20 Feb
2008
20 Feb
'08
5:53 p.m.
drew Roberts 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. Not necessarily, see below.
Those who already got the tracks from Opsound can probably use them
commercially, and they can give away the track but the license is not
transmitted with the tracks. So those who get the tracks from these
people cannot use them for commercial purposes. Otherwise one wouldn't
been able to license things with many different licenses. Am I wrong?
I've found a blog post about these kind of issue:
http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/01/gaming-creative-commons-for-profit.ht…
Maybe the author is wrong, but my understanding is similar.
I don't know, that's why I'm asking for clues. :-)
I'm not worried about what one could do. I just don't want to relicense
these tracks on all the places that hosts them. I don't want to confuse
people by having different licenses for different tracks. Moreover, two
of these tracks are taken from two different albums.
At this point, I'm considering relicensing all my music under the by-sa
license, but I'm not sure yet.
It's too much hassle for having submitted these tracks on a website with
an unclear (at least to me) policy. I haven't signed an agreement or
anything there. I just upload a bunch of tracks since I thought (and I
still believe) it was a nice initiative (I mean, a website that hosts
exclusively cc-licensed music) and I wanted to promote my music there.
Thanks for your help.
Best,
-c.
--
www.cesaremarilungo.com
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 15:56:24 you wrote:
:-)
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
>
>
all the best,
drew
20 Feb
20 Feb
10:20 p.m.
New subject: [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE]
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 16:52, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
Those who already got the tracks from Opsound can
probably use them
commercially, and they can give away the track but the license is
not transmitted with the tracks. So those who get the tracks from
these people cannot use them for commercial purposes. Otherwise one
wouldn't been able to license things with many different licenses.
Am I wrong?
I'm no lawyer, but even in version 1.0 of the CC by-sa license, it
says in section 4a, "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly
perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms
of this License [...]". These terms apply to the people you gave it
to, which I guess would be Opsound.
So Opsound distributed it under the terms of cc-by-sa, because that
was the only way they could have done so, and then the people who
downloaded it from them were covered by the terms of cc-by-sa, due to
section 4a, when they distributed it further. They were granted the
right "to reproduce the Work" (section 3a) but only "under the terms
of this License" (4a). So when they in turn distribute the song to
someone else, it's still licensed under cc-by-sa, and so on.
It's hard to take back a work distributed using a copyleft license...
just ask SCO.
http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/01/gaming-creative-commons-for-p
rofit.html
Maybe the author is wrong, but my understanding is similar.
I think that he is wrong, and again, just ask SCO. Or the author of
any formerly free software project who changed the license to
something less free, only to discover they couldn't do a thing about
the people continuing to distribute (and modify) the last free
version of their work, usually eclipsing the "improved" proprietary
fork.
However, this particular theory -- that you can win damages despite
previously having distributed the work under a free license with free
sublicensing, by forcing the defendant to demonstrate that he
obtained it under that license -- has never gotten as far as a
courtroom as far as I know. With source code it's easier because you
usually have a copyright notice at the top of every file referencing
the GPL or whatever. With photos you might have a watermark
mentioning which CC license applies to it. But with music, what do
you have, an ID3v2 tag? Usually not even that.
In the end, at least in the US, anyone can cost you a lot of money
just by bringing suit against you, whether they have grounds or not.
What makes the system work most of the time is that the expense cuts
both ways.
Back when I was younger and too broke to afford a lawyer, in the early
days of the web, I received a legal threat from someone who claimed
something on my web site infringed a copyright, one he himself didn't
even own. He was pretty explicit about his strategy being to cause
me expenses I couldn't afford, regardless of whether he had standing,
and I had to capitulate. Eventually I called his bluff, put the
material back online and told him to shove off, and he went away. It
costs money to pull that kind of crap as well, and I pity the
copyright owner who tries this strategy the first time he uses it
against someone with more money and time than he has.
Oh, wait. No I don't, because that would once again be SCO.
Rob
10:55 p.m.
New subject: [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE]
Rob wrote:
--
www.cesaremarilungo.com
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 16:52, Cesare Marilungo
wrote:
Hi Rob,
thank you for helping me.
Keep in mind that on my own website, on jamendo and everywhere else it
has always been clearly stated that the tracks were licensed under the
cc-by-nc-nd (non-commercial, non derivatives).
It's not that I changed my mind.
