20 Feb
2008
20 Feb
'08
10:51 a.m.
Here's the story: I published some tracks of mine at opsound.org. At the
time I submitted these tracks, the license was by-nc-sa, which is the
same license I've always used for all the other websites where I've put
my stuff.
Now they've changed the license and removed the non-commercial clause.
As a result of this, may more websites (which crawl the content from
opsound) host my tracks with the by-sa license.
Could they do this? What can I do now?
-c.
--
www.cesaremarilungo.com
20 Feb
20 Feb
10:59 a.m.
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 09:50:03 Cesare Marilungo wrote:
Here's the story: I published some tracks of mine
at opsound.org. At the
time I submitted these tracks, the license was by-nc-sa, which is the
same license I've always used for all the other websites where I've put
my stuff.
Now they've changed the license and removed the non-commercial clause.
As a result of this, may more websites (which crawl the content from
opsound) host my tracks with the by-sa license.
Could they do this?
No, they can't, unless perhaps theri TOS allows for it. I kind of doubt it.
I run into the opposite problem all the time in places.
I use BY-SA for my works. I often find the licenses reset to traditional
copyright ARR notices.
I think this happens by mistake, but it is a big problem. So far, the works
have been pretty much all mine. But what happens if someone comes along and
finds a work of mine built on their BY-SA work and claiming ARR?
I then have to go back and re-do the licenses again.
What can I do now?
Can you go and reset the licenses at this point? On opsound?
As for the other sites, contact them and tell them of the problem?
Rsign yourself to letting those songs become dual licensed BY-SA your
preferred license and try to avoid the problem you have in the future?
-c.
all the best,
drew
11:25 a.m.
drew Roberts wrote:
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 09:50:03 Cesare
Marilungo wrote:
I can't. Meanwhile I have deleted my page there.
Here's the story: I published some tracks of
mine at opsound.org. At the
time I submitted these tracks, the license was by-nc-sa, which is the
same license I've always used for all the other websites where I've put
my stuff.
Now they've changed the license and removed the non-commercial clause.
As a result of this, may more websites (which crawl the content from
opsound) host my tracks with the by-sa license.
Could they do this?
No, they can't, unless perhaps theri TOS allows for it. I kind of doubt it.
I run into the opposite problem all the time in places.
I use BY-SA for my works. I often find the licenses reset to traditional
copyright ARR notices.
I think this happens by mistake, but it is a big problem. So far, the works
have been pretty much all mine. But what happens if someone comes along and
finds a work of mine built on their BY-SA work and claiming ARR?
I then have to go back and re-do the licenses again.
What can I do now?
Can you go and reset the licenses at this point? On opsound?
As for the other sites, contact them and tell them of
the problem?
I'll try to do this but I'm not sure if it will work.
There are many sites that crawled my tracks. Some of them send ringtones
of them, too. Of course most of these are illegal. I don't have the
money/time/patience to go after them.
But I trusted Opsound.
Rsign yourself to letting those songs become dual
licensed BY-SA your
preferred license and try to avoid the problem you have in the future?
Thank you for your suggestions.
Best,
-c.
-c.
all the best,
drew
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
--
www.cesaremarilungo.com
11:59 a.m.
Now that I think of it, the license I've always used to publish my stuff
is by-nc-nd, not by-nc-sa. I don't remember now if the license at
Opsound.org when I registered was nd (non-derivative) or sa
(share-alike). If the latter is true, is has been a mistake from my side
(probably I confused them or I didn't pay enough attention). But still,
they removed the non-commercial clause.
Anyway, do you think that - once I've succesfully had these tracks
removed from these tracks - I can keep the by-nc-nd license everywhere
else? Or should I relicense those particular tracks under by-sa?
Best,
-c.
Cesare Marilungo wrote:
drew Roberts wrote:
--
www.cesaremarilungo.com
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 09:50:03 Cesare
Marilungo wrote:
I can't. Meanwhile I have deleted my page there.
Here's the story: I published some tracks of
mine at opsound.org. At the
time I submitted these tracks, the license was by-nc-sa, which is the
same license I've always used for all the other websites where I've put
my stuff.
Now they've changed the license and removed the non-commercial clause.
As a result of this, may more websites (which crawl the content from
opsound) host my tracks with the by-sa license.
Could they do this?
No, they can't, unless perhaps theri TOS allows for it. I kind of doubt
it.
