🔈 PROJECT01: Research 🔭 // CREATIVECOMMONS LICENSES // Copyleft? NonCommercial? 🔈

Prior project posts (please read):

https://steemit.com/sndbox/@dimitrij/i-became-a-sndbox-newbie-why-i-love-steemit-tangible-projects

https://steemit.com/audio/@dimitrij/project00-research-free-multitracks-mixoff-s-forums-thoughts-and-ideas

I've met with my great IT friend Kiki. Throughout my life I've been blessed with befriending (and be-brothering) a lot of programmers. If I weren't in art and music I would probably be doing something in that sector. (Even my brother is a hardcore programming geek :D )

But, I believe the world needs artists as much :D. (i really hope)

Anyways, I asked him a lot of questions about developing such a project.
He gave me a bunch of guidelines, so I had a lot of stuff to google and research.

I would like to keep the code open-source so that it can be further developed, but I wouldn't like for someone to take the code and use it for commercial use (e.g. build an app and sell it, open and charge the data-base // maybe set a data limit for download as protection).

One of conditions that I would integrate in the project is for it to be OpenSource.
That naturally creates a lot of possible problems. So, let's troubleshoot together! Weee!

I believe in free knowledge sharing in any form. Of course, one thing that I believe is in supporting the creator of that content. If someone is investing his time and knowledge to pass it on, he should be compensated for that in some form. The worst thing to do is to deny the access to some information. That sucks...

So, what's the thing that I'm afraid of?

I don't want people to take the stems and use in their songs without permission from the author. That is a tricky one, but there has to be a way to protect the users. Also, I wouldn't like people to use the storage to upload random content, just the tracks used for educational purposes. People are freaks by definition and will use any loop-hole they can to get it their way.

My friend told me that is called CONTENT POLICY. By that I mean:

What are the limitations of content upload?

Which content can be uploaded and used?

But, first thing's first, let's define some standards.

I checked what does OpenSource mean, and I found this site:

http://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/

All of the "rules" are quite intuitive for a hippie like me.
Basically people should be able to use, share and benefit from any other work enlisted under the open-source license.
Still, there are some limitations that should be considered for the sake of the project.

I noticed some parts that could be abused. 

http://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/2.1.2 Redistribution

2.1 Required Permissions

2.1.2 Redistribution

The license must allow redistribution of the licensed work, including sale, whether on its own or as part of a collection made from works from different sources.

2.1.8 Application to Any Purpose

The license must allow use, redistribution, modification, and compilation for any purpose. The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the work in a specific field of endeavor.

So the next step is to find a way to protect the potential users.

I browsed the CreativeCommons page and came by some really good links that explain the licenses that I could use. Really great stuff, especially the flowcharts!

The Flowcharts were done by: Creative Commons Australia and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innova

After watching this, I clearly can focus which licenses I wouldn't use.
But this link gave me the whole idea.

http://creativecommons.org.au/content/licensing-flowchart.pdf

So, let's start!

The first two questions are good. For educational purposes, I'm OK with other people copying and distributing my content without asking my permission every time.

And I'm OK with them changing and adapting the content. Especially remixing. I would recommend that, always!

But the first question that made me think was the last one on the flowchart. 

Do I want to limit how others can release their mixes? ie. If they remix, their new content must be available to remix on the same terms.

That reminded me of the term copy-left, which is a thing I generally support and like.

"Copyleft licenses for software require that information necessary for reproducing and modifying the work must be made available to recipients of the binaries. The source code files will usually contain a copy of the license terms and acknowledge the authors" - from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

This sounds cool, and I would like for people who remix or adapt any content to attribute and note the original authors, and to feel the need to pass their knowledge on as a part of that open license.

But we'll see.

I'm OK with people making money using my platform, as long as they use it for educational purposes and / or attribute the authors.
There's just the problem of abusing the content without attribution or copying the script and charging for the content that's uploaded.
Tho' anyone that would use the script should mostly develop and maintain their database. Which is a thing that's good and just broadens the information flow.

I decided to focus on the NonCommercial licenses.

**NonCommercial interpretation 

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation

On this link, everything is explained quite nicely, altho' one footnote confused me a bit.

FOOTNOTE cite note 3 "Thus, the definition sets out a principle for determining what uses do and do not qualify, but does not list specific use cases (aside from peer-to-peer file sharing)."

I don't know if this means that peer-to-peer file sharing does qualify as protected from commercial use, or does not? I mean, is this license protecting in case of mirroring or peer-to-peer sharing 

"... For an example of an adaptation, an NC song may be used as the basis for a video where the visual elements are under a different license such as the BY license. When the music video is distributed as a whole, it may not be used commercially because of the NC license of the song."

This can really protect the usage of uploaded content from outside users. Which is cool.

Also, is there a possibility for people to choose which type of license they can use on their uploaded content?

If someone want's to share their tracks for anyone to use, I want to give them the option to do so.

Even the NC license leaves space for interpretation, which can be a good thing I guess...

For example, NC licensing does not stop commercial uses covered by limitations and exceptions (such as fair uses), and even noncommercial uses could affect the commercial market for your work.

The NonCommercial term does not limit uses otherwise allowed by limitations and exceptions to copyright.

Anyways, this seems like a cool option for protecting the users and the site. One question really pops-up:

How does that affect the possible implementation of the whole thing on the crypto blockchain?

User @djlethatskillz already agrees that this implementation would be awesome :) So please comment! Any comments or ideas are really welcome.

What are your thoughts on this? Is the NonCommercial license too limiting? Especially in a blockchain environment?

What are some other ways of protecting the content and the site you know?

Anyways, hopefully this was informing to you. Thank you for reading!

Cheers <3

Content used for this post: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/ https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation#cite_note-4 http://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/

--- thanks to @sndbox for making me try this and supporting ---