3 May
2006
3 May
'06
5:41 p.m.
It looks like (as of May 1), that MySpace is claiming license to
redistribute any content on their site, but the license goes away after
you remove the content:
"By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content, messages, text,
files, images, photos, video, sounds, profiles, works of authorship, or
any other materials (collectively, "Content") on or through the
Services, you hereby grant to MySpace.com, a non-exclusive, fully-paid
and royalty-free, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense
through unlimited levels of sublicensees) to use, copy, modify, adapt,
translate, publicly perform, publicly display, store, reproduce,
transmit, and distribute such Content on and through the Services. This
license will terminate at the time you remove such Content from the
Services. You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted
by you on or through the Services or otherwise have the right to grant
the license set forth in this section, and (ii) the posting of your
Content on or through the Services does not violate the privacy rights,
publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights or any other rights of any
person. You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies
owing any person by reason of any Content posted by you to or through
the Services."
Yikes
--
Brett McCoy: Programmer by Day, Guitarist by Night
http://www.alhazred.com
http://www.cassandrasyndrome.com
http://www.revelmoon.com
3 May
3 May
5:57 p.m.
On Wed, 03 May 2006 15:41:17 -0400
Brett McCoy <idragosani(a)chapelperilous.net> wrote:
It looks like (as of May 1), that MySpace is claiming
license to
redistribute any content on their site, but the license goes away after
you remove the content:
"By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content, messages, text,
files, images, photos, video, sounds, profiles, works of authorship, or
any other materials (collectively, "Content") on or through the
Services, you hereby grant to MySpace.com, a non-exclusive, fully-paid
and royalty-free, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense
through unlimited levels of sublicensees) to use, copy, modify, adapt,
translate, publicly perform, publicly display, store, reproduce,
transmit, and distribute such Content on and through the Services.
How can anyone ever possibly track this sort of thing?
This
license will terminate at the time you remove such Content from the
Services.
This is the exact reverse of what it used to say, so maybe they've
already had legal beagles breathing down their necks.
You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the
Content posted
by you on or through the Services or otherwise have the right to grant
the license set forth in this section, and (ii) the posting of your
Content on or through the Services does not violate the privacy rights,
publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights or any other rights of any
person. You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies
owing any person by reason of any Content posted by you to or through
the Services."
Yikes
Exactly! Even with the change above it's still a horrendous piece of
spagetti
--
F
6:02 p.m.
Folderol wrote:
Yep, I've taken down all of the music I had on Myspace... it's a
violation of the Creative Commons terms under which my music is available.
-- Brett
--
Brett McCoy: Programmer by Day, Guitarist by Night
http://www.alhazred.com
http://www.cassandrasyndrome.com
http://www.revelmoon.com
Yikes
Exactly! Even with the change above it's still a horrendous piece of
spagetti 
6:09 p.m.
Brett McCoy wrote:
Folderol wrote:
Yep, I've taken down all of the music I had on Myspace... it's a
violation of the Creative Commons terms under which my music is
available.
Can you indicate how it violates the Creative Commons terms?
Yikes
Exactly! Even with the change above it's still a horrendous piece of
spagetti
6:12 p.m.
Brad Fuller wrote:
Yep, I've taken down all of the music I had on Myspace... it's
a
violation of the Creative Commons terms under which my music is
available.
Can you indicate how it violates the Creative Commons terms?
It depends on the terms... I have selected the non-commercial
distribution terms, which means no modifying, public performance, etc.,
without permission. Myspace's terms specifically say they can modify,
publicly perform, etc.... I guess it's really not a violation, but it's
kind of sneaky that posting content to the site automatically grants
them the license... bet a lot of people didn't even realize they are
giving permission implicitly when they upload files to the site.
--
Brett McCoy: Programmer by Day, Guitarist by Night
http://www.alhazred.com
http://www.cassandrasyndrome.com
http://www.revelmoon.com
Yikes
Exactly! Even with the change above it's still a horrendous piece of
spagetti 
4 May
4 May
8:50 a.m.
