[LAU] [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE]
cesare at poeticstudios.com
Thu Feb 21 09:27:02 EST 2008
> On Wednesday 20 February 2008 16:52, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
>> Those who already got the tracks from Opsound can probably use them
>> commercially, and they can give away the track but the license is
>> not transmitted with the tracks. So those who get the tracks from
>> these people cannot use them for commercial purposes. Otherwise one
>> wouldn't been able to license things with many different licenses.
>> Am I wrong?
> I'm no lawyer, but even in version 1.0 of the CC by-sa license, it
> says in section 4a, "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly
> perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms
> of this License [...]". These terms apply to the people you gave it
> to, which I guess would be Opsound.
> So Opsound distributed it under the terms of cc-by-sa, because that
> was the only way they could have done so, and then the people who
> downloaded it from them were covered by the terms of cc-by-sa, due to
> section 4a, when they distributed it further. They were granted the
> right "to reproduce the Work" (section 3a) but only "under the terms
> of this License" (4a). So when they in turn distribute the song to
> someone else, it's still licensed under cc-by-sa, and so on.
> It's hard to take back a work distributed using a copyleft license...
> just ask SCO.
>> Maybe the author is wrong, but my understanding is similar.
> I think that he is wrong, and again, just ask SCO. Or the author of
> any formerly free software project who changed the license to
> something less free, only to discover they couldn't do a thing about
> the people continuing to distribute (and modify) the last free
> version of their work, usually eclipsing the "improved" proprietary
> However, this particular theory -- that you can win damages despite
> previously having distributed the work under a free license with free
> sublicensing, by forcing the defendant to demonstrate that he
> obtained it under that license -- has never gotten as far as a
> courtroom as far as I know. With source code it's easier because you
> usually have a copyright notice at the top of every file referencing
> the GPL or whatever. With photos you might have a watermark
> mentioning which CC license applies to it. But with music, what do
> you have, an ID3v2 tag? Usually not even that.
> In the end, at least in the US, anyone can cost you a lot of money
> just by bringing suit against you, whether they have grounds or not.
> What makes the system work most of the time is that the expense cuts
> both ways.
> Back when I was younger and too broke to afford a lawyer, in the early
> days of the web, I received a legal threat from someone who claimed
> something on my web site infringed a copyright, one he himself didn't
> even own. He was pretty explicit about his strategy being to cause
> me expenses I couldn't afford, regardless of whether he had standing,
> and I had to capitulate. Eventually I called his bluff, put the
> material back online and told him to shove off, and he went away. It
> costs money to pull that kind of crap as well, and I pity the
> copyright owner who tries this strategy the first time he uses it
> against someone with more money and time than he has.
> Oh, wait. No I don't, because that would once again be SCO.
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org
For the record. I asked for help on the creative commons mailing list.
It seems that I should not worry and that I can keep the by-nc-nd for
Moreover, I think that to be valid, the license should be specified at
least in the id3 tags, and/or it should come with the download. When you
download my albums from Jamendo, for instance, the license is specified
both in the id3 tags and in a text file included in the zip archive. At
Opsound the downloads pointed to the tracks hosted on my own server,
which had no licensing information.
More information about the Linux-audio-user