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

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

#61

Post by clarry » Mon, Oct 03, 2016, 12:52 PM UTC

ifdefdebug wrote: post #30

clarry wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well keyframes are a thing and it's likely that the still image is going to be encoded a few hundred times on an average length song. Especially in a HD video (which is what you want as the audio bitrate grows along with it) the video part could be massive compared to the actual music.

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

#62

Post by cbr » Mon, Oct 03, 2016, 6:34 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #57

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.

Let's take a specific scenario:

* Person A composes some music, releases it as CC-NC

* Person B uses that music as the background to a home video, uploads it to youtube

It seems like B is following the CC-NC license? So then A goes to YouTube and, via Content ID, says "I own the music B used in their video, they didn't have permission to use my music, but I'm willing to let them use it if you put ads on their video and give me a cut".

(Again, I do work for Google, on unrelated stuff.)

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

#63

Post by wolfgke » Mon, Oct 03, 2016, 8:31 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #60

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…

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…

> 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.

At least for German websites you have to add an imprint (Impressumspflicht - there is no proper English translation of this that I know of since this is a concept that to my knowledge only exists in Germany). What content this has to contain depends on whether the website is to considered as commercial or not. What remains to be said is obvious: There are court decisions that say that there are completely different criteria for a website to be commercial (in the sense of the content of the imprint) than the criteria tax authorities apply.

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

#64

Post by eropple » Mon, Oct 03, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

cbr wrote: post #62

eropple wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But with CC-licensed music you have already given people that permission. That's literally the opposite of true with -nc.

Let's take a specific scenario: * Person A composes some music, releases it as CC-NC * Person B uses that music as the background to a home video, uploads it to youtube It seems like B is following the CC-NC license? So then A goes to YouTube and, via Content ID, says "I own the music B used in their video, they didn't have permission to use my music, but I'm willing to let them use it if you put ads on their video a…

Person B in that case would be following the license, yes. Person C uses it as background music for an advertisement on YouTube in contravention of the license. That's the problem.

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

#65

Post by hueving » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 2:54 PM UTC

bobbyi_settv wrote: post #58

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?

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?

Are you implying that people wouldn't enjoy the taste of sugar, salt, and fat (key components of any good junk food) without advertising?