Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Online music distribution companies may not want Creative Commons music

jelsonic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

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

#51

Post by wolfgke »

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.

> they are no more convincing reasons not to use it to license as the arguments against GPL3.

The GPLv3 defines rather exactly what is allowed and what is not. That's what a license is for: defining exactly what is allowed and what isn't (which does not contradict that there are purposes for which the GPLv3 is suitable and ones for which it is not). NC for Non-Commercial in Creative Commons on the other hand is some wishy-washy term that does not clearly define where the boundary between commercial and non-commercial is.

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

#52

Post by phyzome »

conatus wrote: post #33

Huh. I run a Creative Commons record label - http://recordsonribs.com - we distribute our music through an online distributor and have never even had a hint of a problem with it. We use CC SA-NC. This for us is a pragmatic question of distribution, making sure the music is out there and available to people who might want to listen, rather than an attempt to monetize. I can tell you know, the money received from strea…

Yes, the NC part is important here. I don't understand this author's complaint -- if they released it without the NC, it is definitely permissible for other people to monetize their work, and Content ID would be inappropriate!

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

#53

Post by esrauch »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #42
zo1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>" 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 quic…

It is situationally true in the US. Inner city people generally have less access to cheap produce. People who have cars and access to the capability to buy in bulk at places like BJs or Sams also have access to cheaper food, so perversely the poorest end up buying more of their food from small shops that charge more.

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

#54

Post by languagewars »

ghaff wrote: post #50
languagewars wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

GPL2's single work issue may be a better example of ambiguosness, but dual licensing w/GPL3 is complex enough to collect from commercial licensees. Enterprises often buy the paid license because it is too hard for them to evaluate whether they will manage compliance over time.

Such a method seems quite typical to protect ones work while sharing it with end users and seems to be what the OP expected from using CC.

I don't like the state of NC, but the point of copyleft is harvesting the irony that licensors get to state the terms and aren't particularly penalized for much of anything they do wrong (their unenforceable clauses are simply ignored). So why not take NC if you want CC with a commercial chilling effect? You don't have to sue anyone, yet that chill is still there. A resolution in one US court wont even change that chill much.

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

#55

Post by eropple »

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…

I've been wrestling with these issues this morning, because I'm launching a podcast soon that might, sometime down the line, be big enough where ads to defray the cost of operating it makes sense. And whether that makes pre-advertising content commercial is an open question. So while I've browsed Free Music Archive, to be safe, I'm omitting anything NC from my searches.

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

#56

Post by eropple »

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…

There are NC Creative Commons licenses that would be reasonably monetizable on YouTube, though. (But it would require a human to actually figure out if it's a commercial work.)

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

#57

Post by eropple »

cbr wrote: post #48

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 su…

> But with CC-licensed music you have already given people that permission.

That's literally the opposite of true with -nc.

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

#58

Post by bobbyi_settv »

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?

Billions of dollars is spent on advertising to get children addicted to sugar and make them lifelong junk food consumers. Who would pay for that in the open source economy?

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

#59

Post by keithpeter »

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?

It isn't, forgive my clumsy writing.

I think I wrote that because classical artists think in terms of performances of a score, and I perceive that pop/rock musicians think in terms of tunes that they have composed.

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

#60

Post by belorn »

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…

While it is a grey area, its not that untested. The tax office is a good proxy to define commercial vs non-commercial, and there should be plenty of precedence for different cases. In cases where the tax office don't consider something as commercial/for-profit/done under compensation and do not tax them as such, the copyright owner has a much weaker case to argue commercial activity.

In the 3D-Designer examples above, could you define what taxes everyone involved is paying? I rather sure that no person has every paid taxes for the production of their own CV, unless they create a sole proprietorship, in which case its very likely that they are doing something commercial.

> what other types of compensation makes it commercial/non-commercial

The Swedish tax office define income as work done under compensation. Gifts, in contrast, is valuables given with no expectation of compensation. Income is taxed, gifts are not. In your list, YouTube clicks, Facebook likes, attention and awareness is not taxed as income. Bitcoins were not taxes either when they had no value, but are now when given as form of compensation.

Post reply on HN