On 03/04/12 09:06, Kris Calabio wrote: I think that's a great way to go. I recently put my latest album up on Bandcamp as a name-your-price download with no minimum price, not really expecting to get anything from it, but some fans were indeed generous! Selling merch (or even CDs or vinyl) can be great way to boost sales, too, from what I've seen. I don't think the licence really makes much difference in terms of sales. If you're popular enough, people can and will copy your music regardless of what licence is on it, so the fact that it's legal to do so (within the licence terms) with CC licences doesn't really change anything. Either way, the people that want to support you will, and the people that don't want to support you won't. Things are a little more complicated when it comes to other sources of money, such as licencing for TV, film, advertising, etc. if you're interested in those. The NC clause protects you here, though, since it prevents such people from using your music for free in most circumstances. Since CC licences are non-exclusive, you're still free to negotiate separate licence deals with anyone that does want to use your work commercially. Thanks Leigh

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Burkhard Wölfel <versuchsanstalt(a)gmx.de>wrote;wrote: How would that be a showstopper? Wouldn't they just need our permission? Or is there some complicated legal stuff that I'm missing? -Kris

Am 6. April 2012 02:02 schrieb Kris Calabio <kriscalabio(a)gmail.com>om>: You can leave the word "just", if asking for a different license is a rare exception for someone. But for entities as radio stations, playing 180 differnt artists per day - - good luck with contacting all of them, negotiating license and payment options. May I suppose most of them won't ? OTHO I wonder, how large the benefit is, for artists who (by default) dissallows commercial use. I tend to suspect it is very minimal in most cases (?) -- E.R.

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:27:37 -0700 Kris Calabio <kriscalabio(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.

Am 18.07.2012 um 22:58 schrieb mn0 <mn0(a)fukked-up.de>de>: Anybody failing to state author and license appropriately will void the license. So the radio station of any size will have to return to the golden age of announcing what's being played _and_ the license. With all the other stuff playing without mention, this can be excellent PR. If they wouldn't comply, they could be sued. Which can be turned into good advertising once again, because your original offer was honest and good. NC may exclude any distribution where there is payment or advertising involved. So I would not use the NC clause without offering an alternative. ("please ask for an individual license that will fit your needs, like $example (Link!) and $other_example have done"). The pricing of individual licenses should be like the name says: individual. There are many use cases: Small and big budget, with and without a lawsuit, big or small label or radio station, ymmv. Gotta cut it down to one point here, sorry to be in a hurry.

On Wednesday 18 July 2012 16:03:54 Folderol 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. 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