Hallo,
Brett McCoy hat gesagt: // Brett McCoy wrote:
Brad Fuller wrote:
If MySpace or whoever is hosting your music, then of course they need
to be given the right to do just that: distribute your music through
their website. If MySpace is ad-funded, they are a commercial company
and are basically using the music hosted there in a commercial way: to
get people to view their website and the advertisments shown there.
But nobody forced you to upload your music to their site, they didn't
upload it on their own and so I don't quite see, how MySpace did
something wrong? Or didn't they have ads when you uploaded?
Ah, the wonders of Creative Commons' "non-commercial" clause...
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
Can you indicate how it violates the Creative
Commons terms?
It depends on the terms... I have selected the non-commercial
distribution terms, which means no modifying, public performance, etc.,
without permission. Myspace's terms specifically say they can modify,
publicly perform, etc.... I guess it's really not a violation, but it's
kind of sneaky that posting content to the site automatically grants
them the license... bet a lot of people didn't even realize they are
giving permission implicitly when they upload files to the site. 
10:28 a.m.
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Ah, the wonders of Creative Commons' "non-commercial" clause...
Good point Frank.
IANAL, but Creative Commons nc-licenses says that music released with it
cannot be used commercially without permission.
By uploading your music on myspace or whatever and signing their
agreement you're giving them this permission. So there's no
contradiction. And no risks at all, IMHO.
Artist that are still publishing their music with a record label should
be more concerned, and this is true even for most of the so-called
independent labels. It's not uncommon that niche artists that sold no
more than 5000-10000 copies of each album in the past can't publish
their *own* music on the web because the music isn't their anymore.
Ciao,
c.
--
www.cesaremarilungo.com
11:48 a.m.
On Thursday 04 May 2006 15:27, Cesare Marilungo was like:
IANAL, but Creative Commons nc-licenses says that
music released with it
cannot be used commercially without permission.
By uploading your music on myspace or whatever and signing their
agreement you're giving them this permission. So there's no
contradiction. And no risks at all, IMHO.
For once I shall agree with you. The point that Frank makes is also very good.
Most websites that carry music have to make some kind of license agreement
that allows them to put the stuff on their site in the first place. So Brett,
in this instance would be agreeing that both himself and Myspace can make
money out of his music, but no-one else can. His license to Myspace expired
when that material was removed. On the face of it that is not so bad.
However, Myspace do seem to have stretched the agreement so they can do
pretty much as they like. And ... would you trust a man named Murdoch?
Artist that are still publishing their music with a
record label should
be more concerned, and this is true even for most of the so-called
independent labels. It's not uncommon that niche artists that sold no
more than 5000-10000 copies of each album in the past can't publish
their *own* music on the web because the music isn't their anymore.
Absolutely. I have watched a couple of friends go through that one. At the
time I thought they were getting a lucky break. One came back after three
years of staring at hotel ceilings, shook my hand and said "You did the right
thing." It's nice to get a little reassurance once in a while. ;)
--
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
11:51 a.m.
tim hall wrote:
For once I shall agree with you. The point that Frank
makes is also very good.
Most websites that carry music have to make some kind of license agreement
that allows them to put the stuff on their site in the first place. So Brett,
in this instance would be agreeing that both himself and Myspace can make
money out of his music, but no-one else can. His license to Myspace expired
when that material was removed. On the face of it that is not so bad.
However, Myspace do seem to have stretched the agreement so they can do
pretty much as they like. And ... would you trust a man named Murdoch?
Who is this Murdoch guy anyway?
-- Brett
--
Brett McCoy: Programmer by Day, Guitarist by Night
http://www.alhazred.com
http://www.cassandrasyndrome.com
http://www.revelmoon.com
12:04 p.m.
On Thursday 04 May 2006 14:51, Brett McCoy was like:
Who is this Murdoch guy anyway?
If that wasn't supposed to be ironic, have a Google for Rupert Murdoch.
else: Yeah right. !-D
--
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
We are the people we've been waiting for.
