Hacker News Reader

Comment by callahad | Hacker News Reader

The site claims that the music is available under CC-BY. In at least one case, this is not true. Caveat emptor.

All music on the site are licensed under CC-BY 3.0, please go to the profil artist to Check this!

Both tracks by Atch (https://soundcloud.com/atch-music/overyou and https://soundcloud.com/atch-music/freedom) state:

> "My music is free to use on social media AS LONG AS credit/attribution is given. To credit me correctly and avoid a copyright claim, you must copy and paste the below text into the description of your videos [...] If you wish to use my music for commercial purposes (online advertisements, podcasts etc), you will need to purchase a license. Please contact me at ..."

Edit: The SoundCloud metadata for all listed tracks does claim CC-BY 3.0. But in the case above it's clear that the artist does not actually intend for their tracks to be subject to the terms of that license. So what takes precedence: the copyright holder's statement, or the machine-readable metadata?

The most important is to see the license CC under the title. The artist find a way to earn money.

And yes, it’s CC-BY 3.0

> If you wish to use my music for commercial purposes (online advertisements, podcasts etc), you will need to purchase a license

This clearly makes it not CC-BY. Maybe CC BY NC?

IANAL but I think legally, if you put CC-BY on it, then just write in the comments that you can't use it commercially, that wouldn't stand. CC-BY-NC is available, and the author did not have to upload it as CC-BY in the first place.

To be clear, I still think this site has some problems, and author's wishes should be respected, but I think if the author wants you to not use it commercially, they should put the correct license on their work.

It's neither. You can't just match up the terms of Creative Commons licenses then assume because they are similar that you can say it's Creative Commons licensed.

Go Check the soundcloud link of the title and tell me what licence CC you see!

It is unclear what the actual license for the track is when the author says very clearly states that commercial use is restricted, but the author also selected CC BY 3.0.

These two things are in conflict with each other, so it probably makes sense to chose the most restrictive option.

If I publish two otherwise identical repos, one with MIT license and one with copyright, there's no doubt as to what you are allowed to do with it. Why is this different?

It's more akin to one repo, where your package.json says "MIT" but your LICENSE.MD says "commercial use prohibited."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com