thank you! i think it is fixed now :)

My two cents, as an artist-I think of the cc-by license as a gift. Also, I think the cc-by license is a way to underline the importance of attribution.

Whenever I use this license, I feel like I’m contributing to the culture of sharing in a way that is deeper. I become less attached to what happens to my work in the future and more attached to the idea of sharing it right now.

I also think it’s really sending a beautiful message to the world, that ccMixter artists, freely acting as a sharing community, intentionally releases collections of work under cc-by.

Thanks for asking the question Clarence, it helped me understand my views a bit more clearly.

One of the things I’ve noticed about CCMixter By samples and mixes is that they tend to get used not by big companies that really ought to give you a cut, but by small businesses that often struggle to make simple productions with something sprightlier than stock music. Whether we always appreciate it or not, CC-By-NC is a pretty significant reduction in rights from CC-By, cutting out a lot of the potential of the music, as well as the benefits the licenses can extend. I know in some cases, our music careers require these reductions, but sometimes it is nice to extend the gift out a little bit further.

In my own case, CC-By stuff has been used by real estate agents, tour operators, NGOs, and one man software operations. So I feel the gift is usually well targeted. My “free-er” stuff is going to benefit Mom and Pop, not ACME Inc!

Like spinningmerkaba, I believe an event that increases the gifting quotient is a good thing, for so many reasons.

seems fine to me. i heard the Three Kings was (also) a metaphor for Orion’s belt, which form a straight line with Sirius and the sun from Winter Solstice through Christmas? ;)

Hey Loveshadow,

Thanks for the perspective with this post. After some discussion with some of the admin team, we don’t disagree with you and have thereby added the CC-BY-NC to the submit forms.

Because this project is in the spirit of the giving season (and the name is BY AND BY!) we do encourage CC-BY licenses, however, we agree it is important to have the freedom of choice!

Thanks to all for being such a great community, where we can find our way to the best path for the collective.

Cheers.

:-)

Though the upload requirements have changed, and for good reason—I disagree with your critique Loveshadow. Here is why:

First, the event is entitled “By and By” and is clearly outlined as a cc-by event. Whether you agree or disagree with the wording of the event’s description is semantics. Personally, I like “we ask” better than “you must.” That’s just me. Wording almost always leaves room for interpretation, but in this case it is apparent what the parameters of the event are.

Second, Why is the event asking Mixters to contribute works under the cc-by license? Because it’s “in the spirit of growing” the pool of material under that license, with all that that implies. “In the spirit of giving” works for me too though. Maybe more so. I will upload my contributions in the spirit of both.

Third. Freedom to choose? Inherently, it is in the creator’s discretion to contribute to the project or not, depending if they choose to license their material under cc-by or not. Pretty basic. The freedom to choose is right there.

As an example: Mixters have the choice to participate in a secret mixter event. But participants do not have the freedom to choose their assignments. That is a rule. That defines the event, and give it it’s character. In this way, I believe the By and By event is defined by uploading material under the cc-by license. You can choose to see that as restrictive, or not.

Your comments, as a champion of the cc ideal, seem to me, in this instance, to be misplaced.

The ccMixter admin team is definitely not a rigid “you must” body. The By and By event, as it unfolds, is yet another example of the team’s flexibility and reflects a noble intent. “We ask” that you upload cc-by, but it is not now required.

Quote: spinningmerkabaAs an example: Mixters have the choice to participate in a secret mixter event. But participants do not have the freedom to choose their assignments. That is a rule. That defines the event, and give it it’s character.


I can follow you on most of your points and will contribute in the spirit of by and by, but that won’t be my best work feeling I want to have some control over that (being commercially intersting or not). But I feel this point goes a bit limp (don’t know if thats the right expression) and this is why.

1 The rules of the SM are creating a creative challenge using samples of just one user, you ‘have’ to (or at least I do) work with the samples you get presented with your assingment. I don’t see leaving any commercial license creating any more creative process. Actually reading some of the posts here it could work the other way around.

2 Within the SM you CAN use other peoples samples as long as most of the work (I thought I read somewhere 2/3) comes from your assignment. I’ve seen numerous works being created with more then 1 sound source.
For me the rule is with a vocalist I can create the music/rythm parts (my Sackjo & MC jack remixes) but with a musician I can only colour the track with some extra own sounds (your remix)


Don’t want to be nitpicking, just my $0,02

Why not do your best work?

Simply because I don’t want to give my best away to people I don’t know and don’t know there intension. With you people I feel safe, just like snowflake says, and feel we have a mutual interest and standards about how we tread each other and each others work. I’ve seen too many examples where that went wrong.

Please understand that I’m only saying this because I believe and love this community so much.

“The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.” Newton

“The value of a man resides in what he gives and not in what he is capable of receiving.” ~Einstein

I believe many of us musicians feel our art is devalued by society. We are not alone - artists have been terribly undervalued over the centuries. I’m not certain how to change this on a broader scale, but I’ve adopted the motto “you must give to receive” with my music, and well, it is changed everything for me.

Since early in my music career, I’ve decided to give my music away despite the dismal advice of others. I do not regret it, and have found my giving has brought me so much more in return. I’ve learned fans and supporters come through my giving.

A gift economy is rising. I learned a lot about this concept at Burning Man (Adisa is a good Mixter to ask about this) - there is no exchange of money. Each person brings something to give, without thought of return, and because everyone gives, no one wants for anything.

Certainly our current world is a far cry from this Utopian ideal, but, ccMixter is not. We give our talents and time to each other. I give one pella, and look how many remixes I get in return!

We can’t guarantee the honesty or fairness of others - it is almost easier to just assume there will be dishonesty and unfairness. But, that won’t stop me from giving my music - to ccMixter and wherever it goes from here. I believe ‘karma’ is just another way of describing Newton’s third law of motion.

As our music moves beyond the community of ccM and out into the world (which is happening, and if we keep creating great stuff, it will continue and perhaps even accelerate), I can imagine there will be people that might not use our music in accordance with the licenses, out of ignorance or who knows what. I believe education about CC licenses will become increasingly important. But that’s another thread…..

I understand how you feel Abstract. I have very similar thoughts and questions. It’s inherent in the process of being a creator I guess.

And ccMixter is a great place to expand your creativity. Thats what comes out of these conversations, expansion and new thought!

Looking forward to your next upload.

There is no connection, in my mind, between the “rules” of a secret mixter event (you mix who you get) and the expressed desires of this one where participants were asked to upload with a cc-by license. Secret mixter simply requires that you provide a remix of the artist you were assigned within a specified period, this event requests that you give your work product away with no strings attached whatsoever.

I completely understand the intent of this event and the desire to have uploads licensed CC-BY, but once the allowance for alternate licensing is made what purpose is served by then commenting that that’s not what we really want and you had the choice to not contribute? I, for one, don’t like how that feels.

I thought, on my initial reading of the forum discussion, that an understanding had been reached by the admins that pellas would not be barred if their creators did not want to allow the most liberal license available under CC. This seemed to me to be a showing that the site was adaptable to the sensibilities of the community, which I thought was admirable, and a showing of empathy with the needs and desires of artists.

This post, while I respect it’s intent, adds a begrudging tone to the discussion. In the spirit of giving, there should be no grudge attached. If we decide to respect an opinion we do not entirely agree with, we should keep it so and not say after, “well we did it but we didn’t like doing it.”

It’s just my own opinion, and yes I’ll be upfront and say I support Loveshadow’s work and his desire to see it be whatever it can be and that colors my opinion but I’d feel the same if I came upon this discussion and others were involved. The spirit of this community is embodied in its membership. The kindness and mutual respect here are extraordinary for an online collection of artists. Each exchange over whatever issue colors the “air” we breathe here and I share my concern only because I want to see things thrive and not wither.

This is situation is largely my fault. Yesterday I made a decision, consulting with one other admin alone, to add CC-NC-BY to the submit form. In hindsight, it was unfair of me - as the decision to make the project CC-BY was a collective one, and I changed it without consulting that same collective.

I hope I have learned from my mistake, and ask the forgiveness of both the community and the admin team.

That aside, I hope this discussion adds to the richness of this event. Transformation. I believe our community works together in a remarkable way - one that until ccMixter, I had started to lose faith in. This thread is part of that richness.