My website was linked from there and the tracks were hosted on my own
server. Probably I didn't put enough attention when submitting the
tracks, and I didn't notice the radio buttons with the license options
(which, at least now, is between cc-by-sa and public domain).
Those who already got the tracks from Opsound can
probably use them
commercially, and they can give away the track but the license is
not transmitted with the tracks. So those who get the tracks from
these people cannot use them for commercial purposes. Otherwise one
wouldn't been able to license things with many different licenses.
Am I wrong?
I'm no lawyer, but even in version 1.0 of the CC by-sa license, it
says in section 4a, "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly
perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms
of this License [...]". These terms apply to the people you gave it
to, which I guess would be Opsound.
So Opsound distributed it under the terms of cc-by-sa, because that
was the only way they could have done so, and then the people who
downloaded it from them were covered by the terms of cc-by-sa, due to
section 4a, when they distributed it further. They were granted the
right "to reproduce the Work" (section 3a) but only "under the terms
of this License" (4a). So when they in turn distribute the song to
someone else, it's still licensed under cc-by-sa, and so on.
It's hard to take back a work distributed using a copyleft license...
just ask SCO.
http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/01/gaming-creative-commons-for-p
rofit.html
Maybe the author is wrong, but my understanding is similar.
I think that he is wrong, and again, just ask SCO. Or the author of
any formerly free software project who changed the license to
something less free, only to discover they couldn't do a thing about
the people continuing to distribute (and modify) the last free
version of their work, usually eclipsing the "improved" proprietary
fork.
However, this particular theory -- that you can win damages despite
previously having distributed the work under a free license with free
sublicensing, by forcing the defendant to demonstrate that he
obtained it under that license -- has never gotten as far as a
courtroom as far as I know. With source code it's easier because you
usually have a copyright notice at the top of every file referencing
the GPL or whatever. With photos you might have a watermark
mentioning which CC license applies to it. But with music, what do
you have, an ID3v2 tag? Usually not even that.
In the end, at least in the US, anyone can cost you a lot of money
just by bringing suit against you, whether they have grounds or not.
What makes the system work most of the time is that the expense cuts
both ways.
Back when I was younger and too broke to afford a lawyer, in the early
days of the web, I received a legal threat from someone who claimed
something on my web site infringed a copyright, one he himself didn't
even own. He was pretty explicit about his strategy being to cause
me expenses I couldn't afford, regardless of whether he had standing,
and I had to capitulate. Eventually I called his bluff, put the
material back online and told him to shove off, and he went away. It
costs money to pull that kind of crap as well, and I pity the
copyright owner who tries this strategy the first time he uses it
against someone with more money and time than he has.
Oh, wait. No I don't, because that would once again be SCO.
Rob
_______________________________________________
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
10:28 a.m.
New subject: [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE]
Rob wrote:
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 16:52, Cesare Marilungo
wrote:
For the record. I asked for help on the creative commons mailing list.
It seems that I should not worry and that I can keep the by-nc-nd for
these tracks.
Moreover, I think that to be valid, the license should be specified at
least in the id3 tags, and/or it should come with the download. When you
download my albums from Jamendo, for instance, the license is specified
both in the id3 tags and in a text file included in the zip archive. At
Opsound the downloads pointed to the tracks hosted on my own server,
which had no licensing information.
Best,
-c.
--
www.cesaremarilungo.com
Those who already got the tracks from Opsound can
probably use them
commercially, and they can give away the track but the license is
not transmitted with the tracks. So those who get the tracks from
these people cannot use them for commercial purposes. Otherwise one
wouldn't been able to license things with many different licenses.
Am I wrong?
I'm no lawyer, but even in version 1.0 of the CC by-sa license, it
says in section 4a, "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly
perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms
of this License [...]". These terms apply to the people you gave it
to, which I guess would be Opsound.
So Opsound distributed it under the terms of cc-by-sa, because that
was the only way they could have done so, and then the people who
downloaded it from them were covered by the terms of cc-by-sa, due to
section 4a, when they distributed it further. They were granted the
right "to reproduce the Work" (section 3a) but only "under the terms
of this License" (4a). So when they in turn distribute the song to
someone else, it's still licensed under cc-by-sa, and so on.
It's hard to take back a work distributed using a copyleft license...
just ask SCO.
http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/01/gaming-creative-commons-for-p
rofit.html
Maybe the author is wrong, but my understanding is similar.
