19 Aug
2005
19 Aug
'05
3:55 p.m.
tim hall wrote:
On Friday 19 August 2005 12:26, Shayne O'Connor
wrote:
No, I don't believe any rights are granted if there is no license.
this has got nothing to do with creative commons licensing.
That so doesn't answer my reservations.
well, if there are answers to your reservations, i guess they would lie
in this section of the "Share Music" license (which at least *sounds*
like a good idea, don't you think?):
"# You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3
above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward
commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of
the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or
otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward
commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is
no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange
of copyrighted works."
that is really vague, and open to interpretation, and unless you can be
more specific about the ways in which you think your music could be used
by the forces of evil, then i think your concerns will have to go
unanswered ... but the fact that the Beastie Boys have released music
under a CC license should relieve you somewhat (cos i'm sure that out of
any world-renowned band, they'd be so unlikely to expose any of their
music to use by the forces of social/environmental/political evil) ;)
shayne
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)? - 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.