I completely agree with you. When I'm not hacking, I'm a musician. I'm currently beginning work on an album and thought about putting it under a free license. However, this album will roughly be half a year of full-time work (yes, that kind of work can be horribly time consuming), since I'm doing everything myself, from start to finish. This is why I plan on selling it, most likely on a donation basis. The free license doesn't keep me from doing so while still providing all the niceties of copyleft licenses.
There's just one thing: I don't want others to profit from my work. Listeners can get the album from wherever they want, do whatever they want to it or with it, I don't care. I suspect that if they like it, they'll drop me some form of donation and if they can't afford it, I'm also happy with a simple "thank you". But I definitely don't want my works to end up as cash in someone elses pocket, so that's why would be choosing a CC-NC license. If that goes away, I'll have to come up with my own license, or just use a non-copyleft license, whatever is easier and cheaper for me.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for sharing. Music is meant to be shared. That's why I want to encourage people to give it to their friends, hence the free license.
There are quite a few similar use cases for a NC license, so we should rather look into the issue of where "commercial" starts, rather than removing the NC license and losing potential free works.
I assume that the problem isn't so much being played on the radio but rather not wanting "my works to end up as cash in someone elses pocket". For example, being broadcast by the not-for-profit and no-paid-advertising college radio station sounds like it will be okay.
Comments
I completely agree with you. When I'm not hacking, I'm a musician. I'm currently beginning work on an album and thought about putting it under a free license. However, this album will roughly be half a year of full-time work (yes, that kind of work can be horribly time consuming), since I'm doing everything myself, from start to finish. This is why I plan on selling it, most likely on a donation basis. The free license doesn't keep me from doing so while still providing all the niceties of copyleft licenses.
There's just one thing: I don't want others to profit from my work. Listeners can get the album from wherever they want, do whatever they want to it or with it, I don't care. I suspect that if they like it, they'll drop me some form of donation and if they can't afford it, I'm also happy with a simple "thank you". But I definitely don't want my works to end up as cash in someone elses pocket, so that's why would be choosing a CC-NC license. If that goes away, I'll have to come up with my own license, or just use a non-copyleft license, whatever is easier and cheaper for me.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for sharing. Music is meant to be shared. That's why I want to encourage people to give it to their friends, hence the free license.
There are quite a few similar use cases for a NC license, so we should rather look into the issue of where "commercial" starts, rather than removing the NC license and losing potential free works.
I hope that makes any sense at all.
There are other words you can use. You can grant people a nonexclusive license to redistribute unmodified copies of the work without cost.
Which means that anyone using an advertising-based revenue model would allow "others to profit from [tsahyt's] work", which is not what tsahyt wants.
For example, "without cost" would allow a radio station, or a streaming system like Spotify, to play it without monetary compensation.
Yes. I was assuming he would want his music played on the radio. Maybe that's a mistake.
I assume that the problem isn't so much being played on the radio but rather not wanting "my works to end up as cash in someone elses pocket". For example, being broadcast by the not-for-profit and no-paid-advertising college radio station sounds like it will be okay.