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

[tim hall]

On Friday 19 August 2005 12:26, Shayne O'Connor wrote:
> > 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)?

No, I don't believe any rights are granted if there is no license. 

> >>- 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.

That so doesn't answer my reservations.

> > 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'm not talking about selling my music to a product, it's not sick, it's 
business. If it were a product I believed in I would have no qualms about 
pursuing such a course of action. Any piece under a completely free license 
could be used by any company for a free jingle totally legally. There would 
be no way to stop this. Highly unlikely, I'll wager. But that's not the 
point. I shall keep asking this question until I get a satisfactory answer.
-- 
cheers,

tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim