LinuxMusicians

Capoeira wrote: I want to give my art for free, BUT I don't want noone to modify my art and/or to use it for commercial purposes.

I know people who want to censor everything from the world that they don't like also. It happens that the world is much poorer whenever people with wishes like these get their way.

You don't know what you are missing by stopping people from modifying your art. Maybe someone would do something really marvelous with it. All art is derivative anyway. Trying to control it is misguided.

See http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/ND

Regarding commercial uses, you miss that by blocking that, you block people from putting it on Wikipedia or doing other things that are themselves non-commercial. The NC clause creates a rift that is bad for the commons. The things you are worried about commercially can be avoided simply with the SA share-alike clause.

See http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC

I don't mean to be harsh nor dogmatic, but I think you should go through the process of questioning your assumptions. The NC and ND licenses are not helping you. They are counterproductive and not actually in your interest.

wolftune wrote:Regarding commercial uses, you miss that by blocking that, you block people from putting it on Wikipedia or doing other things that are themselves non-commercial. The NC clause creates a rift that is bad for the commons. The things you are worried about commercially can be avoided simply with the SA share-alike clause.

You may be right, or not... either way, Youtube doesn't give you an option to use CC-SA.

NC/ND may be unenforceable in most cases, but I think it's a good idea to preserve your right to royalties. If some huge publisher copies your video and gets 100 hits, no big deal... but if they get 100,000,000 hits, should they get all the money? Hell no. And you *know* they would be the ones getting mega hits, not you, because you don't have their marketing machine. Sure, they will ignore your copyright and license, but at least if you use CC-NC you have a bargaining chip.

Wikipedia itself is a great example of the problem - there are thousands of sleazy content-farm sites using Wikipedia articles to make their spam look more legitimate. And bloggers passing off Wikipedia articles as their own. WTF.

tnovelli wrote: You may be right, or not... either way, Youtube doesn't give you an option to use CC-SA.

That's true and unfortunate. So I don't mark CC on YouTube, but I do indicate in the notes and on a video the CC-BY-SA.

NC/ND may be unenforceable in most cases, but I think it's a good idea to preserve your right to royalties. If some huge publisher copies your video and gets 100 hits, no big deal... but if they get 100,000,000 hits, should they get all the money? Hell no. And you *know* they would be the ones getting mega hits, not you, because you don't have their marketing machine. Sure, they will ignore your copyright and license, but at least if you use CC-NC you have a bargaining chip.

This short-sighted focus ignores the harm you do to the rest of the community by damaging the value of the commons overall. Someone else making money doesn't stop you from making money. Preserving your "right to royalties" amounts to stopping people from sharing your work, less views, less popularity, self-sabotage. As to whether I *know* that big media companies get all the hits, I deny that entirely. I know their material gets lots of attention, but I have not seen *any* evidence of big corporations taking CC work from independent folks and putting it online in a way that they get all the hits under the same circumstances where you could just instead see the original posting. I think that is pure fearful speculation. This is not a zero-sum game anyway.

http://mimiandeunice.com/2010/10/01/non-commercial/

Wikipedia itself is a great example of the problem - there are thousands of sleazy content-farm sites using Wikipedia articles to make their spam look more legitimate. And bloggers passing off Wikipedia articles as their own. WTF.

That's absurd. You think spammers would be out of business if not for Wikipedia? CC-BY-SA includes BY, the requirement for attribution, so the bloggers you are talking about are in violation of the license and are totally irrelevant to discussing what license to use.

None of your points hold up to scrutiny at all. They seem to be merely after-the-fact attempts to find justification for intuitive feelings of wanting to keep control or of some irrational fear.

wolftune wrote:

Capoeira wrote: I want to give my art for free, BUT I don't want noone to modify my art and/or to use it for commercial purposes.

I know people who want to censor everything from the world that they don't like also. It happens that the world is much poorer whenever people with wishes like these get their way.

You don't know what you are missing by stopping people from modifying your art. Maybe someone would do something really marvelous with it. All art is derivative anyway. Trying to control it is misguided.

See http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/ND

Regarding commercial uses, you miss that by blocking that, you block people from putting it on Wikipedia or doing other things that are themselves non-commercial. The NC clause creates a rift that is bad for the commons. The things you are worried about commercially can be avoided simply with the SA share-alike clause.

See http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC

I don't mean to be harsh nor dogmatic, but I think you should go through the process of questioning your assumptions. The NC and ND licenses are not helping you. They are counterproductive and not actually in your interest.

a)I don't want noone to modify my art because it's my baby, it's part of me. People can be inspired by it, they don't have to use it. this is not software. art is a lot more personal.
b) If soone makes money with my time (work) I want my part. full stop.

if you have a better license for me that garants a+b than let me know

Capoeira wrote: a)I don't want noone to modify my art because it's my baby, it's part of me. People can be inspired by it, they don't have to use it. this is not software. art is a lot more personal.
b) If someone makes money with my time (work) I want my part. full stop.

if you have a better license for me that garants a+b than let me know

Unless you can afford to sue, no license in the world guarantees these things.

Your view of your art is one people could take just as much about software. There exists no argument about software and art being different here that holds up to scrutiny. You don't have to use software either. Software can be personal. Art is not necessarily personal. If you want your art to be exclusively personal to you and not to anyone else, maybe you should keep it to yourself. If you would give up this personal right for enough money, then maybe it isn't so personal after all.

In this reality, do as you wish, but the fact is that keeping these restrictions basically is just making sure fewer people will ever hear your work. You're just telling people who want some music for their video to use mine and not yours.

Interesting thread but a little confusing to me. I see the points being made on both sides. I am posting stuff on Soundcloud. My personal goal in doing this is to make it available for the world. That's it. Then the world can do as it will. Which licence should I choose? Do I have any responsibility after that?

aprzekaz wrote:Interesting thread but a little confusing to me. I see the points being made on both sides. I am posting stuff on Soundcloud. My personal goal in doing this is to make it available for the world. That's it. Then the world can do as it will. Which licence should I choose? Do I have any responsibility after that?

If you want absolutely no responsibility, the answer is CC0 https://creativecommons.org/about/cc0
If you want people to credit you and to retain legal copyright use CC-BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
If you want to stop people from locking-down new versions or derivatives i.e. keep anything else shared also, use share-alike: CC-BY-SA https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Don't use any other CC license, as they are non-free, they don't respect freedom, don't meet the definition of Free Cultural Works.

If you want a more detailed yet really simple and engaging overview see:
http://questioncopyright.org/how_to_free_your_work

Cheers.

Capoeira wrote: a)I don't want noone to modify my art because it's my baby, it's part of me. People can be inspired by it, they don't have to use it. this is not software. art is a lot more personal.
b) If soone makes money with my time (work) I want my part. full stop.

if you have a better license for me that garants a+b than let me know

Yeah, right on. I don't give a damn about some marxist-sounding 'free culture' movement's definition of 'freedom'. There's this other thing called MY freedom, heh.

CC-NonCommercial may be a little too strict... but so what. It doesn't stop prevent from listening to your stuff on SoundCloud, or paying for a download and giving copies to their friends. Good enough for me.

tnovelli wrote: I don't give a damn about some marxist-sounding 'free culture' movement's definition of 'freedom'.

I am anti-capitalist (not marxist though) but that doesn't mean I "give my ass" for free and let the pimp cash..... on contrary

tnovelli wrote:

Capoeira wrote: Yeah, right on. I don't give a damn about some marxist-sounding 'free culture' movement's definition of 'freedom'. There's this other thing called MY freedom, heh.

Free Culture is exactly the same concept and definition as Free Software. Free Software is not Marxist, that's utter nonsense. Most Free Software and Free Culture folks are not political ideologues but those who are tend more toward libertarian than Marxist.

