24 Jan
2004
24 Jan
'04
8:13 a.m.
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:22 pm, iriXx wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
>I'm considering starting to DJ again, but this time not with vinyl as
>I used to, but with a Linux laptop playing netaudio. Now as
>more-and-more net labels start to use a Creative Commons license that
>prohibits commercial use as described here:
>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode I wonder,
>if playing tracks licensed as this in a club/pub where I will be payed
>(badly) for my DJ-ing is commercial use? I fear, it is, and that thus
>my netaudio DJ-ing is doomed unless I break the license hoping noone
>will see it.
>
>And a related question: If I would do a radio feature on net audio,
>which I would be payed for writing introductory texts and recording
>this speech, would this be commercial use, even if this would run on a
>public radio without any kind of advertising or money making on the
>station's side?
>
>Of course I would follow other license requirements like attribution
>and such.
Excellent questions Frank.
yes, public performance in a commercial setting (where
you get paid) is
commercial use. the net audio project sounds like more of a grey area.
But in this case Frank is not _necessarilly_ getting paid for the music
itself but for his services as a DJ, so to me, this kind of usage is a
lighter shade of grey and certainly not black or white commercial usage.
I believe the spirit of the non-commercial clause is to prevent people
from (re)selling the music directly... as in putting it on a CD and
offering that CD for sale. It could be argued that Frank is getting
paid for his time and service to project the music to the audience
which could be positively in the interests of the CC copywrite holders
by expanding the exposure of their CC licensed material.
I'd lean towards arguing that DJ-ing is NOT commercial usage.
Perhaps the CC licenses need another option to indicate that performance
with attribution is OK (to clarify and cover these situations) ?
--markc