8 Mar
2011
8 Mar
'11
7:06 p.m.
On 03/08/2011 03:38 PM, Q wrote:
Jeremy Jongepier wrote:
Hello Q,
If linking to an all rights reserved work is ok I don't see why I
couldn't include those. Didn't know about that, I'm not a copyright law
expert.
Hello Rafał,
Properly licensed: CC or any other licence that allows for
redistribution without prior consent.
Easily available: direct links to music files or embedded players
(like SoundCloud, Jamendo or even YouTube). So no RapidShare,
SendSpace or similar services.
Best,
Jeremy
Why so restrictive, why not include full (C) Copyright All Rights
Reserved stuff?
Putting it on another website, torrenting, emailing it, transferring it
to other people's drives etc would be distributing without the copyright
holder's permission (assuming it hasn't been explicity given).
If all you're doing is providing a link to something somewhere on the
web, that's not distributing in contravention of the licence as far as I
know and just linking to it seems to be fine in many countries.
I suppose ultimately, it's your wording I object
to -- copyright
includes a proper licence, just a more restrictive one than the Creative
Commons copyright licences.
Yes, I worded it badly, properly licensed = any work with a license that
I can link to.
Linux, and Linux audio, users are a diverse group and
not all of us
subscribe to the "everything should be totally free for anyone to do
anything they like with it" thinking and it can be a bit alienating to
be treated as if it were a homogeneous group.
That's the last thing I wanted to do.
Also, you could end up overlooking a lot of good music
by not using full
copyrighted works. Wouldn't quality or interest (however you personally
judge those) be better criteria for inclusion?
Yes they are. But I'll omit the line about licensing for the next
round-up, I made a wrong decision by setting a license of any kind as a
criteria to include tracks in that specific section of the round-up.
Best,
Jeremy