You are NOT talking about your freedom here. Nothing you are asking for has any relation to what you are free to do. You are talking about controlling what others do. That's not your freedom, that's your POWER. You want to retain POWER. And I'm not saying wanting power is always bad, I'm just calling it for what it is. Telling others they can't make modified versions of some music or restricting certain uses is having power over them and nothing to do with your own freedom.

wolftune wrote:

tnovelli wrote:

Capoeira wrote: Yeah, right on. I don't give a damn about some marxist-sounding 'free culture' movement's definition of 'freedom'. There's this other thing called MY freedom, heh.

Free Culture is exactly the same concept and definition as Free Software. Free Software is not Marxist, that's utter nonsense. Most Free Software and Free Culture folks are not political ideologues but those who are tend more toward libertarian than Marxist.

You are NOT talking about your freedom here. Nothing you are asking for has any relation to what you are free to do. You are talking about controlling what others do. That's not your freedom, that's your POWER. You want to retain POWER. And I'm not saying wanting power is always bad, I'm just calling it for what it is. Telling others they can't make modified versions of some music or restricting certain uses is having power over them and nothing to do with your own freedom.

you actualy sound more anarchist than marxist


anyway, YOU are trying to take liberty from us. You want to "force" us to give our creation out with no restrictions. This is not freedom

Capoeira wrote: you actualy sound more anarchist than marxist

Fine, but I am neither. I don't support dogmatic positions like those. Both are untenable in my view. (I'm don't support capitalism either, btw)

anyway, YOU are trying to take liberty from us. You want to "force" us to give our creation out with no restrictions. This is not freedom

The ability to control others is NOT liberty. You are stretching the term. You are saying the same thing as "you are taking away my liberty to have slaves" or "you are taking away my liberty to censor other people". That is not what liberty means.

You have the legal power today to sue people to censor them and control what they do with something like your music after you voluntarily give them a copy. You don't have to allow anyone to access your music, of course. But once you've given me access and I have my own computer with my own files, some of which are copies of your files, you have legal power today to control what I do with my computer and my files. That is is not you having liberty or freedom. That is power. Just because you currently have legal power, giving that up is not a loss of liberty, it is a loss of power.

Now, I'm not an anarchist, so I'm not advocating nobody should ever have any restrictions. But it is simply wrong to say that restricting others is about your freedom. You can admit that this is about power over others and continue arguing that the power is justified (even though I disagree in this case).

wolftune wrote:"you are taking away my liberty to have slaves" or "you are taking away my liberty to censor other people"

man, you are going way to far. I won't even respond this. this is no comparison.

Capoeira wrote:

wolftune wrote:"you are taking away my liberty to have slaves" or "you are taking away my liberty to censor other people"

man, you are going way to far. I won't even respond this. this is no comparison.

I'm not comparing your decision to these actions. It's reductio ad absurdem. I'm just showing with absolute clarity that power and liberty are different words. I'm not accusing you of taking these extreme positions (although the ND license is indeed a type of censorship).

I suppose I shall choose CC0. This is partly because of my laziness as I won't have the energy or interest to police anyone for using it however they choose. A related note is I will probably take little action in promoting my own work and so it will not likely reach an audience anyways without the initiative of someone else. My choice also comes partly from my ideals as I agree that most or all artistic works (definitely all of mine) are derivative. Hek I'll even use samples without permission if I can get away with it. The jazz musician in me philosophizes that art never truly belongs to anyone (not even it's creator(s)). Furthermore, the only time one has any degree of control over their art is in the moment of creation. I am not a marxist although I once read some Marx. I do tend to lean libertarian sometimes. I don't know about capitalism. I do believe in the free trade of goods and services. I am a semi-professional drummer and I often trade my services for money and even food. When I do a recording session I never get a writing credit and I don't think a drum beat can even be copyrighted for that matter. All that said, if somehow a piece of music I made became widely popular I would probably feel upset if someone else took the credit. But I would be glad that it was popular anyways.