Quick follow up with a couple of links. Shows some of the confusion around the definition and understanding of what non-commercial means in practice, and why I generally don't like it. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial It's also interesting in comparison to the GPL, which specifically disallows restrictions on commercial usage (I'm not saying that I think a direct translation of the conditions of a software licence necessarily are right in the artistic / music field). Best wishes, Neil -- Neil C Smith Artist : Technologist : Adviser http://neilcsmith.net Praxis - open-source intermedia system for live creative play - http://code.google.com/p/praxis OpenEye - specialist web solutions for the cultural, education, charitable and local government sectors - http://openeye.info On 19 July 2012 23:45, Burkhard Wölfel <versuchsanstalt@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > Am 18.07.2012 um 22:58 schrieb mn0 <mn0@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > >> On 18.07.2012 22:03, Folderol wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:27:37 -0700 >>> Kris Calabio <kriscalabio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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? >> >> >> Pro >> -exposure for free >> -links to your page >> -SA stops them to use it where big money is involved. (They'd buy a >> license from you instead of putting latest hollywood movies under sa) >> -easier to manage for small broadcasters of all kinds. >> >> Con >> -Other people can distribute physical devices of your work and earn >> money. You better offer these yourself, too. If you can't afford >> pressing a cd, that would blockbust the music world... maybe someone >> else is going to do it for you. >> >> >> >>> >>> In theory the SA (share alike) should stop them, as if you've given it >>> free, >>> they would have to do the same. >> >> SA means derived works are given away under the same license, not same >> conditions. You may sell them. >> >>> How precise the wording is and strong the >>> protection is, I don't know. >>> >> read it here: >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode >> >> quoting 4b) >> "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the >> terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with >> the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons >> jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that >> contains the same License Elements as this License" >> >> /mn0 > > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
