Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Wednesday 05 April 2006 04:27 am, Gary (AUDN) wrote:
> Greg, to pick up on your comment:
>
> "If that's the case, then I see this idea as splitting hairs.
> You are proposing to allow indirect commercial sales, but that is based off
> the current way the music industry works by making most of its money off of
> selling teh work directly.
> If indirect sales are allowed, then direct sales doesn't give the customer
> any benefit, other than, perhaps, location, and in the web, location is
> just a URL away. It is a license, that if it succeeded in getting adopted
> industry-wide, would render itself moot."
>
> I disagree.
> I think the term "indirect commercial sales" is misleading. I am not
> talking internet download selling of a track. I'm talking about using a
> track in a commercial venture such as on an internet radio station or in a
> restaurant (which CC-BY_NC prohibits). A closer term would be "indirect
> commercial exploitation" maybe. Even on a podcast, if the track is talked
> over this is not selling a track, but simply is a recording of a radio
> show. For enjoyment.
> Your second point, "if it is adopted industry-wide"... I'm also not saying
> an artist should release all tracks under this license, but enough to be
> able to get exposure.
>
>
> Your other comment:
> "Really, if a song is CC-BY-NC, has contact info, and a radio station wants
> to play it, I don't think the license is a gating factor."
>
> Sorry I couldn't disagree more. This is the exact problem.
> If I wanted to start an internet radio station and sell advertising to keep
> it going, then I *can not* use CC-BY-NC tracks as it is a commercial
> venture. Full stop, that's what it says on the tin.
> Yes I can contact each artist in turn and ask them permission, but hey this
> is the exact reason we have pre-defined licenses so we don't need to do
> this. If I can use CC-BY-NC, then it's a case of redefining this license to
> make it crystal clear.
>
And why would BY-SA not solve this problem and those that follow? How many 
big 
players would currently be willing to release BY-SA content? Especially re 
the TV ads mentioned below. Plus, now they would be making material for you 
to turn around and make some money from to support your endeavours. Win, win 
all around. You can start with some of my BY-SA stuff if you like. If you 
have someone musical, I have a lot of unreleased lyrics and parts of lyrics 
that are available.

> I could play tracks released under CC-BY-ND, but the choice is far fewer.
> It obvious why...  because tracks released under this license can be used
> for any commercial venture, direct sales, TV advertising etc. Do you know
> how much brands pay for music licensing for TV adverts etc? This is a world
> away from Joe Bloggs wanting to start an internet radio station or podcast
> with adverts.
>
> CC-BY-NC in it's current form makes websites like www.podsafeaudio.com
> useless for anyone who wants to make some money from their podcasts or
> internet streams.
> And why should we allow people to make money:
>
> - Quality of the podcasts/internet radio will improve (the person will have
> more money to spend. He can do less of his current work and spend more time
> on the venture).
>
> - Internet radio/Podcasts will be more sustainable. The creators will not
> be just people who have spare time on their hands.
>
> - People can advertise their internet radio/podcasts and pay other people
> to get involved.
>
> - Good ventures with good content can flourish and eventually be able to
> compete against the corporations who are dominating most of our radio and
> media landscape.
>

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145