On Friday 19 August 2005 21:32, Shayne O'Connor wrote: > >>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'. 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. > >>- 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. > > 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? 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. > 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 ... 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. --markc
