The article does contradict itself
The part of article says: "The use of an -NC license is very rarely justifiable on economic or ideological grounds. It excludes many people, from free content communities to small scale commercial users, while the decision to give away your work for free already eliminates most large scale commercial uses."
On the other hand, another part of article explains, how wikipedia content is used in Google search results. As I see it, there is no way to prevent wikipedia content from beeing comercially used by a large scale commercial entity, like Google. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Consequently, if any entity, that is smaller, than wikipedia, i.e. any blogger decide to eliminate NC from their licence, there is no way, they can stop corporate entities, like Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc, etc from using their work. Wikipedia content in Google search results is a proof - the licence simply allows it. So this part of article is very misleading (and as I said before, contradicts with other parts of the article).
- The phrase "the decision to give away your work for free already eliminates most large scale commercial uses." is not great. It's too strong. The point is not that it eliminates large-scale commercial uses, merely that it eliminates the pay-for-access model of many large-scale publishers (especially if you use a copyleft license like CC-BY-SA. Wikipedia can be used by large commercial entities, and that's fine. But the CC-BY-SA license blocks companies from using the resources in a proprietary business model based on publishing.
- If Google were to sell downloads of Wikimedia images, it would be legal but impractical, since all the images are available anyway. Other business uses are fine, including Google using these same images in other ways in their business — as long as any derivatices stay free under the same license.
- --Wolftune (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2014 (EDT)
Missing references to court cases?
Sorry if I overlooked them, but the page doesn't seem to mention these cases where non-commercial is interpreted very specifically:
According to the article, copyright lasts until 70 years after the author's death. If the author has no right holders (like children or parents), doesn't the copyright expire sooner, like, at the end of the year? Calinou, 15:31, 16 September 2014 (EDT)
- No. Well, at least not in the countries I am familiar with. When an author dies with no heirs, his copyrights just become a property of the state as an escheat. --Mormegil (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2014 (EDT)
I support the free culture movement, for the same reasons I oppose capitalism, which I find reprehensible. That's the flaw in the argument being made here. It takes for granted that there's nothing objectionable about the appropriation of free culture by those who make their living exploiting others. Just as a fish can't comprehend a reality outside water, most of us living under capitalism accept it as a simple reality, without moral significance. For such people, "freedom" includes capitalist freedom. They recognize the problem--enclosure of culture--but the solution they offer--"freedom"--fails to identify the culprit. I don't support freedom in the abstract. My support for freedom is contextual. For instance, I don't support the freedom of pedophiles to indulge their sexual compulsions. I want that freedom annihilated, and so do you. We're both tyrannically opposed to that freedom, and rightly so. Freedom is just a word. It only raises questions, it doesn't answer them. My opposition to a concept doesn't change simply because someone attaches the word "freedom" to it, as with the "free market system," and the same goes for other manipulative buzzwords like "liberty" and "voluntary." I'd love to be able to share compatible works, but my conscience won't allow me to empower our collective enemies. I restrict their freedom, for your sake as well as my own. I'd welcome an "exploitation free" license, like dolphin free tuna, which allows commercial use for individuals and cooperatives, while restricting it specifically for capitalist firms. --Freedum (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2014 (EDT)
- Well, there have been licenses like that, in various forms. For instance, JSON.org license states “the Software shall be used for Good, not Evil”. However, this is generally not considered “free”, as free-license definitions usually forbid such limitations, e.g. the Open Source Definition contains the “No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor” clause. You are obviously free to design/use any such license, but you will be incompatible with most of what is generally considered “free licenses”. --Mormegil (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2014 (EDT)
Hello, this essay should mention that works with NC licenses cannot be shared on for-profit websites (YouTube, Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit, App Store, etc). --22.214.171.124 11:49, 10 March 2016 (EST)
New essay: The non-commercial provision obfuscates intent
Some years ago, I posted a comment here suggesting that the main page fails (especially in the four bullet points in the intro section) to identify what I view as the single, central flaw in the NC provision. That comment has now been archived; the page has been improved since then, but not in this particular respect.
Rather than try to edit this page, I've drafted a new, short essay on this topic. I think this topic stands alone effectively, and it's probably best to have it on a separate page, so it can be expressed clearly and without getting muddled with related concepts.
I'd welcome feedback/edits/assistance in improving the prose. If/when it's in a state that people like, I suggest it might make sense to link to it from this page. -Pete (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2020 (CEST)