> However, what's "free to stream"? According to the interpretation of the U.S. law, if you stream your video with ads (e.g. Youtube, Vimeo), then that's a non-

> However, what's "free to stream"? According to the interpretation of the U.S. law, if you stream your video with ads (e.g. Youtube, Vimeo), then that's a non-free usage. It's commercial video, even if you, the producer, makes no dime out of it (and that's a definition and interpretation of the US law that even Creative Commons believes so, if I am to judge from their last year's "what's a commercial video" survey) This is a pretty common error of legal reasoning. For one thing, the definition of "commercial video" that Creative Commons asserts is just a definition it made up; only a court can actually determine what the term means. (I am unaware of any cases deciding this; if they exist, please let me know of them.) And at any rate, the definition of "commercial video" in a CC license has no necessary bearing on the definition of "free to stream" in the MPEG-LA license. They are not the same document, and the same term in two different contracts can have entirely different meanings.