19 Aug
2005
19 Aug
'05
9:25 a.m.
tim hall wrote:
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)?
this has got nothing to do with creative commons licensing.
On Thursday 18 August 2005 22:13, Shayne O'Connor
wrote:
yeah, the distribute part was a bit iffy, but i couldn't make my point
without i ;)
tim hall wrote:
Yes, the issue is licensing here.
On Sunday 07 August 2005 10:02, David Collins
wrote:
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? 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. 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. 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'.
- 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.
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. ;)