Thank you all for sharing your opinions. I believe honest expression makes us better.

Peace.

When tomorrow Comes
And the bells all fade
Will we do the things we always do
Or will we change
When tomorrow comes
If i truly can
I would want to wake and start the day
A better man
When Tomorrow comes.

ironically, these lyrics by Loveshadow, provided in his new pella express how i feel. isn’t it amazing, how our music speaks more eloquently than words? ;)

Thanks essesq-

I think timing—and possibly time zones—blurs my intent. I apologize for this. If I have also blurred the line between mixter and admin, I apologize. It’s sometimes hard for me to know where that line is.

Either way, as a mixter or as an admin, or as both, I feel the same. ccMixter is where it’s at. Bottom line.

Sorry the Secret Mixter example missed the mark. Only trying to say that rules can be seen in different light…

…Listening to Loveshadow’s contribution right now, and whoa! Music just says so much more…I’m blown away. Beautiful.

Thanks

spinning , I am doing to my best to be calm about your post here.

If i am to understand what you are saying correctly here it is firstly

…that my `freedom to choose’ was if i didn’t want to upload under CC BY i can just not bother to be a part of it , and stay out right ?

And that when you say `ask ’ as if there was an option at that point that you are uncomfortable with the stark reality that in fact there was no other choice or route to participation which in reality was `You Must’ even though you dont like saying it loud ?

…and to have uploaded 169 remixes spending 1000s of hours in doing so of CC Licensed material here that now just by asking a question in a forum that i am not in your opinion Championing the CC Ideal simply because i dont choose the CC BY option on my uploads and you do ?

Would that be a fair summary ?

I have never said the admin was ridgid but no matter how you flip this `Ask’ suggests an option but only now is there one.

My apologies Loveshadow. As I read your first post, I interpreted it as a critique about the event, and more than just asking a question.

No need to read further into it than that.

For in my mind I too had the same questions as you. For mixing purposes as an example, just cc-by would cut out a lot of source material, and even if a mixter used a cc-by pell or sample from the “By an BY” uploads, by mixing it with a cc-nc sample, it would become a cc-nc mix. So technically, every sound a mixter used to participate in this event would have to be licensed cc-by. Pretty crazy.

So we are not so far from each other as it may seem here.

Cool?

Quote: Loveshadow
I have had an instance only this week of a Spanish Advertising company who believed they can use any CC tracks of mine commercially.


There is a lot of confusion on this, from all angles unfortunately, commercial use is a difficult standard to define, and in the same way that some people are overly liberal with their interpretations of “commercial use” some are likewise overly conservative.

Perhaps having some clear examples of tracks that are fair game for this sort of use could help to illustrate the restrictions on other tracks under less permissive licenses by contrast.

Quote: Loveshadow
It’s a great idea but wheres the freedom to choose in this ?


CC BY allows more freedom of choice for people beyond the original creator. But the choice to allow this still always remains with the original creator; and we have no intention or desire to pressure anyone to use more permissive licenses than they are comfortable with.

We’re just trying to shine the spotlight on this choice of license, which tends to get less use than the more popular NC licenses.

Using such a license is a pretty bold move, but not without good company:

http://ccmixter.org/files/l...

goldfish, You have taken what i said out of context.

I was saying `Wheres the freedom to choose what license my work has’ not what the license does. It’s because i know what the license does that i was asking the question in the first place.

Its clear you are not pressuring mixers to any particular choice or have a policy to do so as Spinningmerkaba has made it quite clear that the `freedom to choose’ was simply not to take part in the By and BY project if you did’nt like it.

It’s all water now, but i have growing concerns that more people are using CC material commercially because they can simply get away it.

It is a serious concern, I agree, misusing work that is cc licensed. There is some useful information in the creative commons wiki faq

Not sure about enforcement though, if there is a violation, I think it can get pretty complicated.

i believe a next big step for us at ccM is looking out for each other’s tracks out there. for example, Gurdonark let me know one of my tracks was featured by a DJ on Soundcloud without attributing me. I would have never known if it weren’t for him. I wrote the artist and the site and politely asked them to attribute me as required under the CC license. they were totally cool and did it straight away.

i’ve written to more than a few dozen folks re YouTube videos that have used ccMixter music without including attribution. i’m kind and polite, and each email has come back with total cooperation and attribution added.

what can we do to better look out for each other? what can we do to help honor attribution (and hinder inappropriate commerical use)?

i’d love ideas on this.

