7 May
2006
7 May
'06
3:28 a.m.
----- Rob <lau(a)kudla.org> wrote:
On Sat May 6 2006 20:46, Lee A. Azzarello wrote:
Here's my scenario:
Lots of famous bands are on myspace's music section. Let's imagine myspace.com
decides to release a compilation album of TV On The Radio[1] and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs[2]
along with some other local Brooklyn bands. Because of this license they can release the
compilation album and sell it from a "sublicencee" company without notifying the
bands who composed or performed the music. They own this product through and through. The
bands might not be entitled to a percentage of the profit unless they or their laywers get
involved. That's the point.
-lee
[1] http://www.myspace.com/tvotr
[2] http://www.myspace.com/yeahyeahyeahs
You missed the part about sublicense:
"(with the right to sublicense through unlimited levels of
sublicensees)"
I don't think the right to sublicense trumps the limitation to
"on and through the Services", but again, I'm no lawyer.
If it doesn't, then that clause merely exists to cover their
asses when they decide to outsource hosting, management, et al.
to Sites'R'Us in Bangalore. 
7 May
7 May
3:49 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] The MySpace terms for content
On Sun May 7 2006 01:28, Lee A. Azzarello wrote:
other local Brooklyn bands. Because of this license
they can
release the compilation album and sell it from a "sublicencee"
company without notifying the bands who composed or performed
the music. They own this product through and through. The
bands might not be entitled to a percentage of the profit
unless they or their laywers get involved. That's the point.
And what I'm saying is that I think they and their sublicencees
would have to only distribute said album through myspace.com in
order to satisfy the "on or through the Service" part of the
terms. But I guess it's ambiguous enough that it'd have to go
to court, and lord only knows they'll change it again before
that happens.
Rob
5:58 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] The MySpace terms for content
On Sun, 7 May 2006 01:48:51 -0400
Rob <lau(a)kudla.org> wrote:
On Sun May 7 2006 01:28, Lee A. Azzarello wrote:
I think the bottom line is that, whatever the fine details are, anyone
who wants to retain a semblance of control over their creative work
should avoid this organisation like it were the plague.
I have looked at their home page twice now. I will NEVER go there
again, unless someone tells me they think they have seen some of my
work on there.
--
F
other local Brooklyn bands. Because of this
license they can
release the compilation album and sell it from a "sublicencee"
company without notifying the bands who composed or performed
the music. They own this product through and through. The
bands might not be entitled to a percentage of the profit
unless they or their laywers get involved. That's the point.
And what I'm saying is that I think they and their sublicencees
would have to only distribute said album through myspace.com in
order to satisfy the "on or through the Service" part of the
terms. But I guess it's ambiguous enough that it'd have to go
to court, and lord only knows they'll change it again before
that happens.
Rob
5:15 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] The MySpace terms for content
On Sun May 7 2006 03:59, Folderol wrote:
I think the bottom line is that, whatever the fine
details
are, anyone who wants to retain a semblance of control over
their creative work should avoid this organisation like it
were the plague.
I'm no fan of Myspace, but I think you could say the exact same
thing about most of the Creative Commons licenses. Whatever you
may think of their terms, they are nothing like the "sign over
all copyright in perpetuity" terms you described at the
beginning of this thread.
Rob
6720
days inactive
6720
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Folderol -
Lee A. Azzarello -
Rob