Magic Banana:
"I do not recognize companies (Netflix, Spotify, iTunes, the Kindle store,
the hairdressing salons, the bars, the book stores, the radio/TV channels,
the movie theaters, etc.) any right to redistribute recent artistic works
without giving a cent back to artists."
Neither do I. Businesses using people artwork in the course of their business
can afford to pay for that, and I do think it's an unreasonable use of
copyright to ensure that they do. Does anyone really think it's fair for a
giant corporate music company to use their legacy marketing and distribution
networks to make money off albums released under free culture CC licenses,
and give none of that money back to the artists? I suspect that musicians
believe that's what they're being asked to allow, and why so many of them do
not understand that a strategic use of CC licensing serves their interests
better than ARR copyright. People being overly rigid about free culture is
counterproductive at this point.
IANAL but I think if libre games with NC artwork were made available gratis
to the public, by via an organisation providing a gratis GNU/Linux
distribution (installers and repos), I do not believe that would be
considered "commercial user" under any CC license. So exactly what
unacceptable problem is caused by the NC clause, given its benefits as
described above?
JXSelf:
"Other artists are not part of the public? Non-artists never have a desire to
have something changed? Ever? They can't have someone else do it for them?"
The NC clause does not prevent this. Derivative works can be made, but they
like the original, are limited to gratis distribution, not commercial use. If
the creator of the derivative work wants to change this, they have the
freedom to replace the NC-SA licensed components of their work with something
they have created (or under a license with no NC clause). The NC-SA is almost
tautological, because the creator of the derivative can always dual license
their original contributions under a freer license, even if the distribution
of the combined works are constrained by the license applying to their
component parts.
The ND clause is one I have a lot more problems with. I've never really heard
a good argument for preventing sampling, mash-ups, reinterpretation and so
on. I see it used a lot in Jamendo music and I wonder if it's intended to
stop video makers using them in monetized YT videos, or game makers using
their music in commercial games, without sharing some revenue with them, but
the NC clause would be a better tool to address this.
I've also seen the ND clause applied to texts, where the author claims they
need it for the same reasons the GNU FDL has "invariant sections", to prevent
someone from altering the text and misattributing those changes to the
original author. There's a whole bunch of laws that address misattributing
statements to a person (fraud, libel etc), you don't need to use copyright
licensing. Also, I've never heard of a real world case of this happening with
texts in the public domain, or under free culture licenses.
