[pp.int.general] A Swedish Rights Management organization now accepts some CC licences

[Christian]

Valentin Villenave wrote:
> 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.)

NC allows free non commercial usage. This is now clearly defined at the
moment, but if you try to sell a CD with NC licencsed music and you are
not legitimated, you are violating the terms. But you are allowed to do
so - if you register this copy at the rights management organization.
(And the artist should tell you that you have to do so, if he allows you
the commercial use)


>> 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
>> breakfast.
> 
> 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 meant the case, were the creators are the musicans.


>> 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
>> night.
> 
> 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
> broadcasted nation-wide.

That's weird.

>> 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...

Oh, my fault. cc-by allowes a work to become unfree. cc-by-sa is what I
meant.


Christian