One thing that might be useful for folks to know is that youtube’s music tracking often picks up songs of mine without the creator crediting it properly. This can be very useful, as most folks are happy to credit if they just get the concept to do so. I don’t know how youtube’s algorithms work, but somehow they can track at least some of those songs for us.

Are you referring to YouTube’s Content ID program?

I remember looking at that before, but it looks like you have to print, sign, and fax a form to get access to their tools. I tend to be too lazy to do stuff when it involves non-computer work. :P

If that’s what you’re talking about what are your thoughts regarding how well the system works? Did you have to fax in a form? Do you just upload MP3s and let it find matches? Would you recommend all ccMixters sign up for the service?

For me, it’s been simpler than that.
When I run the name Gurdonark through the search engine, it pulls up songs of mine which do not bear proper credits. I do not have to sign up for anything or print anything or anything. It’s a content ID program, but it has not required me joining any clubs or signing up or anything. it used to not be that way, but now a lot of my song uses show up that way.

Wow, really? So if you search for “Gurdonark” then somehow video results will be displayed that don’t even have “Gurdonark” anywhere in the video title, tags, or description?

Yes.

Anyone can use a CC track commercially , they just have to ask. If you dont want nothing for it great, give it away.

CC BY just says they dont have to have that conversation with you.

What happens in these debates is that most people try to define what something is like as a general view so its the `next level of gifting ’ Its not the church of Scientology here the criteria of what CC means to one person is an individual and personal one.

Let me say that anyone who offers their creative work in CC Commons under any of the licenses available is to be applauded.

There is no stairway to greater glory by somehow working your way up to the CC BY license.

Hey Jeff, I hope you don’t misunderstand my intention.

The reason for my advocating a pure BY license isn’t my desire to avoid having a conversation with someone who wants to use some work of mine commercially. I’ve cooperated with Shannon H. to permit “Sunrise Unplugged” to see some low level commercial uses, which neither of us charged for.

Although BY does have a “free as in beer” side to it, my main interest in the BY and BY event, and the event’s aim of enlarging the pool of BY samples, is the “free as in free” angle.

BY licenses are less encumbered. Without ascribing any moral worth to that, it is a simple fact. BY licenses can be recombined with other licenses in a way that is more freeing to the artist that remixes, with fewer limitations on what they can do with the results, and without having to do as much work to chase down the attribution chain, and contact people who may not be reachable.

Just as free software has done a world of good in improving the functioning of personal computers, phones, and servers, so too free culture can do the same.

Both GPL and LGPL licenses serve a purpose, each valid. So too do BY and BY-NC. (On a side note, I also really like the share-alike licenses, which reproduce the viral effect of GPL licenses. It requires people to be givers and not just takers… but alas too complex to make work here I’ve heard.)

I don’t see anything wrong with CCMixter driving to enlarge the pool of the less-used license, as it is an especially useful and liberating license.

I’ll close by quoting Victor advocating for the CC0 waiver (I actually think CC-BY is a “freer” license in some ways, but I’ll save that case for another day.)

Even if you are unswayed, in the face of these arguments, that clinging to unrealistic restrictions only damages your career, I still appeal to your sense of the Bigger Picture. Yes, attribution is an important part of building an old world resume and certainly, critical when real money is being distributed through a royalty system. But the stakes are very high and the larger cost, to the currency we call freedoms of expression, seem overly steep compared to the potential, and I claim often misguided, short-term wishful hopes of one person.

Just my $0.02, and of course, I only speak from my perspective and my world view.

No i am ok with what you say.

In fact i am totally with you and agree with all your points on the CC BY and most of us know the benefits so the lectures not needed. Also great if CC Mixter wants to enlarge the pool of BY samples fine so be it.

But to imply its better and more giving to use one, than the other in this instance is madness.

Its just another license period.