I run into the opposite problem all the time in places.
I use BY-SA for my works. I often find the licenses reset to traditional
copyright ARR notices.
I think this happens by mistake, but it is a big problem. So far, the works
have been pretty much all mine. But what happens if someone comes along and
finds a work of mine built on their BY-SA work and claiming ARR?
I then have to go back and re-do the licenses again.
What can I do now?
Can you go and reset the licenses at this point? On opsound?
As for the other sites, contact them and tell
them of the problem?
I'll try to do this but I'm not sure if it will work.
There are many sites that crawled my tracks. Some of them send ringtones
of them, too. Of course most of these are illegal. I don't have the
money/time/patience to go after them.
But I trusted Opsound.
Rsign yourself to letting those songs become dual
licensed BY-SA your
preferred license and try to avoid the problem you have in the future?
Thank you for your suggestions.
Best,
-c.
-c.
all the best,
drew
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
21 Feb
21 Feb
12:04 p.m.
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 10:58, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
Now that I think of it, the license I've always
used to publish my stuff
is by-nc-nd, not by-nc-sa. I don't remember now if the license at
Opsound.org when I registered was nd (non-derivative) or sa
(share-alike). If the latter is true, is has been a mistake from my side
(probably I confused them or I didn't pay enough attention). But still,
they removed the non-commercial clause.
Anyway, do you think that - once I've succesfully had these tracks
removed from these tracks - I can keep the by-nc-nd license everywhere
else? Or should I relicense those particular tracks under by-sa?
You can pull the tracks from opsound.
You can leave the works under whatever license you wish wherever else you put
your works.
The problem is when others who got the works from opsound under what they
thought to be a valid BY-SA license, puts those works or derivatives of those
works elsewhere themselves under the BY-SA license.
I think it would be simplest to dual license those as BY-SA and your preferred
license and be done with it. Less future complications for you.
*** Warning... Perhaps take this with a grsin of salt. I may be being
too "loose" with this advice as BY-SA is my preferred license in the first
place.
I have tried to take that into account though. What has happened. If it has
and was not a really big mistake on your part, should not have happened to
you.
At issue is what to do now though. And I have tried to outline things a best
as I understand them and offer the best advice I can. (Certainly not legal
advice mind you.)
Best,
-c.
sorry for the delay, I sometimes send through the wrong account and get
bounced...
all the best,
drew
Cesare Marilungo wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
>> On Wednesday 20 February 2008 09:50:03 Cesare Marilungo wrote:
>>> Here's the story: I published some tracks of mine at opsound.org. At
>>> the time I submitted these tracks, the license was by-nc-sa, which is
>>> the same license I've always used for all the other websites where
I've
>>> put my stuff.
>>>
>>> Now they've changed the license and removed the non-commercial clause.
>>> As a result of this, may more websites (which crawl the content from
>>> opsound) host my tracks with the by-sa license.
>>>
>>> Could they do this?
>>
>> No, they can't, unless perhaps theri TOS allows for it. I kind of doubt
>> it.
>>
>> I run into the opposite problem all the time in places.
>>
>> I use BY-SA for my works. I often find the licenses reset to traditional
>> copyright ARR notices.
>>
>> I think this happens by mistake, but it is a big problem. So far, the
>> works have been pretty much all mine. But what happens if someone comes
>> along and finds a work of mine built on their BY-SA work and claiming
>> ARR?
>>
>> I then have to go back and re-do the licenses again.
>>
>>> What can I do now?
>>
>> Can you go and reset the licenses at this point? On opsound?
>
> I can't. Meanwhile I have deleted my page there.
>
>> As for the other sites, contact them and tell them of the problem?
>
> I'll try to do this but I'm not sure if it will work.
>
> There are many sites that crawled my tracks. Some of them send ringtones
> of them, too. Of course most of these are illegal. I don't have the
> money/time/patience to go after them.
>
> But I trusted Opsound.
>
>> Rsign yourself to letting those songs become dual licensed BY-SA your
>> preferred license and try to avoid the problem you have in the future?
>>
>>> -c.
>>
>> all the best,
>
> Thank you for your suggestions.
>
> Best,
>
> -c.
>
>> drew
20 Feb
20 Feb
1:48 p.m.
New subject: [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE]
Cesare Marilungo wrote:
Here's the story: I published some tracks of mine
at opsound.org. At the
time I submitted these tracks, the license was by-nc-sa, which is the
same license I've always used for all the other websites where I've put
my stuff.
