Something I don't get about jamendo.com licenses
Hey everyone,
sorry for the non-trisquel related topic, but it's about free culture and license stuff, so i hope it will be tolerated here.
For many songs, there is a "get commercial license" button next to it;
I can understand this if the normal license of the song has a non-commercial part in it;
but this button also appears next to more libre licenses like this one:
https://www.jamendo.com/en/track/1063105/memory-replaced
I don't get this; i mean i could take this song, make a movie and sell the dvd, right?
So why do i need something like a "commercial license"?
Are they talking about what's normally called a permissive license, so i can take the song and choose a "i dare you to share" kind of license on the actual movie?
I'm baffled. Their licensing page says nothing about licensing per se, only pricing options.
A CC-BY would grant anyone commercial rights over the music, so why would anyone pay?
The commercial license could be for producers that want the attribution requirement waived. I am just guessing.
The CC-BY is the most permissive of Creative Common license series (And it's version 3.0 in this case). It's the first time that I open this web site, and I didn't make an exhaustive or conclusive research, but at a glance, it seems the site just puts the option to get a “commercial” license automatically, without taking into account that in this case, the license doesn't limits commercial usage of the work. Maybe when designing the web site, the developers assumed that all licenses would limit commercial usage and that the Copyright holder will always be interested in licensing commercial usage; clearly that is not the case. If they also do this for Copyleft licenses, then they would be spreading the mistake of confusing the freedom of works with whether they allow commercial usage, which is a common misconception; the GNU project has an essay on this.
Hello to everybody here. Please, excuse my possible English mistakes.
Some years ago I found that situation on Jamendo. At the begining I was a bit confused, but when I knew Amazon was printing and selling books from Wikipedia, I saw the things from another perspective. I supose Jamendo is doing the same thing. Due to the ignorance of people about Creative Commons licenses, Jamendo can sell all the music covered by different licenses than CC-BY-NC: that is perfectly legal. But, why people pay for music that is ready to download with no payment? Well, because most people do not know it.
By the way, I want share with you a reflection about the theme: If all we use the CC-BY-SA license in our works, are we giving the power to the big companies to make money using us? It is true that the things they sell will be covered by libre licenses, but, Does it matters to the companies when they are receiving good money for nothing? In fact, those companies can use that money to figth against the libre culture.
All that said, I think sometimes I'd like cover my creative work with the BY-NC-SA license. I know this sound a bad idea (may be it is), but I imagine, I make some video, I put it on internet with CC-BY-NC-SA and for this reason if somebody else wants use my work, my permission is needed. If Amazon ask me, I'd say: F... you. But if a community project write me, I'd say, well, what is your goal?... and then, if we can agree, perfect, everybody is happy.
Have a happy and libre day
> If all we use the CC-BY-SA license in our works, are we giving the power to the big companies to make money using us?
This is a terrible mistake. Non-commercial licenses don't put any restrictions on big corporations that they aren't used to. Keep in mind, they're used to having to pay for permission to use works at all; having to pay to use works commercially, or being unable to use a work, is not a major obstruction to them.
Non-commercial licenses instead hinder individuals, who can't afford to either pay for an exception or to just, you know, commission a replacement.
See also: http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
Thanks onpon for the link. It shows well supported arguments to the discussion about the theme.
What do you think about the Jamendo's issue?
Doesn't seem problematic. It's just an unnecessary alternative license in this case.
To be clear, if it was selling exceptions to a non-commercial clause, that would be non-libre culture, and I don't support that. But if it's selling exceptions to CC BY, that has no effect, and if it's selling exceptions to CC BY-SA, it has the same effect as just using CC BY.
20-03-2015 02:37:59 name at domain:
> > If all we use the CC-BY-SA license in our works, are
we giving the power
> > to
>
> the big companies to make money using us?
>
> This is a terrible mistake. Non-commercial licenses don't
put any
> restrictions on big corporations that they aren't used to.
Keep in mind,
> they're used to having to pay for permission to use works
at all; having to
> pay to use works commercially, or being unable to use a
work, is not a major
> obstruction to them.
>
> Non-commercial licenses instead hinder individuals, who
can't afford to
> either pay for an exception or to just, you know,
commission a replacement.
>
> See also: http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
Let's not forget that the free software movement doesn't deal
with cultural aspects directly, but the movemente considers
freedoms 0 (to use) and 2 (to redistribute, at least for non-
commercial purposes) as essentials for cultural works
(https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/google-engineering-talk.en.html#copyright-art-vs-software).
Respectfully, Adonay.
Have a nice day.
--
Assinatura automática – português brasileiro:
– Site pessoal: http://adfeno.mooo.com/
– Em favor da aprovação da Lei ODF em Santa Catarina
(https://secure.avaaz.org/po/petition/Aprovacao_da_Lei_ODF_em_Santa_Catarina),
e para garantir os direitos humanos de igual tratamento pelo
governo ou lei, de circulação dentro das fronteiras de cada
nação, de participação no governo, e de igualdade no
acesso aos serviços públicos, não estou aceitando arquivos
do Microsoft Office ou do Apple iWork. Por favor, use o
LibreOffice (https://www.libreoffice.org/) e seus formatos
do padrão ODF (.odt, .odp, etc.).
Automatic signature – North American English:
– Personal website: http://adfeno.mooo.com/
– In favor of the approval of the ODF law in Santa Catarina
(https://secure.avaaz.org/po/petition/Aprovacao_da_Lei_ODF_em_Santa_Catarina),
and to ensure the human rights of equal treatment by the
government or law, of circulation inside the boundaries of
each nation, of participation on the government, and of
equality on the access to the public services, I'm not
accepting Microsoft Office's files or Apple iWork's files.
Please use LibreOffice (https://www.libreoffice.org/) and its
formats from the ODF standard (.odt, .odp, etc).
Use copyleft to prevent exploitative usage of your stuff, not non-commercial clauses.
Thanks for your suggestions!
Anyhow, the CC clause is valid and i can use the song without the "jamendo commercial license", though nobody really knows what this exactly is.
>i can use the song without the "jamendo commercial license", though nobody really knows what this exactly is.
Then it is a worthless license, since you can't safely assume any additional permissions, which is the main purpose of Copyright licenses.