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

Shayne O'Connor forums at machinehasnoagenda.com
Fri Aug 19 13:36:56 EDT 2005


tim hall wrote:
> 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. 

yes, and business is a bit removed from music. well, i think it is ... 
but i'm a bit of a fascist in this regard

anyhow, i didn't think you were talking about *your* music at all, i 
thought you were talking about Ozric Tentacles (whoever they are) and 
their obviously depraved decision to become prostitutes for Ford.

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.

what question? i don't understand what you mean by "free jingle" ... i'm 
pretty sure it would be against a non-commercial CC license for a song 
to be used in advertising. in any case, i can't really envision a piece 
of advertising or product endorsement that wouldn't be considered 
commercial. Free/open advertising?! That's like a contradiction of terms!

shayne



More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list