tim hall wrote: > On Friday 19 August 2005 12:26, Shayne O'Connor wrote: > >>>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)? > > > No, I don't believe any rights are granted if there is no license. > > >>>>- 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. > > > That so doesn't answer my reservations. > > >>>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'm not talking about selling my music to a product, it's not sick, it's > business. yes, and business is a bit removed from music. well, i think it is ... but i'm a bit of a fascist in this regard anyhow, i didn't think you were talking about *your* music at all, i thought you were talking about Ozric Tentacles (whoever they are) and their obviously depraved decision to become prostitutes for Ford. If it were a product I believed in I would have no qualms about > 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. what question? i don't understand what you mean by "free jingle" ... i'm pretty sure it would be against a non-commercial CC license for a song to be used in advertising. in any case, i can't really envision a piece of advertising or product endorsement that wouldn't be considered commercial. Free/open advertising?! That's like a contradiction of terms! shayne
