Using Licensed Music

[The Wired Knight]

Uh, no. Here's why that's wrong.

The double-C-in-circle logo, by itself, can be interpreted as either not meaning anything or that the work to which it is applied is licensed under some Creative Commons license. "Colloquial" usage would lean towards the latter interpretation. But you cannot say just what rights you have to a work by the presence of the double-C-in-circle logo alone, because of the existence of Creative Commons licenses incorporating the "no derivative works" restriction, i.e. CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC-ND.

Which is why I strongly object to usage of the phrase "the Creative Commons license". It's not only technically meaningless, it encourages a mode of thinking that lumps all the Creative Commons licenses -- which vary widely with regard to the restrictions they each impose -- into one amorphous blob, which is about as far from the truth as you can get.

I can get only so personal here, but maybe you should rethink going to law school. What I'm point out are elementary errors, not subtle distinctions.

I know it's multiple licenses that the creator of the work can designate what he wants and what he doesn't want to allow his work to be used for.

And yes it is misnomer to call it a "creative common license"

"2. A name wrongly or unsuitably applied to a person or an object"

That's exactly what you are saying and I agreed with you on that, the name is incorrect but frankly, that's what people generally call the whole process whether you agree with it or not. I'm not going to get into a whole debate regarding the ins and outs of creative commons with people here, frankly speaking there was no need for it to get that technical nor as personal as you've decided to make it with unwarranted attacks to my character or intelligence.

It is a legiitimate form of licensing albeit with multiple subparts, maybe how I typed my sentance was unclear but I was pointing out that one can legitimatly use work under (cc) provided they use the right work for the right reasons for what the owner of the work actually agreed for it to be used for.

Admittedly I don't know what you do for a living Trythil but if you are willing to base your judgment on whether or not someone's vocation is proper based on one or two forum posts in a laid back environment without having any other sort of data to support any other facts or acusations then you seriously need to get your personality in more order before you start claiming that I am some sort of idiot that should never have gone to law school to begin with.

[The Wired Knight]

Uh, no. Here's why that's wrong.

The double-C-in-circle logo, by itself, can be interpreted as either not meaning anything or that the work to which it is applied is licensed under some Creative Commons license. "Colloquial" usage would lean towards the latter interpretation. But you cannot say just what rights you have to a work by the presence of the double-C-in-circle logo alone, because of the existence of Creative Commons licenses incorporating the "no derivative works" restriction, i.e. CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC-ND.

Which is why I strongly object to usage of the phrase "the Creative Commons license". It's not only technically meaningless, it encourages a mode of thinking that lumps all the Creative Commons licenses -- which vary widely with regard to the restrictions they each impose -- into one amorphous blob, which is about as far from the truth as you can get.

I can get only so personal here, but maybe you should rethink going to law school. What I'm point out are elementary errors, not subtle distinctions.

I know it's multiple licenses that the creator of the work can designate what he wants and what he doesn't want to allow his work to be used for.

And yes it is misnomer to call it a "creative common license"

"2. A name wrongly or unsuitably applied to a person or an object"

That's exactly what you are saying and I agreed with you on that, the name is incorrect but frankly, that's what people generally call the whole process whether you agree with it or not. I'm not going to get into a whole debate regarding the ins and outs of creative commons with people here, frankly speaking there was no need for it to get that technical nor as personal as you've decided to make it with unwarranted attacks to my character or intelligence.

It is a legiitimate form of licensing albeit with multiple subparts, maybe how I typed my sentance was unclear but I was pointing out that one can legitimatly use work under (cc) provided they use the right work for the right reasons for what the owner of the work actually agreed for it to be used for.

Admittedly I don't know what you do for a living Trythil but if you are willing to base your judgment on whether or not someone's vocation is proper based on one or two forum posts in a laid back environment without having any other sort of data to support any other facts or acusations then you seriously need to get your personality in more order before you start claiming that I am some sort of idiot that should never have gone to law school to begin with.

[The Wired Knight]

Apologies for the double post, internet here crapped out for a second and somehow it got read as two submits while the network reset.

[trythil]

It is a legiitimate form of licensing albeit with multiple subparts, maybe how I typed my sentance was unclear but I was pointing out that one can legitimatly use work under (cc) provided they use the right work for the right reasons for what the owner of the work actually agreed for it to be used for.

That's not what you wrote at all. Here's the first thing you wrote:

It's put up by artists that are basicaly saying they frankly don't care within reason.

"Don't care within reason" is really ambiguous, and unnecessarily so. We're not talking about defining fair use or some other nebulous concept here; Creative Commons has defined a set of three permissions. You can get into the subtleties of those permissions later, but they've managed to summarize those permissions quite succinctly, and there are many resources on the Web that you can link to so that you don't have to go through the trouble of typing it all out.

Your second response

It's technically a misnomer but colloquially it is called the creative common license and things put with the circle cc - (cc) (stupid qwerty keyboard has no way of typing that like you can a copyright symbol) is a legitimate form of using licensed material that technically is not otherwise in the public domain.

suffers from the same carelessness. The extent to which one can legitimately use Creative Commons-licensed material varies widely according to permission; the (cc) tells you nothing, except that the work is under some Creative Commons license. I wrote about this in my second response.

That's exactly what you are saying and I agreed with you on that, the name is incorrect but frankly, that's what people generally call the whole process whether you agree with it or not. I'm not going to get into a whole debate regarding the ins and outs of creative commons with people here, frankly speaking there was no need for it to get that technical nor as personal as you've decided to make it with unwarranted attacks to my character or intelligence.

"No need for it to get that technical"?

Creative Commons puts this info up in simple infographics, an example of which can be found here. How "technical" is that?

As I keep pointing out, these are not subtle details; these are integral to the entire point of Creative Commons. They offer a choice in copyright, not a free-for-all. Telling people that it's the latter, or "usage within reason", is doing people a disservice. Not only do you complicate the issue by introducing unnecessary layers of gray, you also insult your readers' intelligence -- presuming that they can't handle combinations.

You keep arguing from the "most people call it this, therefore I am justified in my carelessness" angle. You also attempt to justify that carelessness by saying "hey, it's a laid-back Internet forum, I can do what I want". Neither is true. If you're going to point out an alternative, it behooves you to speak honestly and accurately about what that alternative represents, regardless of what "people" think. It is not your job to go with popular opinion; it is your job to set the record straight. In this case, it would have been as easy as (1) explaining that the (cc) marker indicates a Creative Commons license in use, and (b) linking to http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/ as a primer. (How easy is that? They've done all the writing for you!)

Finally: yes, I did make an attack on your character, and yes, it was unwarranted. It was borne out of frustration -- frustration that you refused to address concepts critical to Creative Commons, stating that they are too "technical" and unnecessary, when Creative Commons can summarize those concepts in an 88x31 image file.

I do wonder just why you think informal settings are an excuse to omit basic details. People here are more than capable of understanding complexities if you give them the chance.