tim hall wrote: > On Thursday 18 August 2005 22:13, Shayne O'Connor wrote: > >>tim hall wrote: >> >>>On Sunday 07 August 2005 10:02, David Collins wrote: >>> >>>>P.S. Maybe there's a specific policy already that I'm >>>>not aware of? >>> >>>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. >> >>that is *always* assumed, whether a piece has been licensed or not. >>copyright isn't really the issue here, is it? isn't it licensing ... ie >>- how we are allowed to *use* the music, not who is creator or >>intellectual "property" owner? > > > Yes, the issue is licensing here. > > >>i don't think by posting music to this list that anyone is giving up >>their copyright, but they *are* sort of saying "here is a public link to >>some music i made, anyone can download it > > > Yes. > > >>and distribute it". > > > No. If I wanted my stuff distributed, I would license it appropriately. yeah, the distribute part was a bit iffy, but i couldn't make my point without i ;) > > >>we are >>basically, through a sort of informal contract, issuing stuff under a >>Creative Commons license every time we post our music here > > > 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'. > which brings me back to my (and probably your) point - what *are* we allowed to do with it? by allowing us to download the song ie - copy it - you have granted us some sort of rights, haven't you? how far do these rights go (i'm talking only in the context of what a CC license allows)? > >>- if we >>*weren't*, then we'd potentially be exposing everyone on the list to >>breaking the law. > > > 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. > this has got nothing to do with creative commons licensing. > 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. selling your music to a product is sick, i hope most people would agree. unless, i guess, you write jingles for a living. I have already sailed a little too close > 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. ;)