Now they've changed the license and removed the non-commercial clause.
As a result of this, may more websites (which crawl the content from
opsound) host my tracks with the by-sa license.
Could they do this? What can I do now?
-c.
I received a mail from opsound. It seems that the license has always
been by-sa.
Most websites that host music don't require any license at all. You just
have to be the copyright holder and you must agree to let them publish
your music on their website. Other sites, like Jamendo, let you choose
which cc license you want to use.
Probably, when I submitted my tracks it wasn't clear enough (at least to
me) that the music should be licensed that way.
Anyway, sorry for the noise.
-c.
--
www.cesaremarilungo.com
4:30 p.m.
New subject: [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE]
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 12:46:59 Cesare Marilungo wrote:
Cesare Marilungo wrote:
I was just researching that for you...
I went to the wayback machine.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030312104735/www.opsound.org/opsound.html
That is the earliest page I could get to. Apr 07, 2003
I has been straight BY-SA since then.
Here's the story: I published some tracks of
mine at opsound.org. At the
time I submitted these tracks, the license was by-nc-sa, which is the
same license I've always used for all the other websites where I've put
my stuff.
Now they've changed the license and removed the non-commercial clause.
As a result of this, may more websites (which crawl the content from
opsound) host my tracks with the by-sa license.
Could they do this? What can I do now?
-c.
I received a mail from opsound. It seems that the license has always
been by-sa.
Most websites that host music don't require any license at all. You just
have to be the copyright holder and you must agree to let them publish
your music on their website. Other sites, like Jamendo, let you choose
which cc license you want to use.
Probably, when I submitted my tracks it wasn't clear enough (at least to
me) that the music should be licensed that way.
So, it may be that those tracks are BY-SA and you may not be able to do much
about it as far as people who already have them go.
However, just FYI and the information of any else in a similar boat.
If someone wants to include your BY-SA music in a film or video, the film or
video has to use the BY-SA license as well. If they are unwilling to make the
film BY-SA, then you can get paid for an lsternate license just like someone
who wanted to use an NC track or even an ARR work.
Again, not legal advice, but look into the workings for yourself if you are
interested.
Anyway, sorry for the noise.
-c.
all the best,
drew
4:57 p.m.
New subject: [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE]
drew Roberts wrote:
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 12:46:59 Cesare
Marilungo wrote:
First, let me state once again that it's not that I've changed my mind
and it's not Opsound.org folks fault, either. I made a mistake and I'm
trying to solve the issue.
Cesare Marilungo wrote:
Here's the story: I published some tracks of
mine at opsound.org. At the
time I submitted these tracks, the license was by-nc-sa, which is the
same license I've always used for all the other websites where I've put
my stuff.
Now they've changed the license and removed the non-commercial clause.
As a result of this, may more websites (which crawl the content from
opsound) host my tracks with the by-sa license.
Could they do this? What can I do now?
-c.
I received a mail from opsound. It seems that the license has always
been by-sa.
I was just researching that for you...
I went to the wayback machine.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030312104735/www.opsound.org/opsound.html
That is the earliest page I could get to. Apr 07, 2003
Yes, I aready checked on the wayback machine.
I has been straight BY-SA since then.
This is true for those who acquired the tracks before today. Now I
removed my page at opsound.org and everywhere else (and in particular on
my own website, where the tracks are physically hosted) the license for
these tracks has always been by-nc-nd.
So, if somebody wants to use these tracks for commercial purposes he
should either consider them to be licensed as non-commercial or he
should prove he acquired the tracks from Opsound in the period in which
they were there with that particular license. By the way, how you can
prove such thing? If I want to use somebody else's work for a commercial
purpose, and I see that his work is published on a website under a
creative commons non non-commercial license, I would ask for a signed
piece of paper that states so, so that I have a proof I can show in the
case I get sued.
IANAL, and of course I'm not sure about this. But this is my understanding.
Most websites that host music don't require
any license at all. You just
have to be the copyright holder and you must agree to let them publish
your music on their website. Other sites, like Jamendo, let you choose
which cc license you want to use.
Probably, when I submitted my tracks it wasn't clear enough (at least to
me) that the music should be licensed that way.
So, it may be that those tracks are BY-SA and you may not be able to do much
about it as far as people who already have them go.
