[LAU] CC for dummies

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Sat Mar 13 08:52:53 EST 2010

On Saturday 13 March 2010 06:54:09 Nils Hammerfest wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:29:29 +0100

Nils, it sounds like you are speaking about cc BY-SA. (My personal pick.)

There are others which do not behave as you describe.

BY - sort of like the the BSD. *Not copyleft* Free though.
BY-SA - sort of like the GPL. Copyleft. Free - obviously if like me you 
consider copyleft a subset of Free. Something cc tends to confuse for people.
BY-NC - can do a lot of things with the music but not primarily for commercial 
purposes. (Confusing.)
BY-NC-SA - Do a lot of things but use the same license.
BY-ND - You can't make any derivatives at all under this license.
> Atte André Jensen <atte.jensen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I don't understand the CC license at all. I could dig through a jungle
> > starting with google, and I *have* read and understood the basics
> > regarding CC. I'm hoping for some personal experiences in plain
> > language. Here goes:

Hi Atte. (and others.)

A couple of things on this first pass:

I wrote this up early last year:

drew's Guide To Choosing A License For Your Kompoz Project

And I have started and contributed to these pages at Packet In's site:

Income: http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Income
Promotion: http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Promotion

The income page links to:
How To Get Paid For Copyleft Art : 

Which might also be of interest.

> First: CC is not CC. There is the "Name Author and Origin" switch and the
> "Commercial" switch, too. The last one is important if you aim to
> > 1) What's the advantages for the artist with CC compared to "All rights
> > reserved".
> The music becomes more widespread making you more known and famous. And
> because its ideologically good your reputation shifts toward the "good side
> of the force" making it more likely that your music encourages the
> production of Remixes. For me it exactly what I want because my marketing
> strategy is "Get known, make money with live-music, merchandise and other
> ways except selling the music as a product".
> It also forces any people who use your music to produce
> samplers/compilations, remixes etc. to release it under the same license.
> This is the same Copyleft as in the GPL and ensures the freedom is granted.
> > 2) What's the disadvantages for the artist with CC compared to "All
> > rights reserved".
> You cannot sell your music as a product (CDs, Digital Download, DRM)
> anymore. Of course technically you could but it makes no sense if the music
> is also available for free. It also forces any people who use your music to
> produce samplers, remixes etc. to release it under the same license. This
> is the same Copyleft as in the GPL and makes it unlikely that you will get
> you music on any commercial samplers/compilation, except you grant special
> licenses.
> > 3) What's the advantages for the consumer with CC compared to "All
> > rights reserved".
> In reality its basically means its free of cost, you can share it and its
> all legal. You can do whatever you want with the music, remix it sell the
> remix (if the license is *-sa) etc.
> > I assume there's no disadvantages for the customer with CC...
> You cannot just take the CC-music and produce a closed, copyleft-free new
> derived work. But well, this is not "consumer"... if there is a border
> between consumer and producer anymore.

There are some games to be played to do an end run around any cc license and 
force a statutory license on a person no matter what they want. Of course, 
this same end run exists for "All rights reserved" plans as well.
> Nils
> http://www.denemo.org
> > Thanks in advance for any input.
> >
> > --
> > Atte
> >
> > http://atte.dk   http://modlys.dk

all the best,


More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list