[linux-audio-user] Specifying the license when posting music?

[Shayne O'Connor]

tim hall wrote:
> On Thursday 18 August 2005 22:13, Shayne O'Connor wrote:
> 
>>tim hall wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday 07 August 2005 10:02, David Collins wrote:
>>>
>>>>P.S. Maybe there's a specific policy already that I'm
>>>>not aware of?
>>>
>>>Until we make a decision not to accept non-CC submissions to the list you
>>>should assume that a piece is copyright the author and all rights
>>>reserved unless explicitly licensed otherwise.
>>
>>that is *always* assumed, whether a piece has been licensed or not.
>>copyright isn't really the issue here, is it? isn't it licensing ... ie
>>- how we are allowed to *use* the music, not who is creator or
>>intellectual "property" owner?
> 
> 
> Yes, the issue is licensing here.
> 
> 
>>i don't think by posting music to this list that anyone is giving up
>>their copyright, but they *are* sort of saying "here is a public link to
>>some music i made, anyone can download it 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
>>and distribute it". 
> 
> 
> No. If I wanted my stuff distributed, I would license it appropriately.

yeah, the distribute part was a bit iffy, but i couldn't make my point 
without i ;)

> 
> 
>>we are  
>>basically, through a sort of informal contract, issuing stuff under a
>>Creative Commons license every time we post our music here
> 
> 
> That's an assumption on your part which I don't share. You have to consciously 
> accept a contract (i.e. sign it or =) in order for it to be binding under 
> British law (ANAL). I think you have to at least shake hands in order for it 
> even to be considered a 'gentleman's agreement'.
> 

which brings me back to my (and probably your) point - what *are* we 
allowed to do with it? by allowing us to download the song ie - copy it 
- you have granted us some sort of rights, haven't you? how far do these 
rights go (i'm talking only in the context of what a CC license allows)?

> 
>>- if we 
>>*weren't*, then we'd potentially be exposing everyone on the list to
>>breaking the law.
> 
> 
> Really?!? I will be very careful about what I post on this list if that _is_ 
> the case. It would be good to clarify this.
> 
> I think I'm slightly at odds with the consensus here. I am primarily a writer 
> of music, before even being a performer or player. I am still quite new to 
> using computers for this task. While I think Free Licensing for creative 
> works is a good idea, I'm not entirely convinced by the ramifications. My 
> chief worry is that while I would be flattered if any of my music was used to 
> promote something I believe in, I would be mighty pissed off if it got used 
> to advertise some ecologically damaging product or xenophobic attitude.
> 


this has got nothing to do with creative commons licensing.



> The problem with advertising and music is that it's much more emotional than 
> software. If someone with radically different politics uses that software 
> very publicly, it doesn't imply any kind of endorsement of the final product 
> on the part of the software developer. Music or a public appearance does 
> create the impression of endorsement. As an audience's support is somewhat 
> style dependent, this can be critical. Ozric Tentacles lost a lot of fans 
> over the Ford commercial they did. 

selling your music to a product is sick, i hope most people would agree. 
unless, i guess, you write jingles for a living.

I have already sailed a little too close
> to the wind on this issue myself, hence the concern. I know I stand to be 
> corrected on this one, nevertheless, it's a worry.
> 
> I guess the answer is that I can be an eco-fascist control freak if I want to, 
> but that I shouldn't expect other people to support my point of view. ;)