I think that he is wrong, and again, just ask SCO. Or the author of
any formerly free software project who changed the license to
something less free, only to discover they couldn't do a thing about
the people continuing to distribute (and modify) the last free
version of their work, usually eclipsing the "improved" proprietary
fork.
However, this particular theory -- that you can win damages despite
previously having distributed the work under a free license with free
sublicensing, by forcing the defendant to demonstrate that he
obtained it under that license -- has never gotten as far as a
courtroom as far as I know. With source code it's easier because you
usually have a copyright notice at the top of every file referencing
the GPL or whatever. With photos you might have a watermark
mentioning which CC license applies to it. But with music, what do
you have, an ID3v2 tag? Usually not even that.
In the end, at least in the US, anyone can cost you a lot of money
just by bringing suit against you, whether they have grounds or not.
What makes the system work most of the time is that the expense cuts
both ways.
Back when I was younger and too broke to afford a lawyer, in the early
days of the web, I received a legal threat from someone who claimed
something on my web site infringed a copyright, one he himself didn't
even own. He was pretty explicit about his strategy being to cause
me expenses I couldn't afford, regardless of whether he had standing,
and I had to capitulate. Eventually I called his bluff, put the
material back online and told him to shove off, and he went away. It
costs money to pull that kind of crap as well, and I pity the
copyright owner who tries this strategy the first time he uses it
against someone with more money and time than he has.
Oh, wait. No I don't, because that would once again be SCO.
Rob
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
12:10 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE]
On Thursday 21 February 2008 09:27, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
Moreover, I think that to be valid, the license should
be specified
at least in the id3 tags, and/or it should come with the download.
I agree with the id3v2 tag idea, though they're rarely used at
present. I seldom see them on tracks I download, and have only ever
used id3v1 tags on my own original music and ripped tracks due to
most of my hardware players not supporting v2. (Obviously this is
changing, though the majority of mp3 players (i.e. iPods) still don't
support them.) But unless you're distributing an entire album in one
archive, I think putting the songs into archives with license files
is too awkward.
Either way will prevent music spiders from serving up your music
without licensing information, though.
Rob
23 Feb
23 Feb
7:02 p.m.
New subject: [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE]
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 03:27:02PM +0100, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
Rob wrote:
The big money people (advertising agencies, movie studios, TV networks, ringtone sellers,
etc.) do not want to Share Alike. They're not about that; quite the opposite. They
usually demand tight control over anything they use in their work, and are willing to pay
for that.
In other words, if someone sells an SA work of mine, they're not going to make a LOT
of money off of it, at least not enough for it to have been worthwhile for me to have
prevented them doing so with NC. Have at it, spread the love! But the big corporations
who make huge money are going to be stopped short by the SA just as much as they would by
an NC.
So I look at SA as a filter that lets the small, community-oriented players in freely, and
keeps the big players out-- unless they want to negotiate a price with me which of course
I remain willing to do.
-ken
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 16:52, Cesare
Marilungo wrote:
For the record. I asked for help on the creative commons mailing list.
It seems that I should not worry and that I can keep the by-nc-nd for
these tracks.
Moreover, I think that to be valid, the license should be specified at
least in the id3 tags, and/or it should come with the download. When you
download my albums from Jamendo, for instance, the license is specified
both in the id3 tags and in a text file included in the zip archive. At
Opsound the downloads pointed to the tracks hosted on my own server,
which had no licensing information.
Those who already got the tracks from Opsound can
probably use them
commercially, and they can give away the track but the license is
not transmitted with the tracks. So those who get the tracks from
these people cannot use them for commercial purposes. Otherwise one
wouldn't been able to license things with many different licenses.
Am I wrong?
I'm no lawyer, but even in version 1.0 of the CC by-sa license, it
says in section 4a, "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly
perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms
of this License [...]". These terms apply to the people you gave it
to, which I guess would be Opsound.
So Opsound distributed it under the terms of cc-by-sa, because that
was the only way they could have done so, and then the people who
downloaded it from them were covered by the terms of cc-by-sa, due to
section 4a, when they distributed it further. They were granted the
right "to reproduce the Work" (section 3a) but only "under the terms
of this License" (4a). So when they in turn distribute the song to
someone else, it's still licensed under cc-by-sa, and so on.
