Maybe just mention if it isn't. It could be assumed that music posted to this public list is creative commons.

Some people might not even want their music listened to by anyone except those on the mailing list.

On Sunday 07 August 2005 13:07, David Collins wrote: A lot of stuff posted to the list is WIP - one would normally only license the final release unless you specifically want to invite people into a co-creative process. All stuff to be encouraged, but not assumed.

I would change to: "... unless explicitly licensed and stated otherwise." This is fair, unambiguous and similar in concept to the US copyright - you write a tune, you automatically own the copyright, you're not required to file for ownership. I think it should always be the case. (i guess we could also talk about the mechanical and publishing rights as well. But, it seems that it would follow the same policy.)

On Sunday 07 August 2005 10:02, David Collins wrote: Until we make a decision not to accept non-CC submissions to the list you should assume that a piece is copyright the author and all rights reserved unless explicitly licensed otherwise.

On Thursday 18 August 2005 22:13, Shayne O'Connor wrote: Yes, the issue is licensing here. Yes. No. If I wanted my stuff distributed, I would license it appropriately.

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'.

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.

The problem with advertising and music is that it's much more emotional than software. If someone with radically different politics uses that software very publicly, it doesn't imply any kind of endorsement of the final product on the part of the software developer. Music or a public appearance does create the impression of endorsement. As an audience's support is somewhat style dependent, this can be critical. Ozric Tentacles lost a lot of fans over the Ford commercial they did.

to the wind on this issue myself, hence the concern. I know I stand to be corrected on this one, nevertheless, it's a worry. I guess the answer is that I can be an eco-fascist control freak if I want to, but that I shouldn't expect other people to support my point of view. ;)

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. That so doesn't answer my reservations. I'm not talking about selling my music to a product, it's not sick, it's business.

pursuing such a course of action. Any piece under a completely free license could be used by any company for a free jingle totally legally. There would be no way to stop this. Highly unlikely, I'll wager. But that's not the point. I shall keep asking this question until I get a satisfactory answer.

On Friday 19 August 2005 18:36, Shayne O'Connor wrote: Sorry, a non-commercial license is by definition non-free. If a piece of music is licensed using one of the _free_ licenses it can be used for advertising. There is nothing you can do to prevent that. I'd love to hear that I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

this thread is already fairly long. is it possible that this is one of these i-have-an-opinion-too-threads that do not really matter and finally runs dry on the repetitive mumbling of people trying to make a point? or is it more like zen, where the way is the goal? ;)

On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 20:35 +0100, tim hall wrote: IANAL but I am almost positive that would not hold up in a US court. Creative works default to "All rights reserved", which includes anything posted to this list without a specific license attached, regardless of what the informal list policy is.

On Friday 19 August 2005 23:20, Shayne O'Connor wrote: I honestly don't think that is the case. Explicit permission to copy the song doesn't in and of itself give away 'copyright' - it only means that people downloading the piece are not breaking the law as they have been given specific permission to do that by the author. AFAIU the author does not lose copyright until it is signed away under a formal agreement. 'copyright' is the right right to control who can copy the piece as opposed to the right to make copies as such. Just don't sign anything in a hurry at the airport!

Shayne O'Connor wrote: One needs specific authorization from the copyright owners (both from composers and the ones who own the sound recording) to distribute or reproduce copyrighted recorded works. IANAL either, but I would propose that if you posted a message to a specific group (not the world) and indicate that they are allowed to download a piece, you are in fact giving them the option to listen to your piece for free. But, they don't own the piece. There is nothing implied in the act of allowing them to listen to it that indicates they can transfer the piece to someone else. Because, they don't have the right -- only the copyright owner does.

On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 20:35 +0100, tim hall wrote: IANAL but I am almost positive that would not hold up in a US court. Creative works default to "All rights reserved", which includes anything posted to this list without a specific license attached, regardless of what the informal list policy is.

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) ;)

i'm sure we are - we're songwriters ;)

tim hall wrote: well, i guess stuff like this: http://opensrc.org/index.php?page=RadIO has everyone on that list given explicit permission to be listed there? doesn't this count as distribution? maybe it doesn't, but this is the sort of thing i'm talking about. i don't know lots about copyright and licensing, but a discussion of it is highly welcome. i mean, i highly doubt anyone thinks RadIO is anything but useful to promoting their music, but you never know ...

On Friday 19 August 2005 21:32, Shayne O'Connor wrote: Zillions of people all over the world accept online EULA agreements all the time without being anywhere near anyone else, or signing anything, and I'm not aware of that principle being challenged in any country. I have, in fact, asked nearly all the authors of those links, offlist, whether they're cool about their music being linked to from that page. There has been no objections so far, and to the point I would perhaps assume in the future that it is indeed okay, without asking, to continue adding more links UNLESS a a posting to this list said or inferred elsewise. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that if someone posts a link to their music into this mailing-list that it also okay to re-post that link into another venue UNLESS they accompany their post with explicit restrictions outlining what can or cannot be done with a LINK that points to their work. There is no argument about the copyright status in the US and most (western) countries since 1976 when the rules were changed that all created works are automatically copyrighted by the author. I'm old enough to remember the days when all works were automatically in the then ill-defined public domain unless explicitly copyrighted. These days there are also two distribution issues, the source material and the medium it's stored on, and linking to it via a network to where it's stored. In the case of RadIO, those links are entirely passive UNTIL someone actively clicks on one, then some kind of (re)usage issue could be debated. If any, I'd like to see some less than restrictive guidelines but I am only speaking for myself as I'd hate to see the free flow of music restricted by bureaucratic lawyer-food BS. If someone posts any material into a public forum without any redistribution license then they are NOT denying anyone else the ability to do anything they want with the material short of changing the copyright. The onus should be on the author to either make it clear what their intentions are, IF they are in anyway concerned about these issues, OR simply not make their material publically available in the first place. Certainly not with expectations that "the rest of the world" will then be burdened with clearing any re-usage conditions with that author. That could lead to a hideous lockup of freely available material which I am pretty sure the majority of people on this list are not in favour of. My POV FWIW.