Actually I agree -- that wording is not very good, and gives the wrong impression.

Join a PRO, radio play is a performance right, not a mechanical one.

I don't think there is. However, a change in the structure of the 2.0 licenses (where public performance/reproduction aren't actually defined, but covered under the same point under Restrictions) and the 3.0 licenses (where there is a clear distinction between public performance and reproduction in the definitions section) could mean that they are atomizing further.

Either way, the 3.0 license is easy to adapt to this type of case. It's just a matter of removing a few words.

This. Which by the way nicely illustrates a problem with the NC option; is there a derivative yet which allows radio play but prohibits commercial distribution as mp3 or CD?

rules are meant to be broken

ZEN WAR

i didn't read everything cause it's 2012 and i have to get back to twitter BUT

seems like it's not that bad if something encourages people to
a) write more original music
b) ask an artist if they're okay with you covering / remixing them first

also this entire thread hinges on assuming someone is going to take legal action if someone else covers/remixes their work. It's basically just a safety net to keep people from thinking they can profit off of your music just because you released it for free.

Yeah I mean, if you approach the CC licenses as concise "preference and plausible deniability gives" I totally get that.

Well, imagine someone sees the ND for first time. He goes here to learn what this mean and reads:

Sounds quite negative to me. I didn't ever see that someone would add a not that someone who wants to get a permission, he may try to contact the author, and I doubt it is that obvious. If it would be worded like 'you need to get direct author permission to alter, transform, or build upon this work' (with 'don't need' for non-ND licenses), that would be much better.

That's not what it is, though — it's not a negative answer. I might lock my door when I leave my apartment because I don't want everyone in my neighborhood to come in, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't invite you in if you knocked. Wear a short skirt & hell it's almost a guarantee.

edit: including quote

YO i just realised that when i asked if share alike was similar to no derivatives i meant "share music" not SA

i don't think i've seen the SM license in aaaages though. it was an option on this other music (now defunct) community.

It should be noted that CC licenses aren't an enforcement tool. Many Internet people who reuse stuff for things like a personal video etc don't care about licenses, they simple don't understand and don't think about it ('it is internet, everything is free here', 'it is just my pesonal page', 'I don't make money from it' etc). So you can write it all the way across your work that no deriatives and unauthorized use is prohibited, but it still could end up in a neo-Nazi video as easily as a CC-BY licensed work. So it is more to give a clear and short explaination of your stand point about your work for those who cares.

Another thing that comes out of this is that when someone expressed his stand point in a ND license, not many people will consider to attempt to make an agreement with the author. I personally would prefer to avoid pissing an author out by asking him for a thing that he is already answered negatively.

I think that ND is useful when the integrity of the work is very important to you, but you explicitly want to grant the consumer some other right that CC provides a clear legal definition of (in the case of ND-BY, probably the right to commercially distribute and perform the work). Maybe you have written and recorded a political speech and don't want half of it cut out, reassembled and used to your disadvantage, but you want commercial radio stations to be able to play it back freely.

even though I just did

I don't think the creative commons licensing system is perfect, but I think for the most part it does what it sets out to do — to give people creating things an easy means of stating, in a clear and up-front way, what permissions they are comfortable granting.

The creative commons licensing system is not an alternative to "traditional" copyright. It's just a nicely-packaged, digestible, template-ized set of licenses presented in a way that is easy to use online (or wherever).

The practicalities of Person B using Person A's music (or other types of creative works) has always been something managed via two things: an up-front recognition / acknowledgement of ownership (Person B recognizes Person A made the work, and therefore it's theirs) and a negotiation of permissions and terms of use (a license).

Creative commons licenses are just a very, very stripped-down set of licenses presented for people to use if they like, because it very, very, very much streamlines the communication of intentions and conditions between rightsholder and the party interested in using the work.

The ND option is not meant, I think, to placate copyright conservatives, but instead is presented simply because different people have different levels of comfort with how their creative work is used and by what parties. (This, in my view, is something that's worth being selective about, lest one day you find your music has ended up as the soundtrack to some neo-Nazi video or something maybe less implausible but similarly abhorrent to you personally.) And it's worth keeping in mind that the ND option doesn't prohibit anything at all — it just doesn't explicitly grant permission up-front. For parties interested in using a piece of music in their game, remix, funny cat video, etc., the option always remains for them to contact the artist directly to arrange for permission.

This concludes my report on the Creative Commons licensing system.

Also,

Attribution. The CC symbol for it is