It's hard to take back a work distributed using a copyleft license...
just ask SCO.
http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/01/gaming-creative-commons-for-p
rofit.html
Maybe the author is wrong, but my understanding is similar.
I think that he is wrong, and again, just ask SCO. Or the author of
any formerly free software project who changed the license to
something less free, only to discover they couldn't do a thing about
the people continuing to distribute (and modify) the last free
version of their work, usually eclipsing the "improved" proprietary
fork.
However, this particular theory -- that you can win damages despite
previously having distributed the work under a free license with free
sublicensing, by forcing the defendant to demonstrate that he
obtained it under that license -- has never gotten as far as a
courtroom as far as I know. With source code it's easier because you
usually have a copyright notice at the top of every file referencing
the GPL or whatever. With photos you might have a watermark
mentioning which CC license applies to it. But with music, what do
you have, an ID3v2 tag? Usually not even that.
In the end, at least in the US, anyone can cost you a lot of money
just by bringing suit against you, whether they have grounds or not.
What makes the system work most of the time is that the expense cuts
both ways.
Back when I was younger and too broke to afford a lawyer, in the early
days of the web, I received a legal threat from someone who claimed
something on my web site infringed a copyright, one he himself didn't
even own. He was pretty explicit about his strategy being to cause
me expenses I couldn't afford, regardless of whether he had standing,
and I had to capitulate. Eventually I called his bluff, put the
material back online and told him to shove off, and he went away. It
costs money to pull that kind of crap as well, and I pity the
copyright owner who tries this strategy the first time he uses it
against someone with more money and time than he has.
Oh, wait. No I don't, because that would once again be SCO.
Rob
8:34 p.m.
New subject: By-sa (WAS: Re: [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE])
Ken Restivo wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 03:27:02PM +0100, Cesare
Marilungo wrote:
Still, I'm not convinced.
This would require big money people to keep existing and ruling. The
only way you can make some money would be to play with them. I hope
something different. Like voluntary support from appreciators, for instance.
Moreover, this takes into account old (and falling apart) revenue models.
Preventing sharing doesn't make sense. And I incite it. Thus the 'music
sharing cc-license'. It's enough of a statement compared to almost all
the musician you know and care of. But I can't understand why I should
not impose some restrictions on using my own music. There's plenty of
musicians out there if you want to use some music for any kind of
projects. Or you can just come and ask. I, for one, have never said no.
I just want to know.
It's a kind of control, I know. I'm not proud of using this word.
Btw, has somebody here seen the movie 'Instinct'?:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0128278/
It's about control, and freedom. I've seen it yesterday on tv with my
wife. Really good movie.
Of course I agree on copyleft and free (as in freedom) for software and
information (in the sense of knowledge) - these are tools. And in fact I
spend almost all my free time to help in spreading these and contribute
in any possible way. I would like to have more time, but this is another
story.
Anyway, music is something much more personal. Maybe I'm wrong, but
that's what I feel at the moment.
In the end, I make music because I love it. Not for money. If I just
wanted to make some money I would make a website with some content (like
cc license music, for instance) crawled automatically and put a ton of
ads. It would probably be much more rewarding than struggling with
something you care.
All the best,
-c.
--
www.cesaremarilungo.com
Rob wrote:
The big money people (advertising agencies, movie studios, TV networks, ringtone sellers,
etc.) do not want to Share Alike. They're not about that; quite the opposite. They
usually demand tight control over anything they use in their work, and are willing to pay
for that.
In other words, if someone sells an SA work of mine, they're not going to make a LOT
of money off of it, at least not enough for it to have been worthwhile for me to have
prevented them doing so with NC. Have at it, spread the love! But the big corporations
who make huge money are going to be stopped short by the SA just as much as they would by
an NC.
So I look at SA as a filter that lets the small, community-oriented players in freely,
and keeps the big players out-- unless they want to negotiate a price with me which of
course I remain willing to do.
-ken
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 16:52, Cesare
Marilungo wrote:
For the record. I asked for help on the creative commons mailing list.
It seems that I should not worry and that I can keep the by-nc-nd for
these tracks.
Moreover, I think that to be valid, the license should be specified at
least in the id3 tags, and/or it should come with the download. When you
download my albums from Jamendo, for instance, the license is specified
both in the id3 tags and in a text file included in the zip archive. At
Opsound the downloads pointed to the tracks hosted on my own server,
which had no licensing information.
Those who already got the tracks from Opsound can
probably use them
commercially, and they can give away the track but the license is
not transmitted with the tracks. So those who get the tracks from
these people cannot use them for commercial purposes. Otherwise one
wouldn't been able to license things with many different licenses.
Am I wrong?
I'm no lawyer, but even in version 1.0 of the CC by-sa license, it
says in section 4a, "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly
perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms
of this License [...]". These terms apply to the people you gave it
to, which I guess would be Opsound.
So Opsound distributed it under the terms of cc-by-sa, because that
was the only way they could have done so, and then the people who
downloaded it from them were covered by the terms of cc-by-sa, due to
section 4a, when they distributed it further. They were granted the
right "to reproduce the Work" (section 3a) but only "under the terms
of this License" (4a). So when they in turn distribute the song to
someone else, it's still licensed under cc-by-sa, and so on.
It's hard to take back a work distributed using a copyleft license...
just ask SCO.
http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/01/gaming-creative-commons-for-p
rofit.html
Maybe the author is wrong, but my understanding is similar.
I think that he is wrong, and again, just ask SCO. Or the author of
any formerly free software project who changed the license to
something less free, only to discover they couldn't do a thing about
the people continuing to distribute (and modify) the last free
version of their work, usually eclipsing the "improved" proprietary
fork.
However, this particular theory -- that you can win damages despite
previously having distributed the work under a free license with free
sublicensing, by forcing the defendant to demonstrate that he
obtained it under that license -- has never gotten as far as a
courtroom as far as I know. With source code it's easier because you
usually have a copyright notice at the top of every file referencing
the GPL or whatever. With photos you might have a watermark
mentioning which CC license applies to it. But with music, what do
you have, an ID3v2 tag? Usually not even that.
In the end, at least in the US, anyone can cost you a lot of money
just by bringing suit against you, whether they have grounds or not.
What makes the system work most of the time is that the expense cuts
both ways.
Back when I was younger and too broke to afford a lawyer, in the early
days of the web, I received a legal threat from someone who claimed
something on my web site infringed a copyright, one he himself didn't
even own. He was pretty explicit about his strategy being to cause
me expenses I couldn't afford, regardless of whether he had standing,
and I had to capitulate. Eventually I called his bluff, put the
material back online and told him to shove off, and he went away. It
costs money to pull that kind of crap as well, and I pity the
copyright owner who tries this strategy the first time he uses it
against someone with more money and time than he has.
Oh, wait. No I don't, because that would once again be SCO.
Rob
9:32 p.m.
New subject: By-sa (WAS: Re: [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE])
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 01:32:53AM +0100, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
Ken Restivo wrote:
Hmm, good point. I hadn't considered that movies, TV, commercials, ringtones, etc,
were ever going to go away, but maybe they will, or change into a form that's not
recognizable today.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 03:27:02PM +0100, Cesare
Marilungo wrote:
Still, I'm not convinced.
This would require big money people to keep existing and ruling. The only
way you can make some money would be to play with them. I hope something
different. Like voluntary support from appreciators, for instance.
Rob wrote:
The big money people (advertising agencies, movie studios, TV networks, ringtone sellers,
etc.) do not want to Share Alike. They're not about that; quite the opposite. They
usually demand tight control over anything they use in their work, and are willing to pay
for that.
In other words, if someone sells an SA work of mine, they're not going to make a LOT
of money off of it, at least not enough for it to have been worthwhile for me to have
prevented them doing so with NC. Have at it, spread the love! But the big corporations
who make huge money are going to be stopped short by the SA just as much as they would by
an NC.
So I look at SA as a filter that lets the small, community-oriented players in freely,
and keeps the big players out-- unless they want to negotiate a price with me which of
course I remain willing to do.
-ken
On Wednesday 20 February 2008 16:52, Cesare
Marilungo wrote:
> Those who already got the tracks from Opsound can probably use them
> commercially, and they can give away the track but the license is
> not transmitted with the tracks. So those who get the tracks from
> these people cannot use them for commercial purposes. Otherwise one
> wouldn't been able to license things with many different licenses.
> Am I wrong?
>
I'm no lawyer, but even in version 1.0 of the CC by-sa license, it says
in section 4a, "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform,
or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this
License [...]". These terms apply to the people you gave it to, which I
guess would be Opsound.
So Opsound distributed it under the terms of cc-by-sa, because that was
the only way they could have done so, and then the people who downloaded
it from them were covered by the terms of cc-by-sa, due to section 4a,
when they distributed it further. They were granted the right "to
reproduce the Work" (section 3a) but only "under the terms of this
License" (4a). So when they in turn distribute the song to someone
else, it's still licensed under cc-by-sa, and so on.
It's hard to take back a work distributed using a copyleft license...
just ask SCO.
> http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/01/gaming-creative-commons-for-p
> rofit.html
> Maybe the author is wrong, but my understanding is similar.
>
I think that he is wrong, and again, just ask SCO. Or the author of any
formerly free software project who changed the license to something less
free, only to discover they couldn't do a thing about the people
continuing to distribute (and modify) the last free version of their
work, usually eclipsing the "improved" proprietary fork.
However, this particular theory -- that you can win damages despite
previously having distributed the work under a free license with free
sublicensing, by forcing the defendant to demonstrate that he obtained
it under that license -- has never gotten as far as a courtroom as far
as I know. With source code it's easier because you usually have a
copyright notice at the top of every file referencing the GPL or
whatever. With photos you might have a watermark mentioning which CC
license applies to it. But with music, what do you have, an ID3v2 tag?
Usually not even that.
In the end, at least in the US, anyone can cost you a lot of money just
by bringing suit against you, whether they have grounds or not. What
makes the system work most of the time is that the expense cuts both
ways.
Back when I was younger and too broke to afford a lawyer, in the early
days of the web, I received a legal threat from someone who claimed
something on my web site infringed a copyright, one he himself didn't
even own. He was pretty explicit about his strategy being to cause me
expenses I couldn't afford, regardless of whether he had standing, and I
had to capitulate. Eventually I called his bluff, put the material back
online and told him to shove off, and he went away. It costs money to
pull that kind of crap as well, and I pity the copyright owner who tries
this strategy the first time he uses it against someone with more money
and time than he has.
Oh, wait. No I don't, because that would once again be SCO.
Rob
For the record. I asked for help on the creative commons mailing list. It
seems that I should not worry and that I can keep the by-nc-nd for these
tracks.
Moreover, I think that to be valid, the license should be specified at
least in the id3 tags, and/or it should come with the download. When you
download my albums from Jamendo, for instance, the license is specified
both in the id3 tags and in a text file included in the zip archive. At
Opsound the downloads pointed to the tracks hosted on my own server,
which had no licensing information.
Moreover, this takes into account old (and falling
apart) revenue models.
Preventing sharing doesn't make sense. And I incite it. Thus the 'music
sharing cc-license'. It's enough of a statement compared to almost all the
musician you know and care of. But I can't understand why I should not
impose some restrictions on using my own music. There's plenty of musicians
out there if you want to use some music for any kind of projects. Or you
can just come and ask. I, for one, have never said no. I just want to know.
It's a kind of control, I know. I'm not proud of using this word.
I don't see anything wrong with wanting control over your work and your career. A lot
of famous artists didn't have that, back in the days when the had no choice but to
sign their lives away to big record companies. I'm glad that there are so many more
options open today.
Btw, has somebody here seen the movie 'Instinct'?:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0128278/
It's about control, and freedom. I've seen it yesterday on tv with my wife.
Really good movie.
Of course I agree on copyleft and free (as in freedom) for software and
information (in the sense of knowledge) - these are tools. And in fact I
spend almost all my free time to help in spreading these and contribute in
any possible way. I would like to have more time, but this is another
story.
Anyway, music is something much more personal. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's
what I feel at the moment.
In the end, I make music because I love it. Not for money. If I just wanted
to make some money I would make a website with some content (like cc
license music, for instance) crawled automatically and put a ton of ads. It
would probably be much more rewarding than struggling with something you
care.
That's fine. I think we're in agreement, actually.
It's great that Creative Commons put together such a well-thought-out palette of
options to choose from; there's a license to suit all kinds of goals, tastes, and
preferences. It's very flexible.
-ken
24 Feb
24 Feb
4:20 a.m.
New subject: [LAU] By-sa (WAS: Re: [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE])
On Saturday 23 February 2008 20:32, Ken Restivo wrote:
It's great that Creative Commons put together such
a
well-thought-out palette of options to choose from; there's a
license to suit all kinds of goals, tastes, and preferences. It's
very flexible.