You talk about free software ( not code or open source) but thats free to use is’nt it. You cant go sell it , can you as your own.?

NC material here is the same. i.e use it for the benefit of your non commercial venture or for your own listening pleasure.

The only one difference in the free as in free, to the BY licences and that is someone can use it commercially.

It might , in someones eyes all be for the greater good of sharing but dont use that to rosy over the plain factual and real difference.

If people were more clear about it then maybe more people might understand it , get involved and do it

I’m a software developer, so that is perhaps where my perspective comes from.

Although you made the distinction between free software and open source, open source is what is commonly called “free software” as the emphasis is not on the ‘beer.’ As I’m sure you know, you can sell GPLed software. What you can’t do is restrict what the user does with it, beyond the restrictions of the GPL license itself.

That is something you pretty much can’t do with a CC-NC license. You can’t even really distribute an NC song on a CD where all you’re charging is to recoup your costs.

So if someone sings a song to a CCMixter beat that is licensed CC-BY-NC, they can’t throw it up on Kunaki to print CDs, not even for just family and friends to buy. I don’t think anyone would really sue over something like that, to be sure, but a person who does this has definitely taken themselves into a grey area.

That’s precisely what CC-BY is there to help avoid. It has value and worth, even if the differences are as you say fairly simple.

Another good example would be our gracious ArtisTech hosts - their CCMixter artist site’s player, I’ve noticed, regularly avoids materials that is CC-NC-BY (Emily or Jason could elaborate, but I would say it looks like they feel they can’t.)

I guess, from my perspective, I feel a certain melancholy knowing that the folks who pay the bills are limited to a fairly small subset of the site’s music, when trying to promote it. :-(

So I apologize if I ever made it sound like it is “better” to use the BY license. Both wouldn’t exist if there was not an obvious need.

I just think that we must not ignore that the CC-BY license does have some real value. The difference may simply be the availability of commercial use, but as many have noted, the line between those uses is often where the complexity lies. So if there is a case for a ‘moral good’ in the BY license, or beyond it in the CC0 waiver, it would probably be in its ability to clear away this complexity. Simplicity as a virtue, if you will.

Perhaps I make too much of it, who knows? :)

One of the issues i have always held of `original’ Creative commons music versus code or similar is when there is a personal content in the work.( I know programmers will disagree )But I could make a track right now it would take 20 mins and not sing a thing on it make it quite derivative and easily make it CC BY. However if i create something with a true personal insight for me like When Tomorrow Comes i want to share it but i am not up for giving it away commercially.

This whole thread has grown simply because i wanted to add ( i.e share )to the `Out with the Old project but at that point i was being shown that to be a part of it i had to give it all away.

The site remains one of the best because of the choice of how we engage with it. Noble as it is to promote CC BY , when a great idea like this is shackled to a pre set rules of entry it limits that choice. I believe it should be as wide open as possible to encourage new MUSIC, pellas, samples ect for all to enjoy at whatever license as isnt that what this place is all about. ?

And if like here, if just 3 of us are questioning that then clearly
there’s an issue and possible reluctance to engage.

And that’s it.

Well I think you’re absolutely right to do that, and your reasons are the best reasons I can think of.

I’ve created things that I’ve happily shared out with just BY. And things, like a song about my sister in law’s death, that I just couldn’t license commercially. I’m not sure I could even articulate why, I just couldn’t.

So I think I get what you’re saying.

Not quite 20 mins but i had a coffee and thought i would respond so it was infact 30 min from record to upload but you’ll get the picture.

Bye Bye.

http://ccmixter.org/files/L...

After reading this long, somewhat uncomfortable forum thread this made me smile. :)

Also, my wife was sitting beside me as I was reading. I explained what was going on and she (and myself of course) agreed with most of your sentiments. Then I noticed this song and played it. You are officially her ccMixter hero now. ;)

I wonder how long until this is used in a TV/radio ad for Wal-Mart or some other giant chain store?

Excited Announcer: We’re cleaning out our shelves for 2011!
Loveshadow:Out with the old and in with the new…
Excited Announcer:and EVERYTHING must go!! So come on down and buy!
Loveshadow:Buy! Buy! Buy!

