4 ms·

Creative Commons should never have considered the notion of 'Non Commercial' licenses, for this very reason. They should have learned from the software world th

by mjgoins 16y ago

Creative Commons should never have considered the notion of 'Non Commercial' licenses, for this very reason. They should have learned from the software world that non-commercial means non-free. [Edit: the CBC response is of course misinformeed, and they could simply have filtered out non-commercial licensed CC material]

DrJokepu 16y ago
The problem is that creative professionals have to be a lot more protective about their work than software developers. While a software developer who's good enough to write successful open source code will always find a well-paying job, creative professionals have to fight very hard to get jobs, especially if they don't have a very wide network of connections yet.
- _delirium 16y ago
  There are also a few big specific issues that come up in music a lot, like use of music in advertising. Musicians generally either: 1) don't want their music to be used in advertising, seeing it as cheapening it; or 2) want to be paid for it, seeing it as a major revenue stream. A CC-licensed work without an NC clause would allow use in TV ad jingles for free, which a large proportion of musicians don't like the idea of, even if they're otherwise pro-sharing.
alecco 16y ago
There were plenty of cases of CC books and other works wich allowed commercial use where some douchebag sold it somewhere. One of the most known cases was a book by Seth Godin sold on Amazon. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/02/please_dont_buy.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/02/please_dont_... [Please disregard any issues on the person; the point is the almost guaranteed abuse of commercial-permissive CC licenses]
jrockway 16y ago
+1. I find CC to be very confusing, and I'm the kind of person that can tell you the differences between the MIT, BSD3, BSD4, GPL2, and GPL3 licenses. To a "normal person" it must be incomprehensible. I think this must be because the culture of sharing has been around longer in the software community. In the music (and photography) world, it seems like this is uncharted territory, and when CC was making the licenses they asked the artists what they wanted. Nobody could agree, so every possibility became "creative commons" -- but only some of those are actually Free. Others are as proprietary as licenses get, providing the same restrictions that copyright law already adds. I'm glad I don't produce podcasts for a living.

by mjgoins 16y ago

DrJokepu 16y ago

The problem is that creative professionals have to be a lot more protective about their work than software developers. While a software developer who's good enough to write successful open source code will always find a well-paying job, creative professionals have to fight very hard to get jobs, especially if they don't have a very wide network of connections yet.

_delirium 16y ago
There are also a few big specific issues that come up in music a lot, like use of music in advertising. Musicians generally either: 1) don't want their music to be used in advertising, seeing it as cheapening it; or 2) want to be paid for it, seeing it as a major revenue stream. A CC-licensed work without an NC clause would allow use in TV ad jingles for free, which a large proportion of musicians don't like the idea of, even if they're otherwise pro-sharing.

alecco 16y ago

There were plenty of cases of CC books and other works wich allowed commercial use where some douchebag sold it somewhere. One of the most known cases was a book by Seth Godin sold on Amazon. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/02/please_dont_buy.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/02/please_dont_... [Please disregard any issues on the person; the point is the almost guaranteed abuse of commercial-permissive CC licenses]

jrockway 16y ago

+1. I find CC to be very confusing, and I'm the kind of person that can tell you the differences between the MIT, BSD3, BSD4, GPL2, and GPL3 licenses. To a "normal person" it must be incomprehensible. I think this must be because the culture of sharing has been around longer in the software community. In the music (and photography) world, it seems like this is uncharted territory, and when CC was making the licenses they asked the artists what they wanted. Nobody could agree, so every possibility became "creative commons" -- but only some of those are actually Free. Others are as proprietary as licenses get, providing the same restrictions that copyright law already adds. I'm glad I don't produce podcasts for a living.