Share-Alike licence bug - makes radio broadcast impractical?
robmyers at mac.com
Fri Jan 16 16:04:57 EST 2004
IANAL, TINLA, and I don't know if this satisfies the license, but it's
Rather than saying
"And that was 'Composition A' by 'The Artists', which is released on
Monday by White Label records."
"And that was 'Composition A' by 'The Artists', which is licensed under
the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike License."
and give the full URL at the end of the slot or program, make sure the
receptionist knows the URL, and put the URL or the full license on your
On 16 Jan 2004, at 19:33, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
>> If a copyleft license requires to announce the license next to
>> the song, this is however very inconvenient, as you noticed
> Yes, inconvenient to the point that the work is not worth distributing
> work or people simply violate the license.
> I host a show at a community radio station (non-commercial) in the US
> when I broadcast CC-licensed works, I make the effort to announce which
> license is relevant. But there's no way I can read the license itself
> is purely out of the question--a 2-3 minute song followed by 3-5
> minutes of
> license text? No way.).
> Reading URIs aloud are virtually a complete waste of time because of
> case-sensitivity and demand for perfect accuracy (mentioning that
> is lowercase, getting the slashes right, etc.). Frankly, I don't
> people actually do this on the radio. I think most people see a bunch
> technical looking gibberish and skip it entirely. Reading legalese
> breaks up the flow of the show because messages on the radio can't be
> ignored by the listener or dealt with later, unlike text or metadata in
> I'm all for letting people know what their rights are under the
> license for
> the work, and I'm happy the work is licensed to allow verbatim
> non-commercial sharing, but section 4a (of the Share-Alike 1.0 license)
> where one has to provide the license or a pointer to the license is
> obtuse for radio airplay. Finally, on this point, I concur with the
> that it's not future-proof to deal with URIs in this way.
> I'm not sure how to fix this, but the radio is an awkward medium to get
> specific things like license terms and technical things like URIs.
>> I also see another problem: The CC licenses do not explicitly
>> mentinon broadcasting.
> I don't understand why the CC licenses are so particular about media
> at all.
> What's so bad about licensing to distribute, perform, etc. in any
> medium? I
> have been told this might not work in Germany (from an article I read
> debian-legal explaining how one cannot license distribution in unknown
> media), but in a lot of other places it could work. Put another way:
> so special about phonorecording or digital delivery that they deserve
> special mention?
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-licenses