:D

Oh, the irony it would be…

agreed. i have some songs i’ve worked on for a long time, crafting the melody and arrangement over years, after practicing them more than hundreds of times, playing them live, etc. — like my tracks for Open. those i’ve licensed under NC-BY for the same reason you describe with When Tomorrow Comes.

songs i write for a project, or for a cause i feel i’d like to make an open contribution toward (like I Miss You to Pres Obama), or songs i quickly write & track, i generally put under CC BY.

honestly, in my mind, this little BY AND BY project was just a way to encourage us to create more of the tracks we’d like to share via CC BY. i love having the choice, and felt good about adding the NC license, as a choice, in response to your original post Jeff, for the very reasons you state here.

When Tomorrow Comes is gorgeous. perhaps we should all take a deep breath and go listen to it. :)

what action right now would make us all better men? what will evolve us with peace and understanding? perhaps to start, some patience with one another as we figure things out?

hopefully, we can follow the admonition of Jeff’s beautiful lyrics, shake hands, move on and get back to making music - under whatever license we choose. :D

peace.

Quote: Admiral BobI’m a software developer, so that is perhaps where my perspective comes from.


Likewise, and on that note, anyone who thinks there is no personal component to code has never had to maintain software written by someone else.

Quote: Loveshadow
You talk about free software ( not code or open source) but thats free to use is’nt it. You cant go sell it , can you as your own.?


Quote: Admiral Bob
Although you made the distinction between free software and open source, open source is what is commonly called “free software” as the emphasis is not on the ‘beer.’ As I’m sure you know, you can sell GPLed software. What you can’t do is restrict what the user does with it, beyond the restrictions of the GPL license itself.



There are many different types of free/open source software license. Probably too many leading to undue confusion.

GPL licenses do actually prevent you from selling the software itself (you can sell support, or other products around it though, and cover redistribution costs or include it in a commercial product like a Tivo or Phone). Other than this prohibition, the other main restriction is that you have to redistribute the source code and any modifications under the same license.

Another popular license BSD is more similar to CC-BY

You can do pretty much whatever the hell you want with BSD software (aside from claim that the original writer approved/is responsible your modifications). Much of Windows’ (pre-vista) internal networking code originated as BSD licensed code for Unix.

Some people see GPL type licenses as the most free license because it applies restrictions in an effort to enforce the freedom in successive versions. Some see BSD type licenses as a more free license because of its near complete lack of restrictions.

It’s all a matter of perspective, and this discussion, and ccMixter in general have given me a wider appreciation for the viewpoints involved than I would have gotten as just a software developer. Thanks to everyone involved for that.

I think we can all agree that anyone who wants to use open source content should abide by the intentions expressed by the rights-holder.


Quote: Admiral Bob
Another good example would be our gracious ArtisTech hosts - their CCMixter artist site’s player, I’ve noticed, regularly avoids materials that is CC-NC-BY (Emily or Jason could elaborate, but I would say it looks like they feel they can’t.)


This is correct, the ccMixter shuffles on the TuneTrack ccMixter pages are pulled only from content that isn’t marked NC. http://tunetrack.net/ccmixt...


The playlists there are generated through the ccMixter Query API, which supports filtering by license types.

Quote: There is no stairway to greater glory by somehow working your way up to the CC BY license

that’s a gorgeous turn of phrase but I can tell you that the inventors of the licenses definitely had a continuum of freedoms in mind when they released them. With CC0 at the free-er end, BY-NC-ND being at the other.

Hey man, you know, I’m the last guy to lecture you but you seem to be speaking to the intent of the licenses, of why they were invented as opposed to just how Loveshadow uses them.

Unlike all music biz licenses before them, the inventors of these particular licenses had the consumer’s freedoms in mind as well the artists. In this context BY has more freedoms then BY-NC. Your extremely limited interpretation of freedom as just a musician’s choice between BY and BY-NC leads you to see an event on the site that celebrates the BY license as a loss of freedom - in CC context, it’s the opposite.

ftr talk of ‘gifting’ comes from a seminal influence over CC in one Lewis Hyde and his book The Gift.