However, just FYI and the information of any else in a
similar boat.
If someone wants to include your BY-SA music in a film or video, the film or
video has to use the BY-SA license as well. If they are unwilling to make the
film BY-SA, then you can get paid for an lsternate license just like someone
who wanted to use an NC track or even an ARR work.
Again, not legal advice, but look into the workings for yourself if you are
interested.
--
www.cesaremarilungo.com
Anyway, sorry for the noise.
-c.
all the best,
drew
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
5:33 p.m.
New subject: [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE]
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 15:56:24 you wrote:
Or for those who get them from those people. If anyone has a valid BY-SA
license from you, the cat is out of the bag so to speak.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode
"3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License,
Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise
the rights in the Work as stated below:"
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode
"3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License,
Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise
the rights in the Work as stated below:"
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
"3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License,
Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise
the rights in the Work as stated below:"
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode
"3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License,
Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise
the rights in the Work as stated below:"
If you have given out a BY-SA license to anyone, it is perpetual as I get
things.
And when they pass on cpoies, the license passes with it as I understand
things.
drew Roberts wrote:
I think I have the events sorted at this point. The consequences and the
tricky bits? I don't know.
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 12:46:59 Cesare
Marilungo wrote:
> Cesare Marilungo wrote:
>> Here's the story: I published some tracks of mine at opsound.org. At
>> the time I submitted these tracks, the license was by-nc-sa, which is
>> the same license I've always used for all the other websites where I've
>> put my stuff.
>>
>> Now they've changed the license and removed the non-commercial clause.
>> As a result of this, may more websites (which crawl the content from
>> opsound) host my tracks with the by-sa license.
>>
>> Could they do this? What can I do now?
>>
>> -c.
>
> I received a mail from opsound. It seems that the license has always
> been by-sa.
First, let me state once again that it's not that I've changed my mind
and it's not Opsound.org folks fault, either. I made a mistake and I'm
trying to solve the issue. I was just researching that for you...
I went to the wayback machine.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030312104735/www.opsound.org/opsound.html
That is the earliest page I could get to. Apr 07, 2003
Yes, I aready checked on the wayback machine.
I has been straight BY-SA since then.
This is true for those who acquired the tracks before today. Most websites that host music don't require
any license at all. You just
have to be the copyright holder and you must agree to let them publish
your music on their website. Other sites, like Jamendo, let you choose
which cc license you want to use.
Probably, when I submitted my tracks it wasn't clear enough (at least to
me) that the music should be licensed that way.
So, it may be that those tracks are BY-SA and you may not be able to do
much about it as far as people who already have them go. Now I
removed my page at opsound.org and everywhere else (and in particular on
my own website, where the tracks are physically hosted) the license for
these tracks has always been by-nc-nd.
So, if somebody wants to use these tracks for commercial purposes he
should either consider them to be licensed as non-commercial or he
should prove he acquired the tracks from Opsound in the period in which
they were there with that particular license.
Or from someone who got it from them during that time.
And even that is perhaps.
By the way, how you can
prove such thing?
People do different things. Some take screen shots. You are on the Linux Audio
Users mailing list. How do you prove you have rights to GPL and BSD code? How
does one prove that someone didn;t mistakenly license their program under the
GPL when they had intended it to be shareware? If someone decides to not
distribute their program under the GPL anymore, how are you going to prove
you got it when it was under the GPL? The problems are similar.
If I want to use somebody else's work for a
commercial
purpose, and I see that his work is published on a website under a
creative commons non non-commercial license, I would ask for a signed
piece of paper that states so, so that I have a proof I can show in the
case I get sued.
How do you see a BY-SA license causing you trouble with these tracks? It may
be that those things you are worried about are unlikely to happen.
IANAL, and of course I'm not sure about this. But this is my understanding.
> However, just FYI and the information of any else in a similar boat.
>
> If someone wants to include your BY-SA music in a film or video, the film
> or video has to use the BY-SA license as well. If they are unwilling to
> make the film BY-SA, then you can get paid for an lsternate license just
> like someone who wanted to use an NC track or even an ARR work.
>
> Again, not legal advice, but look into the workings for yourself if you
> are interested.
>
>> Anyway, sorry for the noise.
>>
>> -c.
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
>
Sorry, didn't reply to the list the first time...
all the best,
drew
6252
days inactive
6253
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
8 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Cesare Marilungo -
drew Roberts