20 Mar
2010
20 Mar
'10
4:56 p.m.
Am 13.03.2010 um 12:54 schrieb Nils Hammerfest <list(a)nilsgey.de>de>:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:29:29 +0100
Atte André Jensen <atte.jensen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
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. 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.
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
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.
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(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user