Am 13.03.2010 um 12:54 schrieb Nils Hammerfest <list@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:29:29 +0100 > Atte André Jensen <atte.jensen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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. 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. > 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. > >> >> 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. 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 > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user >> > _______________________________________________ > Linux-audio-user mailing list > Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
