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

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

#41

Post by TeMPOraL » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 12:36 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #25

john61 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's just "quality", and while it may be difficult to say whether it correlates better with the fun during creation than with sellability, the important thing is that quality doesn't correlated with sellability very much. There are way too many other inputs that influence whether or not people will buy something - like marketing, economies of scale and access to distribution.

(Though I'm pretty sure that this hypothetical Open Source McDonald's would exist. It, and other fast food joints, solve a legitimate consumer problem - getting hot and actually tasty food quickly.)

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

#42

Post by TeMPOraL » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 12:40 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #37

ifdefdebug wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>" 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 " I don't think it's the cost of the food/ingredients that get's people to eat junk/fast-food. Maybe when it comes to stuff such as sugary-drinks, yes. But for food, it's often the convenience that trumps the cost. I'd say that it's actually cheaper to buy fresh ingre…

It I'm to believe what I read on-line (which is a dubious proposition), it depends on the place. I hear that in the US, McDonald's is actually cheaper than healthy food, especially if you count calories and nutritional elements per dollar spent. In most other places around the world, this definitely isn't the case.

That said, fast food solves an important need, IMO. It's usually a very tasty hot meal you can get quickly. Which is exactly what I want every time except when I'm taking my SO for a romantic evening.

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

#43

Post by languagewars » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 12:50 PM UTC

slavik81 wrote: post #13

Licensing something as free and then going around and making backroom deals with platform holders so it cannot freely be used is misleading and unethical. If I use CC-BY music in a game I make, I don't want to discover after the fact that you will insert ads in my YouTube trailer.

I don't entirely get the OP, if it is CC-BY then I think you could add ads to your trailer and collect money on his music. Perhaps he chose the wrong license..

If it is CC-BY-NC then he should be able to prevent you from adding ads in combination with his music (though youtube can't settle whether the larger point of the video is commercial), but he doesn't have any rights to add ads nor should youtube act as a music agent to broker deals with video producers as he asserts at the end.

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

#44

Post by jasonkostempski » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 1:09 PM UTC

keithpeter wrote: post #9

voidz wrote: post #2

My buddy Ryno - http://rynothebearded.com/ has a weekly podcast that focuses on music under a CC license. There are many great tunes available free of charge, and it's very strange that music falling under this license doesn't get more traction.

While we are sharing CC Music have a look at http://www.gardnermuseum.org/music/listen/music_library?filt... if your tastes extend to classical. Classical artists have it easier as they can release a sound recording of a particular performance under the CC licence and then release another recording commercially. Leon Fleisher springs to mind.

Why is that idea limited to Classical artists?

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

#45

Post by wolfgke » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 1:14 PM UTC

languagewars wrote: post #43

slavik81 wrote: post #13

Licensing something as free and then going around and making backroom deals with platform holders so it cannot freely be used is misleading and unethical. If I use CC-BY music in a game I make, I don't want to discover after the fact that you will insert ads in my YouTube trailer.

I don't entirely get the OP, if it is CC-BY then I think you could add ads to your trailer and collect money on his music. Perhaps he chose the wrong license.. If it is CC-BY-NC then he should be able to prevent you from adding ads in combination with his music (though youtube can't settle whether the larger point of the video is commercial), but he doesn't have any rights to add ads nor should youtube act as a music…

> If it is CC-BY-NC then he should be able to prevent you from adding ads in combination with his music

I would recommend anybody not to license in a CC license that includes "NC" as long it is not clearly defined what you mean by "commercial".

- Is using the music in a private YouTube video commercial (probably not)?

- Is using the music in a private YouTube video that, say, some 3D-Designer rendered for a classroom project commercial?

- Is using the music in a YouTube video that some 3D-Designer rendered for a classroom project but with the potential of showing his skills to potential employers commercial?

- Is using the music in a YouTube video that some 3D-Designer rendered for some funny private side project with the potential of showing his skills to potential employers commercial?

