[pp.int.general] Commercial use of functional works

[Ole Husgaard]

Hi,

Like Boris said, the boundary between commercial and non-commercial is
pretty clear in the tax laws of most countries. Also the CC licenses
have non-commercial variants, and that does not seem to have caused any
legal trouble.

But the boundary is not completely clear, so I welcome this discussion.

Philip Hunt skrev:
> 2009/12/1 Edison Carter <the.real.edison.carter at gmail.com>:
>   
>> Where does this become non-commercial?
>> - Selling a copy.
>>     
> Clearly commercial
>> - Giving away a copy free, but only with purchase of something else
>>     
> If you have to buy something else to get it, it isn't free. Clearly commercial.
>   
>> - Giving away copies without obligation, but where the goal is to attract
>> people who may purchase other things
>>     
> Non-commercial; see your last example -- the same comments apply.
>   
I agree on the answers above.

>> - Giving away copies but putting paid-for advertising alongside it.
>>     
> That's commercial. Indeed it's the business model of most commercial TV.
>   
Here I disagree. You do not have to look at the advertising. And because
anybody can distribute the works non-commercially, people will go to the
places where there are no advertising, or where the advertising is the
least annoying.

Market forces make it impossible to make more money from advertising
than the cost of distributing the works. Unless you are known to pick
the best works for distribution, in which case you supply a service
which is more than the mere distribution of the works.

Most important is that there is no requirement for any payment. IMHO
this case is not much different from the previous case.

>> - Facilitating the free exchange of copies (without directly doing any of
>> the copying) and displaying advertising along the way.
>>     
> It's commercial, but it isn't copying. The copying is non commercial.
> Non-commercial copying should be legal, and a commercial service
> facilitating a legal activity should also be legal.
>   
I agree. Telling people where to find copyrighted works, or linking to
copyrighted works should never be seen as a copyright infringement.

>> - Giving away copies and gaining goodwill (an accountable businesses asset)
>> simply by virtue of being the giver.
>>     
> Non-commercial. If this counts as commercial, then it's also
> commercial to chat to a friend: after all one may at some point buy or
> sell something with one's friend, or go into business with them, or
> they may be a useful contact that gets one a job.
>   
Exactly. You don't really get a lot of goodwill by giving away copies
that anybody can give away. But you get some kind of goodwill (social
status) which cannot be accounted: In a gift economy like the file
sharing communities your social status depends on what you give, instead
of what you have.

Best Regards,

Ole Husgaard.