Notices by Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz), page 157

@djsumdog
> The parallel between NC to software probably falls in the realm of the GPL/GPLv3

The closest CC equivalent to GPL (any version) is BY-SA. The software equivalent to NC is proprietary shareware; you can give away copies but you can't sell it.

@wolftune @CharredStencil @LWFlouisa

@wolftune if Scoop move to an NC license, they may be more likely to get commercial users to pay, as CC licenses are now widely used by government and other public service entities, and NZ companies (and their lawyers) have become quite familiar with the license suite, and what is and is not allowed by the various licenses.
@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@wolftune if we go back to the case that kicked off this discussion, the work on Scoop.co.nz is currently under ARR copyright. If they moved to BY-SA license, they would totally undermine the commercial license they offer, because they would be explicitly giving away the rights they are asking commercial users to pay for. So that's not going to happen.
@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@wolftune perhaps the best way to respond to this would have been simply to say that I understand the arguments against NC, and even sympathize with them, but they're simply irrelevant to the original post that kicked off the discussion, which was:
https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/101175136056466339

@djsumdog see:
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation

#IANAL but my understanding is ...

> If you have ads on your blog and use an NC photo, is that commercial?

No. But putting up a gallery of NC photos with ads would be.

> What about a documentary that's for free on YouTube, but has a paid BluRay version with extras?

The version on YT wouldn't trigger the NC clause, but the BluRay version would.

@djsumdog @LWFlouisa the Scoop.co.nz model is that they publish their news gathering work to the web without a paywall (currently under ARR copyright). Non-commercial use, ie people reading the news, and giving people copies to read, is expected and allowed. But when people regularly use their work as part of their job or business, Scoop asks them to pay a commercial license, so they can afford to continue operating without a paywall.

@wolftune
> "I doubt a network TV show, for example, would use a song licensed as CC BY-SA ... because they wouldn't want to license the whole show under Creative Commons."

That depends whether that use is considered under copyright law to be a *derivative* work, or an *aggregate* work. But that aside, putting the song up on BandCamp and monetizing it, freeriding off the artists work, doesn't create any kind of derivative, so SA doesn't work here.

@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@wolftune
> "owever, a simple CC share-alike license is enough to stop traditional commercial enterprises from taking advantage of the artist's CC generosity."

This works for software, but not for artwork, and this is another example of why software is a special case. I addressed this here:
https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/101180725914337052

@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@wolftune sure, as would the creation of a global UBI. I support this ideal, and like you, I've put work into trying to make it a reality. If we succeed, we will have a strong case that it's time to retire the NC clause (or copyright law in general). But for the time being, that's not the world we live in.
@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@wolftune software *is* a special case. For one thing, it's never finished. Programmers can continue to be paid for labour related to fixing bugs, or adding features, or improving #UX, or maintaining it the systems it interacts with change, or offering it as a service. Once a novel, or an album, or a movie has been made, it's finished. There is no way the creator can continue to get paid *except* for royalties on commercial distribution.
@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@wolftune when works can be freely shared for non-commercial use, the only people whose "freedoms" are restricted by an NC clause are those with sufficient capital to set up large scale distribution and marketing efforts that would make it worth doing commercial distribution of them ie corporations and capitalists. Quite honestly, bugger 'em. Their freedom to extract value from other people's labour is not something I'm interested in defending.
@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@wolftune @CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa free culture ideals, applied to *everything*, would make sense in a world with a global UBI. That's a great dream, and one I'd support, but it's not the world we live in. In this world, people who write novels, record albums, and make films, have rent to pay, and so on. I'm not opposed to licenses that waive them, but copyright restrictions on *commercial* use are totally fair (software is a special case).

@wolftune @CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa Eg the PR phrase "sharing economy" was used to describe gig economy platforms, so as to elicit knee-jerk support from cyber-utopians, even left-leaning ones who support workers rights. If, for example, every "sharing economy" company had started putting money into a pool, to fund a UBI for everyone doing work on their platform, that would have been a whole different proposition. A *real* sharing economy we could actually support.

@wolftune I think this discussion missed a few steps. I'm in favour of free culture, in the same way I'm in favour of gift economies, or UBI, or post-capitalist societies. I support them as ideals. But if you're not careful, your own ideals can be used as a rhetorical strategy in support of limited changes, that actually make things worse. 1/2
@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@wolftune my preferred solution would be to reform copyright law so that non-commercial use is explicitly excluded from its jurisdiction, with a very clear legal definition of "commercial use", and the burden of proof on the copyright holder to prove a use is commercial by that definition. I think the work done on the NC clause has paved the way for such a change, so even just on that score, it's been a useful tool.

@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

@djsumdog I choose #CC licenses according to the nature of the work. My #SciFi stories go under #BY-NC. They are my creation, and if anyone wants to publish them commercially they can damn well pay me. Wikis and blog posts I create for public interest projects like #Disintermedia and #Counterclaim are under #BY-SA, to make them compatible with other public interest reference works like Wikipedia. There's nothing to gain from banning a commercial distribution nobody has any reason to engage in.

@wolftune @CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa I don't know how many novelists, musicians, or film-makers you know. I know quite a few, and I can tell you for certain that *none* of them are going to put their work under a license that allows any Tom, Dick, or Harry to sell copies without including them in the resulting revenue stream. If you think having this work under ARR copyright is better than having it under a CC license with an NC clause, then we will continue to disagree.

@wolftune that said, I totally support the project to define #FreeCulture by analogy to #FreeSoftware, so that Free Culture licenses exclude NC and ND clauses. I have a hard time thinking of a valid use case for the ND clause, and I'd support CC scrapping ND in version 5.0. They would need to reassure creators though, that the other licenses explicitly disallow passing off derivatives as the work of the original author.

@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa

Some days I just feel embarrassed to be a human, but then I remember that #DavidAttenborough is a human too, and that we're a species that can admit admit and correct our mistakes (sometimes at least), and then I feel proud to be a human :-)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/03/david-attenborough-collapse-civilisation-on-horizon-un-climate-summit

@wolftune I think it is useful to have a license that explicitly gives permission for all non-commercial use, while preventing media corporations from free-riding on creative workers. If gig economy platforms like Uber have taught us anything, it's that we need to be very careful to make sure #OpenWashing and #CommonsWashing aren't being used to justify getting rid of things that protect workers from extractive capitalists.

@CharredStencil @djsumdog @LWFlouisa