Mark Constable wrote: > 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. > wow - that's a brilliant and informative post Mark! cheers. shayne
