good enough.

Re: Online music distribution companies may not want Creative Commons music

#28

Post by rangibaby » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 10:24 AM UTC

RileyJames wrote: post #4

I was considering releasing some music under the CC SA-NC for exactly this purpose. I want people to share it, but I don't want it expoited without permission (which I'd gladly give, I just want to know by who). To avoid the distribution issue, is it possible to use a CC licence for music downloaded from your website, while using a RR licence when providing to the distributors? (On the same song). Any reason why the…

I believe this is called "colored bits" if you would like to read more

Re: Online music distribution companies may not want Creative Commons music

#29

Post by ifdefdebug » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 10:43 AM UTC

hueving wrote: post #15

chmike wrote: post #14

Cc is the open source of creation. I'm fascinated by the power of open source. capitalism pushed to its extream is harmful to humanity. Just look at junk food to convince yourself if you aren't yet. By its incremental enhancement, it leads to exponential growth. It is slow in the start because incremental steps are small, but it leads to a tsunami. I believe we are on the verge to see a fundamental change in the way…

It seems you are implying that food which people like to eat (junk food) wouldn't be created in an 'open source' economy. Why?

its ok as long as people eat it because they like it... it gets worse when people resort to junk food because they cant afford fresh vegetables, and that is the sad reality for a lot of people as of today

Re: Online music distribution companies may not want Creative Commons music

#30

Post by ifdefdebug » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 10:47 AM UTC

clarry wrote: post #27

lucaspiller wrote: post #17

As someone who isn't at all familiar with music distribution, is YouTube really the best way for indie artists to distribute, and monetise, their music? The audio quality seems a lot lower compared to Spotify, and I don't really want to waste bandwidth on a video just to listen to music while I'm working. On the other hand I've noticed some mainstream music is blocked for me on Spotify, but available on YouTube.

I don't know about monetization, but for distribution, youtube has a huge audience. A lot of people just listen to music on youtube because it's free and accessible. So I think it's fair to say you can have great reach on youtube. At the same time, I don't know about discoverability; if you're a small artist (nobody heard of you), your video is going to have very few views, and it's unlikely to be recommended for ran…

bandwidth is not a problem as long as your vid is just a still image