On Thursday 04 May 2006 15:27, Cesare Marilungo was like: > IANAL, but Creative Commons nc-licenses says that music released with it > cannot be used commercially without permission. > > By uploading your music on myspace or whatever and signing their > agreement you're giving them this permission. So there's no > contradiction. And no risks at all, IMHO. For once I shall agree with you. The point that Frank makes is also very good. Most websites that carry music have to make some kind of license agreement that allows them to put the stuff on their site in the first place. So Brett, in this instance would be agreeing that both himself and Myspace can make money out of his music, but no-one else can. His license to Myspace expired when that material was removed. On the face of it that is not so bad. However, Myspace do seem to have stretched the agreement so they can do pretty much as they like. And ... would you trust a man named Murdoch? > Artist that are still publishing their music with a record label should > be more concerned, and this is true even for most of the so-called > independent labels. It's not uncommon that niche artists that sold no > more than 5000-10000 copies of each album in the past can't publish > their *own* music on the web because the music isn't their anymore. Absolutely. I have watched a couple of friends go through that one. At the time I thought they were getting a lucky break. One came back after three years of staring at hotel ceilings, shook my hand and said "You did the right thing." It's nice to get a little reassurance once in a while. ;) -- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
