Notices by Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz), page 156

@wolftune because ultimately, it doesn't matter that much what license decisions the tiny handful of people already singing in the free culture/ free software choirs make. What matters is this; what strategies can successfully get 20%, 50%, 75%, of all creative workers to choose any kind of license other than ARR?

@wolftune I agree with your ideals, and I think we're ultimately trying to get to the same place. But it seems to me you think we can get there in one easy step (everybody just license non-NC, go!), which suggests to me you haven't spent much time talking to people outside the free culture/ free software world about what steps they're willing to take.

@wolftune what can I say? I helped start the CC license porting project for NZ. I've spent years trying to convince professional artists to use CC licenses, and following negotiations with artist organizations about it. I'm not just firing off pure theory, based on vague analogies with the software industry. I'm reporting what does and does not have a change of flying, based on years of coalface advocacy.

@wolftune My argument is that if artists decided collectively to move to NC licenses, eg if the collecting societies and other artists organizations started advising their members to do that, instead of the advice they currently give to avoid CC licensing like the plague, this would improve things for audiences and other non-commercial users without harming artists. Not so if they moved to non-NC license, and it's not going to happen anyway.

@wolftune now you're just being disingenuous.

> The big budget SciFi films these days have a HUGE portion of their budget dedicated to animation!

Not the South Park style of animation used in in Sita Sings the Blues.

> Really, this is apples and oranges though

That's my point.

@wolftune maybe the actual situation is that *all* CC licenses are mostly avoided by professional artists who aren't free culture activists because, a) media companies distrust them, b) collecting societies and other artists organizations distrust them, and c) audiences don't reward artists using CC with cash/money very much?
@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@wolftune besides, the plural of one very well-known anecdote is not "data" ;-) How many other examples can you come up with of work under non-NC CC licenses achieving commercial success?
@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@wolftune I'm familiar with Nina's arguments. Sita Sings the Blues is not a typical example of the medium. For one thing, animation is much cheaper to make than live action, and can be made entirely in the studio by one person. If and when we come with way of funding big budget #SciFi films without copyright, I will buy the drinks for the party :-) @CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@djsumdog the thing is, the #PublicDomain is not a proper commons, at least not as #ElinorOstrom defined the commons. It's more like a parking lot full of abandoned cars, that anyone can do anything they like with, including run people over. A proper commons has systems of governance and rules of use (eg CC and the CC license, or the FSF and the GPL), to prevent freeriding that damages its sustainability, or causes harm to participants.
@wolftune @CharredStencil @LWFlouisa

@djsumdog true, there is the #CommonsClause, and the use of the #PeerProductionLicense on software, both of which are motivated by similar concerns to the NC license, but I would argue they have very different implications (I know
@wolftune disagrees with that, but there you go)
@CharredStencil @LWFlouisa

@djsumdog so far Scoop haven't done any enforcement, they are hoping to rely on the honesty box principle. They do a bit of IP monitoring as part of evaluating whether this is working for them. This is nothing like #GettyImages, because a) unlike Scoop, Getty perform no public interest function, they are just a profit-maker, and b) aggressively suing for any and all copyright infringement is a core part of Getty's business model. Scoop don't do this, and don't want to.
@LWFlouisa

@djsumdog
> I won't want anyone making a buck off my stuff. 😋

Fair enough, but this doesn't answer any of the questions I asked.

@wolftune @CharredStencil @LWFlouisa

@wolftune
> What about when I had freedoms restricted making completely non-commercial art??

This is a shame, but the cost to you (and to the creators using NC licenses) was pretty minimal. The only way I can see to avoid this, without allowing capitalists to further exploit creative workers, is to reform copyright to exclude non-commercial uses, as discussed in a previous post.

@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@wolftune
> None of those software-is-special arguments really hold up well to scrutiny.

For now, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I think the #FSF make a strong case that there are fundamental differences, and nothing that I've read on FreedomDefined.org or in this discussion has convinced me otherwise, so far.

@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@wolftune The same way multinationals use cheap products made with sweatshop labour to drive down wages in unionized shops.

@wolftune Artists have collectivized and fought many times to increase their share of the revenues media companies make off their work, using ARR copyright as a lever. Thus I consider it self-evident that if the majority of creative workers put all their work under CC licenses without NC clauses, media companies would capitalize on this by further reducing the already miserable amount of compensation they give creators relative to revenues.

@wolftune where's the evidence that not stepping in front of buses is saving people's lives? Maybe we need to get more people to step in front of buses, so we can collect the data? ;-P

@wolftune I haven't pitched the idea to them yet, and there's no guarantee they would adopt it. But sure, I'll let you know if they do, and how it goes for them. Last I checked they were trying a hybrid crowdfunding approach, where commercial users can get a discount if they buy a license during the crowdsale / amnesty, and this seems to have worked well enough to keep them afloat for another year.
@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@djsumdog @wolftune @CharredStencil @LWFlouisa
> the Linux Kernel never upgrading to v3.

The only differences this creates is that certain changes were made in GPLv3 to protect users against things like some aspects of software patents, and the use of GPL software in locked-down hardware that doesn't allow people who buy it to make use of all four software freedoms ("#Tivoization"). See:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html

@djsumdog
> all my photographs are licensed under BY-NC-SA

Why? Do you think it likely that anyone would pay you to license them? Has anyone offered to do so? Is the money you're likely to make out this enough to make it worth preventing your photos being used in public interest works like Wikipedia, or as part of other non-commercial mashups?
https://blog.wolftune.com/2011/07/brain-parts-song-video.html

@wolftune @CharredStencil @LWFlouisa