28 Jul
2012
28 Jul
'12
7:26 p.m.
On Wednesday 18 July 2012 16:03:54 Folderol wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:27:37 -0700
Kris Calabio <kriscalabio(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In my humble view, this is an incorrect take on what share alike means in the
license. Basically, it means you have to share under the same license, not at
the same price.
You do have to ask the question as to why someone would buy from a third party
versus get the music at no cost from the original writer / artist?
If someone does manage to make some decent money from that game, you could
just look at them as self hired, self funding promoters for you and your
music. There is no current SA license alone and the BY bit of the BY-SA being
discussed refers to attribution.
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?
In theory the SA (share alike) should stop them, as if you've given it
free, they would have to do the same. How precise the wording is and strong
the protection is, I don't know.
I guess someone could do a re-recording / re-mix of your music and being
the "artist" instead of you, they could be the one with the emotional
connection to the fan and thus the one the fan would be more likely to buy
from.
However, the BY-SA would require they use BY-SA on their recording and while
they could try and sell copies of their recording of your music, you could
use the license to legally give copies away and undercut them.
all the best,
drew