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. well, if there are answers to your reservations, i guess they would lie in this section of the "Share Music" license (which at least *sounds* like a good idea, don't you think?): "# You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works." that is really vague, and open to interpretation, and unless you can be more specific about the ways in which you think your music could be used by the forces of evil, then i think your concerns will have to go unanswered ... but the fact that the Beastie Boys have released music under a CC license should relieve you somewhat (cos i'm sure that out of any world-renowned band, they'd be so unlikely to expose any of their music to use by the forces of social/environmental/political evil) ;) shayne