12:08 p.m.
tim hall wrote:
On Thursday 04 May 2006 14:51, Brett McCoy was like:
Oh, *that* Murdoch. *retches*
--
Brett McCoy: Programmer by Day, Guitarist by Night
http://www.alhazred.com
http://www.cassandrasyndrome.com
http://www.revelmoon.com
Who is this Murdoch guy anyway?
If that wasn't supposed to be ironic, have a Google for Rupert Murdoch.
else: Yeah right. !-D
12:48 p.m.
On Thursday 04 May 2006 15:08, Brett McCoy was like:
tim hall wrote:
Exactly.
--
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
We are the people We've been waiting for.
On Thursday 04 May 2006 14:51, Brett McCoy was
like:
Oh, *that* Murdoch. *retches* Who is this Murdoch guy anyway?
If that wasn't supposed to be ironic, have a Google for Rupert Murdoch.
else: Yeah right. !-D 
11:37 a.m.
On Thu, 4 May 2006 at 12:50 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Ah, the wonders of Creative Commons'
"non-commercial" clause...
Ignoring the other points, do remember that you are free to give MySpace
or anyone else permission to host/upload/perform/whatever your music
even after you have licensed it under a cc non-commercial license. You
are free to sell it to someone as traditional music, give it away to
someone else with tighter or looser restrictions than the cc
non-commercial license, etc.
In short, YOU are not bound by the CC non-commercial clause (or any
other) just because YOU released it previously that way. You are simply
bound by your end of the bargain, e.g. don't sue people if they follow
the license you released it under.
This of course gets complicated if other people contributed (need their
permission), or if it's a derivative work based on other cc-licensed
stuff, but you knew that.
--
Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net
There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the
right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach
3 May
3 May
6:11 p.m.
On Wed May 3 2006 15:41, Brett McCoy wrote:
(collectively, "Content") on or through the
Services, you
hereby grant to MySpace.com, a non-exclusive, fully-paid and
royalty-free, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense
through unlimited levels of sublicensees) to use, copy,
modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, publicly display,
store, reproduce, transmit, and distribute such Content on and
through the Services. This license will terminate at the time
you remove such Content from the Services. You represent and
I'm no lawyer, but to me it seems that all those rights you're
giving them only applies to Myspace itself ("to use, ... and
distribute such Content on and through the Services.")
Regardless, I don't think you're giving them the right to sell
it on CD or use it in a soundtrack, or a commercial (unless it's
airing on Myspace itself.) There's no "including but not
limited to", just "on and through the Services". But millions
have been lost through the presence or absence of a comma, so
who knows.
I also don't see where this agreement allows them to "claim
copyright on EVERYTHING posted, including all text, pictures and
music" as Folderol suggested, and it doesn't appear that "This
applies even after you take down the material yourself".
My lay interpretation of this agreement is, "You agree not to sue
us for sharing the stuff you've uploaded, or at least not before
you delete it. You promise you're legally allowed to upload it
under these terms in the first place and if it turns out you're
not, you promise to pay the offended parties whatever they're
due and not try to stick us with it." I don't think that's
incompatible with any free/open content licenses, nor at all
draconian. If I were foolish enough to try to start a social
music hosting site, I'd certainly have words to that effect in
my signup agreement to cover my own ass.
Not that I'm fond of Myspace or anything.... at all... but I
don't think the sky is falling yet, either. Is the above
agreement even any worse than the one in place before Murdoch
came into the picture?
Rob
6:15 p.m.
Rob wrote:
I also don't see where this agreement allows them
to "claim
copyright on EVERYTHING posted, including all text, pictures and
music" as Folderol suggested, and it doesn't appear that "This
applies even after you take down the material yourself".
That was what I was pointing out earlier... Myspace is not claiming any
copyright or ownership, but instead you implicitly grant them a license
when you post content to the site. It was the mention of modifying
content that bothered me the most, though.
--
Brett McCoy: Programmer by Day, Guitarist by Night
http://www.alhazred.com
http://www.cassandrasyndrome.com
http://www.revelmoon.com
6723
days inactive
6724
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
14 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Brad Fuller -
Brett McCoy -
Cesare Marilungo -
Folderol -
Frank Barknecht -
Hans Fugal -
Rob -
tim hall