On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:29:29 +0100 Atte André Jensen <atte.jensen(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 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. 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. 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. 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

Hi, On Saturday 13 March 2010 11:29:29 Atte André Jensen wrote: With "all rights reserved" you alone are the one to decide what to do with it, or the production firm you sold the rights to. Which is already the most prominent disadvantage of "all rights reserved": if the producing firm bought the exclusive rights, they tell you what to do with your music. If you publish your music by some CC license you as the artist are more free. And with CC licenses the listeners (your audience!) and other artists are more free. If you choose a SA-option, others might use parts of your music in their works (of course giving credit to you!), if you choose an non-commercial option, they can't sell these derived works. Note that you can still sell the music and are not bound to the NC because you are the copyright-holder, you can license your music to others under what license you choose. You can license it as CC-SA-NC and at the same time make a fortune selling commercial rights to warner... Some said you can't sell it anymore because nobody will buy it when its free. To see if that true, look if people downloading your last album for free from your webspace also paid... Just a week ago I bought a CC-licensed book on amazon after I downloaded the pdf for free. Some people like free licenses and still pay for not needing to print a book for themselves:-) For the consuming-only consumer its mostly the fact that there are no dumb (and partly illegal) restrictions like "no private copies, no processing other then bought". For the deriving consumer or the public-playing consumer, the CC licenses usual give more freedom. Yes, there are. If its SA-based, there is no more illegal sample ripping for real gangsters. :-) Please note that I am no lawyer. I just read a book from irights.info (another book bought by me while its content are available for free) and other sources like the cc-homepage. Have fun, Arnold

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 11:29:29AM +0100, Atte Andr? Jensen wrote: It's pretty simple if you are already experienced with the GPL and BSD licenses. It's basically a series of free alternative licenses, modelled on those used in the FOSS world. SA is basically a GPL. That's what I use for my stuff. NC is just like it says, a non-commercial license, don't make money off of it. The "attribution" licenses are basically like an old BSD license with the advertising clause. -ken