4 ms·

But there are non-noncommercial CC licenses, and I'm sure there is a lot of content licensed using them. The "mildest" CC license merely asks for attribution. S

But there are non-noncommercial CC licenses, and I'm sure there is a lot of content licensed using them. The "mildest" CC license merely asks for attribution. So why the blanket ban? On a related note: the definition of noncommercial use is quite malleable in that it is not defined in detail in the license. In the 3.0 version of the license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode ) , it states: [You may not use the Work] in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. I've found that what that actually means in practice is a bit of a grey area. A very insightful survey was conducted by Creative Commons asking "What is non-commercial use?". The results make for very interesting reading: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127 My favorite gem: On a scale of 1-100 where 1 is "definitely noncommercial" and 100 is "definitely commercial" creators and users (84.6 and 82.6, respectively) both rate uses in connection with online advertising generally as "commercial"” However, more specific use cases revealed that many interpretations are fact-specific.

mechanical_fish 16y ago
Don't think of it as a blanket ban. Think of it this way: They paid a service a flat fee to give the producers access to a big library that is 100% cleared. If you are a producer, and you surf that official library, you can use anything you hear. No danger of mistake. No danger of misinterpretation. It's effortless and guaranteed. Economy of scale, baby. Creative Commons? Not so much. There's nobody to pay a flat fee to. [1] So you have to look at the license of every piece of music, and you have to make sure you've correctly matched the music up with the license. ("Oops, I thought that I was using the music from this webpage, but..."). And then, if we believe the public statement, the majority of the CC music will have some kind of "noncommercial" restriction. At which point you can just forget about it. Sure, a lot of the music will have a cheap sticker price, but just as with patents (where trolls with prima facie frivolous claims can nonetheless extort money from you) you've got to deal with the overhead. At minimum, you need to get some of the legal department's time, and they need to identify the correct rightsholder, and fax them the paperwork, and get the signature back. But maybe you also need to offer money. Maybe you need multiple rounds of back-and-forth. You are a public radio station. You are not awash in money for staff lawyers. You are going to beg your boss for permission to go through this process, and your boss is going to tell you to use the music library that you've already licensed with the flat fee. --- [1] Actually, I don't know how the music industry works, but presumably you can license your music under multiple licenses, just as with software. So you can have a CC noncommercial license and license your music for commercial use via a music service. Of course, when someone uses the music service they don't need to mention the CC license, and they don't.
- pierrefar 16y ago
  Interesting point about having an industry body for CC-licensed content. I know someone at CC and I just forwarded this dicussion to him. Maybe they can do something.

mechanical_fish 16y ago

Don't think of it as a blanket ban. Think of it this way: They paid a service a flat fee to give the producers access to a big library that is 100% cleared. If you are a producer, and you surf that official library, you can use anything you hear. No danger of mistake. No danger of misinterpretation. It's effortless and guaranteed. Economy of scale, baby. Creative Commons? Not so much. There's nobody to pay a flat fee to. [1] So you have to look at the license of every piece of music, and you have to make sure you've correctly matched the music up with the license. ("Oops, I thought that I was using the music from this webpage, but..."). And then, if we believe the public statement, the majority of the CC music will have some kind of "noncommercial" restriction. At which point you can just forget about it. Sure, a lot of the music will have a cheap sticker price, but just as with patents (where trolls with prima facie frivolous claims can nonetheless extort money from you) you've got to deal with the overhead. At minimum, you need to get some of the legal department's time, and they need to identify the correct rightsholder, and fax them the paperwork, and get the signature back. But maybe you also need to offer money. Maybe you need multiple rounds of back-and-forth. You are a public radio station. You are not awash in money for staff lawyers. You are going to beg your boss for permission to go through this process, and your boss is going to tell you to use the music library that you've already licensed with the flat fee. --- [1] Actually, I don't know how the music industry works, but presumably you can license your music under multiple licenses, just as with software. So you can have a CC noncommercial license and license your music for commercial use via a music service. Of course, when someone uses the music service they don't need to mention the CC license, and they don't.

pierrefar 16y ago
Interesting point about having an industry body for CC-licensed content. I know someone at CC and I just forwarded this dicussion to him. Maybe they can do something.