Yet they still don't have the kind of license that I'm looking for:
one directly analogous to the GPL, but for music; one where, while
anyone can use your work for any purpose, derivative works must not
only be licensed under the same license, but have their source
materials (unmixed master recordings, sequencer files, video files,
whatever it takes to "build" the final derivative work) available
under that license as well.
I don't think I'll ever see one like that in mainstream use the way
the CC licenses are now, but it sure would go a long way toward
creating the same kind of spirit in the music community that the GPL
did (over the course of about 20 years) in the software community. At
least nowadays most people have, or should soon have, the bandwidth
necessary to make something like that practical.
Rob
8:16 a.m.
New subject: [LAU] By-sa (WAS: Re: [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE])
On Sunday 24 February 2008 03:19:24 Rob wrote:
On Saturday 23 February 2008 20:32, Ken Restivo
wrote:
I would like to see us solve that one too.
It's great that Creative Commons put together
such a
well-thought-out palette of options to choose from; there's a
license to suit all kinds of goals, tastes, and preferences. It's
very flexible.
Yet they still don't have the kind of license that I'm looking for: one directly analogous to the GPL, but for music; one
where, while
anyone can use your work for any purpose, derivative works must not
only be licensed under the same license, but have their source
materials (unmixed master recordings, sequencer files, video files,
whatever it takes to "build" the final derivative work) available
under that license as well.
I am working with a group of people now who may be going that direction in our
practise though. Ken is one of the group as well:
http://lau-cb.peterlutek.com/
The Linux Audio Users Chillout Band
On-line virtual band/composer song creation
We have been putting up tracks. Now putting up ardour projects. Some are
putting up midi files, I have seen some chord files, but I just looked and
they seem to be gone? and lyrics are posted as well.
Do those of us using BY-SA have a chance of making it the social norm even if
it is not in the license?
This will bring up the need for Free / standard formats, Free toolchains, etc.
I don't think I'll ever see one like that in mainstream use the way
the CC licenses are now, but it sure would go a long way toward
creating the same kind of spirit in the music community that the GPL
did (over the course of about 20 years) in the software community. At
least nowadays most people have, or should soon have, the bandwidth
necessary to make something like that practical.
Working in the RPM08 challenge project with these guys this month has been an
education so far. Both in what is currently possible and in needed
improvements.
Rob
all the best,
drew
25 Feb
25 Feb
1:35 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] By-sa (WAS: Re: [OT] Another problem with creative commons licenses [UPDATE] )
On Saturday 23 February 2008 17:32:53 Cesare Marilungo wrote:
Ken Restivo wrote:
----------------------------clipped ---------------------------------------------
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 03:27:02PM +0100, Cesare
Marilungo wrote:
Still, I'm not convinced.
This would require big money people to keep existing and ruling. The
only way you can make some money would be to play with them. I hope
something different. Like voluntary support from appreciators, for
instance.
Moreover, this takes into account old (and falling apart) revenue models.
Preventing sharing doesn't make sense. And I incite it. Thus the 'music
sharing cc-license'. It's enough of a statement compared to almost all
the musician you know and care of. But I can't understand why I should
not impose some restrictions on using my own music. There's plenty of
musicians out there if you want to use some music for any kind of
projects. Or you can just come and ask. I, for one, have never said no.
I just want to know.
It's a kind of control, I know. I'm not proud of using this word.
Btw, has somebody here seen the movie 'Instinct'?:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0128278/
It's about control, and freedom. I've seen it yesterday on tv with my
wife. Really good movie.
Rob wrote:
The big money people (advertising agencies, movie studios, TV networks,
ringtone sellers, etc.) do not want to Share Alike. They're not about
that; quite the opposite. They usually demand tight control over anything
they use in their work, and are willing to pay for that.
In other words, if someone sells an SA work of mine, they're not going to
make a LOT of money off of it, at least not enough for it to have been
worthwhile for me to have prevented them doing so with NC. Have at it,
spread the love! But the big corporations who make huge money are going
to be stopped short by the SA just as much as they would by an NC.
So I look at SA as a filter that lets the small, community-oriented
players in freely, and keeps the big players out-- unless they want to
negotiate a price with me which of course I remain willing to do.
