[LAU] CC for dummies

Burkhard Wölfel versuchsanstalt at gmx.de
Fri Mar 19 06:27:56 EDT 2010



Am 13.03.2010 um 12:54 schrieb Nils Hammerfest <list at nilsgey.de>:

> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:29:29 +0100
> 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:
>
> 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.

Might not make sense but money still. Look at magnatune, they're not  
bancrupt yet. I have books on my shelf that are CC-BY-SA, and yes, I  
paid for them.

As emotional I am getting here and as rigid your standpoint seems to  
me, I think we'd have to introduce numbers into the discussion to make  
it bear any fruit.

But I don't have such numbers.

> It also forces any people who use your music to produce samplers,  
> remixes etc. to release it under the same license.

Not quite. You are the author, you can always relicense. They can  
always contact you and ask for a personal license.

To me, this is just a matter of communication.

> 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.

It doesnt have to be free to provide legality of sharing. But odds are  
that you'll be able to find a source that is providing it for free  
though.

But again: where's the difference to Madonna's latest stuff being  
available through the nets of evil?

Make your stuff easy to buy and I'm sure people will.

- Burkhard

> 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.
>
>
> Nils
> http://www.denemo.org
>
>> Thanks in advance for any input.
>>
>> -- 
>> Atte
>>
>> http://atte.dk   http://modlys.dk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-audio-user mailing list
>> Linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org
>> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user


More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list