Licensing something as free and then going around and making backroom deals with platform holders so it cannot freely be used is misleading and unethical. If I use CC-BY music in a game I make, I don't want to discover after the fact that you will insert ads in my YouTube trailer.
My buddy Ryno - <a href="http://rynothebearded.com/" rel="nofollow">http://rynothebearded.com/</a> has a weekly podcast that focuses on music under a CC license. There are many great tunes available free of charge, and it's very strange that music falling under this license doesn't get more traction.
Surely part of the problem is that content-id is a bit far-reaching for CC-licensed content? That is, as my understanding goes: if I release music under CC then you use that music, per its license, to make a derived work and stick it on YT, now I get paid for (and get to stick adverts on) your fully-licensed work! That seems a bit unfair.<p>So I can see that there would be benefit to a creator being able to monetise their own works on YT, but surely there needs to be a mechanism in place to protect legitimate licensees from an over-reaching licensing grab? And at the moment it seems like that mechanism is just not letting people into the monetisation system at all.
Huh. I run a Creative Commons record label - <a href="http://recordsonribs.com" rel="nofollow">http://recordsonribs.com</a> - we distribute our music through an online distributor and have never even had a hint of a problem with it. We use CC SA-NC. This for us is a pragmatic question of distribution, making sure the music is out there and available to people who might want to listen, rather than an attempt to monetize. I can tell you know, the money received from streaming services is so unbelievably low that is most is either insulting to artists to redistribute to them or only covers operational costs (and then barely covers them). We are talking in the pennies here.
This post seems pretty confused to me. The idea is that you tell YouTube "I own this, people can't use it without my permission, but I'm ok with it as long as you give me a cut of the ad revenue". But with CC-licensed music you have already given people that permission.<p>It sounds like the author wants to give people the right to use their music freely anywhere but YouTube, which CC and YouTube understandably don't support.<p>Disclaimer: I work for Google, on open source software that doesn't have anything to do with YouTube.
I was considering releasing some music under the CC SA-NC for exactly this purpose. I want people to share it, but I don't want it expoited without permission (which I'd gladly give, I just want to know by who).<p>To avoid the distribution issue, is it possible to use a CC licence for music downloaded from your website, while using a RR licence when providing to the distributors? (On the same song).<p>Any reason why the licence can't be dependent on the distribution channel?
Actually I think this just stems from simple economics.<p>Monetization under online content-ID schemes (including relatedly serving takedowns under DCMA where required) all require the content usage rights to unambiguously be established AND verifiable in an automated fashion. Before an ad can be placed on a piece of content or served a DCMA takedown, the right to do so needs to be veirfied (eg. DCMA requires "good faith effort"), or they may get conter-sued.<p>With normal licenced content, that is easy to determine in an automated fashion - audio signatures will identify the potentially infringing content & then possibly some algorithms will check for fair-use - eg. length of the original song used, audio quality to eg. indicate it it's a production video or you recording your kid dancing, maybe even a human in the loop at the very end.<p>With CC licensed content, every piece of potentially infriging content needs to be human verified for usage rights & even then it may not be clear quickly. It is too expensive to hire an army of humans - so you would not support it at all.
Cc is the open source of creation. I'm fascinated by the power of open source. capitalism pushed to its extream is harmful to humanity. Just look at junk food to convince yourself if you aren't yet. By its incremental enhancement, it leads to exponential growth. It is slow in the start because incremental steps are small, but it leads to a tsunami.<p>I believe we are on the verge to see a fundamental change in the way the worlds economy is working. This may still take 100 years, but capitalism is doomed because it leads to unstable economical states and it's harmful for humanity (e.g speculation on food).<p>Lets keep pushing on the snowball and extend that model to other domains. I think that scientists pioneered that model, hence the exponential scientific progress.
bandcamp is great for CC-licensing music. great for everything else, too, but that's a digression.<p><a href="https://creativecommons.org/2009/01/21/bandcamp-integrates-cc-licenses/" rel="nofollow">https://creativecommons.org/2009/01/21/bandcamp-integrates-c...</a>
I kind of hope YouTube gets mad and tells those distros to eat shit.<p>Aside from rights management do these "distros" do ANYTHING anymore? And they are too lazy to do any rights management work that YouTube isn't performing semi- or fully-automatically?<p>YouTube should not allow them to simply be gate keepers.
As someone who isn't at all familiar with music distribution, is YouTube really the best way for indie artists to distribute, and monetise, their music? The audio quality seems a lot lower compared to Spotify, and I don't really want to waste bandwidth on a video just to listen to music while I'm working. On the other hand I've noticed some mainstream music is blocked for me on Spotify, but available on YouTube.
Cc its really pretty nuanced you can have tunes you give away for free for people to enjoy but a commercial company would have to license it to use it in their film. I think CC Music is the future, not these crummy middle men services. Think about it, if you band is able to get shows where you have a $4,000 minimum per night off of "giving away" your music then you've won without having to sell a single song.