-ken On Wednesday 20 February 2008 16:52, Cesare
Marilungo wrote:
> Those who already got the tracks from Opsound can probably use them
> commercially, and they can give away the track but the license is
> not transmitted with the tracks. So those who get the tracks from
> these people cannot use them for commercial purposes. Otherwise one
> wouldn't been able to license things with many different licenses.
> Am I wrong?
I'm no lawyer, but even in version 1.0 of the CC by-sa license, it
says in section 4a, "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly
perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms
of this License [...]". These terms apply to the people you gave it
to, which I guess would be Opsound.
So Opsound distributed it under the terms of cc-by-sa, because that
was the only way they could have done so, and then the people who
downloaded it from them were covered by the terms of cc-by-sa, due to
section 4a, when they distributed it further. They were granted the
right "to reproduce the Work" (section 3a) but only "under the terms
of this License" (4a). So when they in turn distribute the song to
someone else, it's still licensed under cc-by-sa, and so on.
It's hard to take back a work distributed using a copyleft license...
just ask SCO.
> http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/01/gaming-creative-commons-for-p
> rofit.html
> Maybe the author is wrong, but my understanding is similar.
I think that he is wrong, and again, just ask SCO. Or the author of
any formerly free software project who changed the license to
something less free, only to discover they couldn't do a thing about
the people continuing to distribute (and modify) the last free
version of their work, usually eclipsing the "improved" proprietary
fork.
However, this particular theory -- that you can win damages despite
previously having distributed the work under a free license with free
sublicensing, by forcing the defendant to demonstrate that he
obtained it under that license -- has never gotten as far as a
courtroom as far as I know. With source code it's easier because you
usually have a copyright notice at the top of every file referencing
the GPL or whatever. With photos you might have a watermark
mentioning which CC license applies to it. But with music, what do
you have, an ID3v2 tag? Usually not even that.
In the end, at least in the US, anyone can cost you a lot of money
just by bringing suit against you, whether they have grounds or not.
What makes the system work most of the time is that the expense cuts
both ways.
Back when I was younger and too broke to afford a lawyer, in the early
days of the web, I received a legal threat from someone who claimed
something on my web site infringed a copyright, one he himself didn't
even own. He was pretty explicit about his strategy being to cause
me expenses I couldn't afford, regardless of whether he had standing,
and I had to capitulate. Eventually I called his bluff, put the
material back online and told him to shove off, and he went away. It
costs money to pull that kind of crap as well, and I pity the
copyright owner who tries this strategy the first time he uses it
against someone with more money and time than he has.
Oh, wait. No I don't, because that would once again be SCO.
Rob
For the record. I asked for help on the creative commons mailing list.
It seems that I should not worry and that I can keep the by-nc-nd for
these tracks.
Moreover, I think that to be valid, the license should be specified at
least in the id3 tags, and/or it should come with the download. When you
download my albums from Jamendo, for instance, the license is specified
both in the id3 tags and in a text file included in the zip archive. At
Opsound the downloads pointed to the tracks hosted on my own server,
which had no licensing information. wanted to make some money I would make a website with
some content (like
cc license music, for instance) crawled automatically and put a ton of
ads. It would probably be much more rewarding than struggling with
something you care.
All the best,
-c.
Good discussion.
I have followed this thread and have learned much. When it comes to the black
box generally labeled "LAW" the artisan is confronted with yet another
"hat"
to wear! I believe Shakespeare could have said:
"To be free to will the destiny of that which you have created, that is the
question."
As the artisan, through a compulsion of the heart and mind, brings forth
into this dimensionality a something that never before has been known. For
the sculptor the cutting edge of his chisel shapes a distinct object. The
resultant object can relatively easily be kept within a guarded space. For
the flute player, the note just now cut has at it's audience the most distant
star. Let us face the fact that creative energies have other energies that
host from them. Though I do not like it to be as such, it does seem to be
part of the natural cycle of things. Tai Chi taught me to be as soft as
cotton and as hard as steel.
I find at times I need to know the sword.
A law course for the layman?
http://forums.jurisdictionary.com/
http://jurisdictionary.com/
I have learned a lot being a member of the mailing list and their free
stuff.
I hope this helps
Tom
5914
days inactive
5919
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
10 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Cesare Marilungo -
drew Roberts -
Ken Restivo -
Rob -
thomas fisher