[pp.int.general] A Swedish Rights Management organization now accepts some CC licences
v.villenave at gmail.com
Fri May 29 01:35:41 CEST 2009
2009/5/28 Christian <email at christian-hufgard.de>:
> rms wrote:
>> This is a step in the right direction, but not sufficient if it is
>> limited to the NC licenses.
> Allowing commercial use would get really difficult for rights management
> organizations. With IT the problem might be solved... One way would also
> be to couple the free licence to another nickname.
I'm not sure I understand what's at stake here (and CoreTX's comment
has freightened me a bit). If we're talking -NC, then /nobody/'s
paying anything to anyone, right? So, what's to win for a rights
management organization then? Do they make people pay anyway? (Which
would be a license violation; that is more or less what jamendo.com is
shamelessly doing now.)
> So if an artist wants to release his products to the public, he can
> leave the organization and rely on cc-by to gain enough money for his
An artist is /always/ allowed to sell a work if he's the only author,
no matter the license. So IIUC you're talking about e.g. the
musician's breakfast, not the composer's?
> I don't know anybody who managed this way from nobody to professional.
> Some artists have come pretty close, but it's a much heavier one than
> programming for money 9 hours a day and releasing free software in the
Speaking of "professionals", the reason why I feel concerned about
rights management organizations is that in France, as stated by our
"Intellectual Property Code" (that's how the laws are named), a TV or
radio network can *not* use any work that is not registered to a
government-approved organization. And therefore, this totally forbids
any free-licensed cultural work from ever having any chance of being
> P.S. Do I guess right, that the only cc licence you accept as free in
> means of the GPL is cc-by?
I think by-sa would qualify as well, being copyleft like the GPL...
More information about the pp.international.general