There must be a typo somewhere? Because one of the one hand you say
"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."
If you do think that it's unreasonable to use copyright to make sure that
they do then this is an argument against NC licensing but the rest of what
you right seems to be in support of it.
"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?"
Does anyone really think it's fair for a giant corporation (in this case Red
Hat) to make money off software released under free licenses, and give none
of that money back to the developers? Or you can pick any other example you
like (Apple, etc.) You must object to both of these or neither of them in
order to remain consistent because they are both creative works.
"...what unacceptable problem is caused by the NC clause, given its benefits
as described above?"
Since one of the Freedom Defined requirements is that a free cultural work
must not restrict any particular kind of use, even commercial use, the NC
license is not considered a free culture license. http://freedomdefined.org/
So it's like asking "...what unacceptable problem is caused by non-commercial
licensing of software?" It's non-free in both cases.
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?"
strypey:
"The NC clause does not prevent this."
I never said it did. This statement is being made in support of the argument
that modifications should be allowed. Because Banana was arguing against even
being able to change it, claiming that "the freedoms of the public are not
harmed when it is not authorized to modify the work" and how only "artists"
might want to do that. I was trying to provide an example of how a
"non-artist" might want to and how they might then go about doing such a
thing.
Perhaps I should give up here. Everyone that's responding is doing so in
favor of the non-free licensing of things so I seem to be in the minority
here for free culture. I'll make a note of that about the Trisquel forums for
the future.
