3 ms·
In copyright law the use of the work itself is considered a commercial benefit, so "noncommercial use" is an oxymoron. Consider these situations: - If I use Au
by kmeisthax 3y ago
In copyright law the use of the work itself is considered a commercial benefit, so "noncommercial use" is an oxymoron. Consider these situations:
- If I use AudioCraft to post freely-downloadable tracks on my SoundCloud, I still get the benefit of having a large audio catalog in my name, even if I'm not selling the individual tracks. I could later compose tracks on my own and ride off the exposure I got from posting "noncommercially".
- If I run AudioCraft as a background music generator in my store, I save money by not having to license music for public performance.
- If I host AudioCraft on a website and put ads on it, I'm making money by making the work available, even though I'm not charging a fee for entry.
I suspect that a lot of people reading this are going to have different arguments for each. My point is that if you don't think that all of these situations are equally infringing of CC-BY-NC, then you need to explain why some are commercial and some are not. Keep in mind that every exception you make can be easily exploited to strip the NC clause off of the license.
If you're angry at the logic on display here, keep in mind that this is how judges will construe the license, and probably also how Facebook will if you find a way to make any use of their AI. The only thing that stops them from rugpulling you later is explicit guidance in CC-BY-NC. Unfortunately, the only such guidance is that they don't consider P2P filesharing to be a commercial use.
So, absent any other clarifications from Facebook, all you can do without risking a lawsuit is share the weights on BitTorrent.
EDIT: And yes, I have made stuff just to make stuff. I license all of that under copyleft licenses because they express the underlying idea of 'noncommercial' better than actual noncommercial clauses do.
- NegativeK 3y agoIs listening at home a violation of NC? That's what I've interpreted as its intent.
- stale2002 3y agoThis is a weird comment. Do you think that non commercial use simply doesn't exist or something? Because non commercial use isn't some crazy concept. It is a well established one, that doesnt disclude literally everything. Also, you are ignoring the idea that Facebook will almost certainly not sue anyone for using this for any reason, except possibly Google or Apple. So if you aren't literally one of those companies you could probably just use it anyway, ignore the license completely, and have zero risk of being sued.
- elondaits 3y agoThe issue with “non commercial” is that no, it’s not well established. Licenses with a NC clause are so problematic to be practically useless. If you just want to use something at home privately you don’t need a CC license… a CC license is for use and redistribution. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4559 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4559
- Tao3300 3y agoI miss that blog. It was a little crazy and the comments were a flame war shitshow, but man it was fun to read sometimes. Even if I vehemently disagreed, it got me thinking. Whatever happened to esr? Did he just get too paranoid and clam up?
- robertlagrant 3y agoWhat about playing the music in a government building as elevator music, for example?
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago>If you just want to use something at home privately you don’t need a CC license… // I presume you mean in USA, because in UK you don't have a general private right to copy. Our "Fair Dealing" is super restrictive compared to Fair Use.
- kmeisthax 3y agoFunnily enough in the UK they actually tried to fix this. The music industry argued that the lack of a private copying levy made legalized CD ripping into government confiscation of copyright ownership... somehow. The UK courts bought this, so now the UK government is constitutionally mandated to ban CD ripping, which is absolutely stupid.
- pbhjpbhj 3y agoI knew CD ripping got reversed but not the arguments against it, definitely stupid as not giving a monopoly is not the same as confiscation (seems like a very straightforward reasoning). No doubt done Tory got a 'management consultancy' gig with the RIAA from that one. I like that it makes software like iTunes contributory infringers for enabling mass copyright infringement.
- Tao3300 3y ago> if you don't think that all of these situations are equally infringing of CC-BY-NC, then you need to explain why some are commercial and some are not. Keep in mind that every exception you make can be easily exploited to strip the NC clause off of the license. You're right: those are all equally infringing CC-BY-NC. I don't see a problem.
- wpietri 3y agoWhat's your evidence for this bit? > this is how judges will construe the license
- dragonwriter 3y ago> My point is that if you don't think that all of these situations are equally infringing of CC-BY-NC, then you need to explain why some are commercial and some are not. What “NonCommercial” means in the license is explictly defined in the license, and if you think either those examples, or more to the point, every possible use ever so as to render ‘NonCommercial’ into ‘no use’ as you have claimed, you need to make that argument, based on the definition in the license, not some concept of what might be construed as commercial use by general legal principles if the license used the term without its own explicit definition.