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

[Shayne O'Connor]

Mark Constable wrote:
> On Friday 19 August 2005 21:32, Shayne O'Connor wrote:
> 
>>>>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'.
> 
> 
> Zillions of people all over the world accept online EULA
> agreements all the time without being anywhere near anyone
> else, or signing anything, and I'm not aware of that principle
> being challenged in any country.
> 
> 
>>>>- 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.
>>
>>well, i guess stuff like this:
>>
>>http://opensrc.org/index.php?page=RadIO
>>
>>has everyone on that list given explicit permission to be listed there?
> 
> 
> I have, in fact, asked nearly all the authors of those links,
> offlist, whether they're cool about their music being linked to
> from that page. There has been no objections so far, and to the
> point I would perhaps assume in the future that it is indeed
> okay, without asking, to continue adding more links UNLESS a
> a posting to this list said or inferred elsewise.
> 
> I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that if someone posts a link
> to their music into this mailing-list that it also okay to re-post
> that link into another venue UNLESS they accompany their post with
> explicit restrictions outlining what can or cannot be done with a
> LINK that points to their work.
> 
> There is no argument about the copyright status in the US and most
> (western) countries since 1976 when the rules were changed that all
> created works are automatically copyrighted by the author. I'm old
> enough to remember the days when all works were automatically in
> the then ill-defined public domain unless explicitly copyrighted.
> 
> These days there are also two distribution issues, the source
> material and the medium it's stored on, and linking to it via a
> network to where it's stored. In the case of RadIO, those links
> are entirely passive UNTIL someone actively clicks on one, then
> some kind of (re)usage issue could be debated.
> 
> 
>>doesn't this count as distribution? maybe it doesn't, but this is the 
>>sort of thing i'm talking about. i don't know lots about copyright and 
>>licensing, but a discussion of it is highly welcome. i mean, i highly 
>>doubt anyone thinks RadIO is anything but useful to promoting their 
>>music, but you never know ...
> 
> 
> If any, I'd like to see some less than restrictive guidelines
> but I am only speaking for myself as I'd hate to see the free
> flow of music restricted by bureaucratic lawyer-food BS.
> 
> If someone posts any material into a public forum without any
> redistribution license then they are NOT denying anyone else
> the ability to do anything they want with the material short
> of changing the copyright. The onus should be on the author to
> either make it clear what their intentions are, IF they are in
> anyway concerned about these issues, OR simply not make their
> material publically available in the first place. Certainly not
> with expectations that "the rest of the world" will then be
> burdened with clearing any re-usage conditions with that author.
> That could lead to a hideous lockup of freely available material
> which I am pretty sure the majority of people on this list are
> not in favour of.
> 
> My POV FWIW.
> 


wow - that's a brilliant and informative post Mark! cheers.

shayne