You’re welcome to ignore these influences and the context phrases like choice and freedom are being used, but you want to be careful when ascribing intent to the inventors of CC licenses. This intent was something far wider than simply giving musicians a choice of limitations to put on their works.

Culture is better when art is better. Art is better the more sharing there is. BY encourages the most sharing because it has tons of freedom. ccM wants to celebrate the freedoms enabled by tools that make culture better. Stop being such a semantic curmudgeon about it.

Dude has spoken man.

I am not talking on anything here as to `intent of licenses…
this forum is the pure semantic curmudgeon in this case i couldn’t give a flying F*£%. what the licenses do or who invented them.

for the last time it goes…

CC Mixter puts up a creative idea In / Old out project , i like that think i can do something, me being thick not to appreciate the subtlety of the word ` ask ’ think its just a cool idea. Then come to upload…surprise LS its CC BY, oh really, ask admin is this what it is cuz me and couple others are not sure and personally , suggest might it be better to open it up can ya, would ya ?, we’ll think about and get back to you, yea we agree and have added NC , yippee ,i upload, people like, worth doing then, then… oh look shite storm occurring in forum , admin apologies, we jumped the gun, `your not worthy if your not CC BY’ ( Now there’s a T Shirt .. I am CC BY Sexual ) blah blah, curmudgeon, CC Lewis, Gift.

I mean WTF i just wanted to upload a tune,if i couldn’t get in coz i was wearing the wrong shoes just freeking say!

As Mike McDonald said. `You sure use a lot of paper just to say Good BY e.

Quote: I believe it should be as wide open as possible to encourage new MUSIC, pellas, samples ect for all to enjoy at whatever license as isnt that what this place is all about. ?

This is the type of thing I was addressing - the whole “what this place is all about” thing and the “you’re not worthy” comment above.

Yea, there were a couple of reversals (and re-reversals) in this thread wrt to the contest that I would sum up as ‘admins trying too hard to please’ which could be worse qualities to have in a website admin.

I don’t know if you’re wearing the wrong shoes, but the ones you have on do seem laced up pretty tight.

Ya think and i thought i was being laid back and all Californian about it. Funny that.

hey it’s a big tent

what’s that on the floor? damn, it’s my brain

I’m guessing you’re not cool with accepting apologies. And you’re not bending to find some common ground either. Why?

Instead you’re attempting to re-frame your original post as just a simple question, when it was far from that. It was a statement to justify your position on why you don’t like the cc-by license. And quite derogitory in tone and temper. Why?

I ask you—please harmonize with the intent and spirit of what By and By is created to embrace—and celebrate the season—and move forward into the coming year with a positive outlook.

I for one, would be grateful if we would turn this discussion around, transform it, and finish with positive resolutions.

Jason Halfway up this page is a smiley i posted Tue, Dec 7, 2010
when Snowflake said that you were adding NC to the In / OUT. I didn’t coerce or insist i made a point and Emailed Snowflake in private with no malice just a view.
Then you jumped in making all sorts of claims about what i am as a CCMixter and what the advantages of CC BY are , all of which i know and agree with .You then said it was cool and it was. But still the lectures came. Myself and A Bob traded views on how we each feel about CC in general to which Snowflake has added. Again we are cool and running and now today Victor comes in with how i have

`an extremely limited interpretation of freedom and i should be careful when ascribing intent and how i am being semantic curmudgeon about it.’

I am not, all i wanted was to upload a track ,was cool back on Tues and happy to do so but ever since have been prodded with an admin stick, and quite simply you seem to be not be experienced at appreciating how that after 4 days of this dragging on can `tighten ones shoes ‘as Victor puts it.

But what should i do here, take an AD out in the Times endorsing the CC BY license to prove i am cool with its existence ?

So I apologise if i did not get the intention of the BY BY project in the first place, apologise for asking Snowflake to review it, apologise for not being more up to speed and expert on the intricacies and history of the creative commons movement, apologise for having a personal opinion of how and what the CC commons means to me in that it may differ from its creators intentions.

And apologise if all that sounds uptight as let me tell you i am not.

In fact i am well relaxed so much so, that as it seems i have derailed this projects noble intentions and also think getting some CC BY stuff on board is good one, that the way forward for a positive resolution is to delete my track and return it all to CC BY and i will upload it again outside of the project.

Don’t do that! I was going to try throwing some mandolin on it. :)

Cool man. Thanks. I apologize for misunderstanding your intentions too.

I hope you don’t feel like you need to pull your contributions. Our view-points were made quite well in this thread, and your song is already up there, and I believe we’re all good as far as moving forward with the event it as it is.

Peace

Quote: Admiral BobBut “By and By” as I understood it anyway is focused on altruism.
A quick comment regarding altruism. I’d like to propose an analogy to helping feed the homeless:

CC-BY is like giving a homeless person some money and saying do whatever you want with it

CC-BY-NC is like giving a homeless person some money and saying “but you’re not allowed to use this money to buy alcohol or drugs”

Or maybe an even better homeless analogy:

CC-BY is like hosting a food bank where the homeless can come and take free cans of food

CC-BY-NC is like hosting a food bank where the homeless can come and take free cans of food but they aren’t allowed to open a restaurant or grocery store and sell that food for profit. So, maybe they have to eat it there or something.

In either case I don’t see CC-BY as being any more altruistic than CC-BY-NC. In my mind, the giving itself is the altruistic part, and in either case you’re still giving. The NC part is just the giver putting restrictions on what he feels are unethical uses of the gift. The difference is in trust and perhaps perception of human nature, but not altruism.

To me, people who waive the NC clause either don’t think any uses are truly unethical, don’t think most people will actually stoop to unethical uses, or don’t want to be bothered with dealing with or preventing unethical uses. So, someone may give a homeless person cash because he thinks it’s OK if that person buys alcohol and drugs, because he trusts the homeless person to probably buy food, or because he just doesn’t want to be bothered with having to follow the homeless person to McDonald’s to make sure he buys a burger.

Nothing wrong with that… but I don’t think anyone who gives with ethical restrictions should be looked down upon, nor do I think anyone who gives without those restrictions should necessarily be looked up to.

My $0.02

having done a great deal of volunteer work for the homeless since my early teens (my mom’s doing), i’ve found it is the giving, if done with love and sincerity, is what really makes the difference. even a direct look in the eye with a sincere ‘god bless you’ to the dirty, lone man to whom i’m giving a dollar, well, lifts my energy. perhaps it is egocentric of me to imagine i may be lifting his as well.

over the years, i’ve helped cook/organize big meals under viaducts, delivered doughnuts to the food line on Christmas morning, taken a variety of homeless families begging for change to breakfast, given out a variety of bills, and even played an impromptu song or two for ‘beggars’ downtown. sometimes i look into their faces, and i wonder to myself, what has this person suffered? what would be my fate if i suffered the same? it seems that even in my own self pity the universe gives me a picture of someone who is suffering more than me, to remind of scale and gratitude. learning not to ‘pity’ but rather feel true ‘compassion’ has changed me. maybe i never really made a difference in those peoples’ lives, but they’ve made me better. (to ring to our ‘when tomorrow comes i hope to be a better man’ theme kindly contributed by Loveshadow).

i don’t see any comparison between creating music and altruism towards someone fallen on difficulty. one never knows when one may fall on his own misfortune. i try not to judge.

if CC BY doesn’t feel right to you, don’t use it. it took me a while (a couple years at ccM if i recall) before i licensed a track in any way other than NC. i wasn’t ready or it just didn’t make sense or feel right. time, and victor, helped me understand it was good for me afterall. if you haven’t read his memoire, i highly recommend it.

(how many songs could we have collectively produced in the time we’ve given this thread?) ;)

i hope this airing out of the ‘old’ (between musical friends) will help us move forward, through change, transition and transformation. BY AND BY!

peace.

Not a problem Ben. The primary purpose of the pell/sample deadline is to ensure there is material for mixers to remix by the event deadline. (For example, if a pell is uploaded on 12/30 for the event and the event closes 12/30, that pell will not have a chance to be remixes for the event.) As for your prior pell, it can be tagged for this event (I’ll take care of it).

I’m looking forward to remix mode. I have at least two that I must remix, and at least 2 or 3 others I’d like to and have ideas for.

Thanks, Susan!