[LAU] OT: releasing music under Creative Commons

[Burkhard Wölfel]

Am 18.07.2012 um 22:58 schrieb mn0 <mn0 at fukked-up.de>:

> On 18.07.2012 22:03, Folderol wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:27:37 -0700
>> Kris Calabio <kriscalabio at gmail.com> 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.