[kmeisthax]

In copyright law the use of the work itself is considered a commercial benefit, so "noncommercial use" is an oxymoron. Consider these situations:

- If I use AudioCraft to post freely-downloadable tracks on my SoundCloud, I still get the benefit of having a large audio catalog in my name, even if I'm not selling the individual tracks. I could later compose tracks on my own and ride off the exposure I got from posting "noncommercially".

- If I run AudioCraft as a background music generator in my store, I save money by not having to license music for public performance.

- If I host AudioCraft on a website and put ads on it, I'm making money by making the work available, even though I'm not charging a fee for entry.

I suspect that a lot of people reading this are going to have different arguments for each. My point is that if you don't think that all of these situations are equally infringing of CC-BY-NC, then you need to explain why some are commercial and some are not. Keep in mind that every exception you make can be easily exploited to strip the NC clause off of the license.

If you're angry at the logic on display here, keep in mind that this is how judges will construe the license, and probably also how Facebook will if you find a way to make any use of their AI. The only thing that stops them from rugpulling you later is explicit guidance in CC-BY-NC. Unfortunately, the only such guidance is that they don't consider P2P filesharing to be a commercial use.

So, absent any other clarifications from Facebook, all you can do without risking a lawsuit is share the weights on BitTorrent.

EDIT: And yes, I have made stuff just to make stuff. I license all of that under copyleft licenses because they express the underlying idea of 'noncommercial' better than actual noncommercial clauses do.

[stale2002]

This is a weird comment.

Do you think that non commercial use simply doesn't exist or something?

Because non commercial use isn't some crazy concept. It is a well established one, that doesnt disclude literally everything.

Also, you are ignoring the idea that Facebook will almost certainly not sue anyone for using this for any reason, except possibly Google or Apple.

So if you aren't literally one of those companies you could probably just use it anyway, ignore the license completely, and have zero risk of being sued.

[elondaits]

The issue with “non commercial” is that no, it’s not well established. Licenses with a NC clause are so problematic to be practically useless. If you just want to use something at home privately you don’t need a CC license… a CC license is for use and redistribution.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4559

[robertlagrant]

What about playing the music in a government building as elevator music, for example?

[pbhjpbhj]

>If you just want to use something at home privately you don’t need a CC license… //

I presume you mean in USA, because in UK you don't have a general private right to copy. Our "Fair Dealing" is super restrictive compared to Fair Use.

[kmeisthax]

Funnily enough in the UK they actually tried to fix this. The music industry argued that the lack of a private copying levy made legalized CD ripping into government confiscation of copyright ownership... somehow. The UK courts bought this, so now the UK government is constitutionally mandated to ban CD ripping, which is absolutely stupid.

[pbhjpbhj]

I knew CD ripping got reversed but not the arguments against it, definitely stupid as not giving a monopoly is not the same as confiscation (seems like a very straightforward reasoning). No doubt done Tory got a 'management consultancy' gig with the RIAA from that one.

I like that it makes software like iTunes contributory infringers for enabling mass copyright infringement.

[Tao3300]

I miss that blog. It was a little crazy and the comments were a flame war shitshow, but man it was fun to read sometimes. Even if I vehemently disagreed, it got me thinking.

Whatever happened to esr? Did he just get too paranoid and clam up?

[kmeisthax]

Noncommercial use is not well established in copyright law, which is the law that actually matters. I know other forms of law actually do establish noncommercial and commercial use standards, but copyright does not recognize them.

As for "Facebook won't sue"? Sure, except we don't have to worry about just Facebook. We have to worry about anyone with a derivative model. There's an entire industry of copyleft trolls[0] that could construct copyright traps with them.

Individuals can practically ignore NC mainly because individuals can practically ignore most copyright enforcement. This is for the same reason why you can drive 55 in a 30mph zone and not get a citation. It's not that speeding is now suddenly legal, it's that nobody wants to enforce speed limits - but you can still get nailed. The moment you have to worry about NC, there is no practical way for you to fit within its limits.

[0] https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/20/beware-copyleft-trolls/

[tiahura]

Commercial vs Noncommercial use is well established in copyright law - in everything from Final Rule Regarding the Noncommercial Use Exception to Unauthorized Uses of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/pre1972-soundrecordings... to Noncommercial webcasters https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/114#f_4 to Fair Use.

Noncommercial licenses are taken up in "GREAT MINDS v. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC 886 F.3d 91 (2nd Cir. 2018). Thé court explains they are enforceable and are basically just a category of contract. So, as long as the contract is clear, it’s probably enforceable.

[dragonwriter]

> Noncommercial use is not well established in copyright law, which is the law that actually matters.

No, for “NonCommercial”, what actually matters is the explicit definition in the license.

[dragonwriter]

> My point is that if you don't think that all of these situations are equally infringing of CC-BY-NC, then you need to explain why some are commercial and some are not.

What “NonCommercial” means in the license is explictly defined in the license, and if you think either those examples, or more to the point, every possible use ever so as to render ‘NonCommercial’ into ‘no use’ as you have claimed, you need to make that argument, based on the definition in the license, not some concept of what might be construed as commercial use by general legal principles if the license used the term without its own explicit definition.

[NegativeK]

Is listening at home a violation of NC? That's what I've interpreted as its intent.

[Tao3300]

> if you don't think that all of these situations are equally infringing of CC-BY-NC, then you need to explain why some are commercial and some are not. Keep in mind that every exception you make can be easily exploited to strip the NC clause off of the license.

You're right: those are all equally infringing CC-BY-NC. I don't see a problem.

[wpietri]

What's your evidence for this bit?

> this is how judges will construe the license