- Is using the music in a YouTube video that some 3D-Designer released for free to show his skills to potential employers commercial?

- Is enabling ads on such YouTube videos commercial? What if you enable ads because you had costs?

- Is using the music in an advertising video that is distributed only freely commercial (rather yes)?

- Is using the music in a commercial film commercial (clearly yes)?

If you say something is commercial if you get paid for it, what other types of compensation makes it commercial/non-commercial: YouTube clicks, Facebook likes, Bitcoins (when they had no value), attention for other (advertized) videos in your YouTube channel, awareness among potential employers?

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

#46

Post by wolfgke » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 1:18 PM UTC

jasonkostempski wrote: post #44

keithpeter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While we are sharing CC Music have a look at http://www.gardnermuseum.org/music/listen/music_library?filt... if your tastes extend to classical. Classical artists have it easier as they can release a sound recording of a particular performance under the CC licence and then release another recording commercially. Leon Fleisher springs to mind.

Why is that idea limited to Classical artists?

Because the composer/artist has to be dead for many years for the copyright to expire (in the United states 70 years after the death; cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries...).

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

#47

Post by wolfgke » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 1:21 PM 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 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).

The purpose of Creative Commons licenses is that people know what they are allowed to do - exactly so that they don't have to go to the tedious process of asking each artist for permission.

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

#48

Post by cbr » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 1:25 PM UTC

This post seems pretty confused to me. The idea is that you tell YouTube "I own this, people can't use it without my permission, but I'm ok with it as long as you give me a cut of the ad revenue". But with CC-licensed music you have already given people that permission.

It sounds like the author wants to give people the right to use their music freely anywhere but YouTube, which CC and YouTube understandably don't support.

Disclaimer: I work for Google, on open source software that doesn't have anything to do with YouTube.

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

#49

Post by languagewars » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 1:45 PM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #45

languagewars wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't entirely get the OP, if it is CC-BY then I think you could add ads to your trailer and collect money on his music. Perhaps he chose the wrong license.. If it is CC-BY-NC then he should be able to prevent you from adding ads in combination with his music (though youtube can't settle whether the larger point of the video is commercial), but he doesn't have any rights to add ads nor should youtube act as a music…

> If it is CC-BY-NC then he should be able to prevent you from adding ads in combination with his music I would recommend anybody not to license in a CC license that includes "NC" as long it is not clearly defined what you mean by "commercial". - Is using the music in a private YouTube video commercial (probably not)? - Is using the music in a private YouTube video that, say, some 3D-Designer rendered for a classroom…

These are all reasons not to republish -NC- material, they are no more convincing reasons not to use it to license as the arguments against GPL3.

Maybe you have less uptake from people in the grey areas and less spread through for profit use. Looking at OSS today, maybe that is what you want.

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

#50

Post by ghaff » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 3:41 PM UTC

languagewars wrote: post #49

wolfgke wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it is CC-BY-NC then he should be able to prevent you from adding ads in combination with his music I would recommend anybody not to license in a CC license that includes "NC" as long it is not clearly defined what you mean by "commercial". - Is using the music in a private YouTube video commercial (probably not)? - Is using the music in a private YouTube video that, say, some 3D-Designer rendered for a classroom…

These are all reasons not to republish -NC- material, they are no more convincing reasons not to use it to license as the arguments against GPL3. Maybe you have less uptake from people in the grey areas and less spread through for profit use. Looking at OSS today, maybe that is what you want.

Disagree. There are philosophical and practical reasons to argue against copyleft licenses in favor of more permissive licenses. [ADDED: or vice versa.] But there's not a lot of debate about what copyleft means (outside of some corner cases relating to linking and interfaces).

The issue with NC isn't so much around the fact that it prohibits commercial use--though in the views of some that makes it a non-free license and therefore something to avoid for that reason alone--but that defining what constitutes commercial use in the general case is essentially impossible and very much in the eyes of the beholder.