Rob wrote: > On Wednesday 20 February 2008 16:52, Cesare Marilungo wrote: > >> Those who already got the tracks from Opsound can probably use them >> commercially, and they can give away the track but the license is >> not transmitted with the tracks. So those who get the tracks from >> these people cannot use them for commercial purposes. Otherwise one >> wouldn't been able to license things with many different licenses. >> Am I wrong? >> > > I'm no lawyer, but even in version 1.0 of the CC by-sa license, it > says in section 4a, "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly > perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms > of this License [...]". These terms apply to the people you gave it > to, which I guess would be Opsound. > > So Opsound distributed it under the terms of cc-by-sa, because that > was the only way they could have done so, and then the people who > downloaded it from them were covered by the terms of cc-by-sa, due to > section 4a, when they distributed it further. They were granted the > right "to reproduce the Work" (section 3a) but only "under the terms > of this License" (4a). So when they in turn distribute the song to > someone else, it's still licensed under cc-by-sa, and so on. > > It's hard to take back a work distributed using a copyleft license... > just ask SCO. > > >> http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/01/gaming-creative-commons-for-p >> rofit.html >> Maybe the author is wrong, but my understanding is similar. >> > > I think that he is wrong, and again, just ask SCO. Or the author of > any formerly free software project who changed the license to > something less free, only to discover they couldn't do a thing about > the people continuing to distribute (and modify) the last free > version of their work, usually eclipsing the "improved" proprietary > fork. > > However, this particular theory -- that you can win damages despite > previously having distributed the work under a free license with free > sublicensing, by forcing the defendant to demonstrate that he > obtained it under that license -- has never gotten as far as a > courtroom as far as I know. With source code it's easier because you > usually have a copyright notice at the top of every file referencing > the GPL or whatever. With photos you might have a watermark > mentioning which CC license applies to it. But with music, what do > you have, an ID3v2 tag? Usually not even that. > > In the end, at least in the US, anyone can cost you a lot of money > just by bringing suit against you, whether they have grounds or not. > What makes the system work most of the time is that the expense cuts > both ways. > > Back when I was younger and too broke to afford a lawyer, in the early > days of the web, I received a legal threat from someone who claimed > something on my web site infringed a copyright, one he himself didn't > even own. He was pretty explicit about his strategy being to cause > me expenses I couldn't afford, regardless of whether he had standing, > and I had to capitulate. Eventually I called his bluff, put the > material back online and told him to shove off, and he went away. It > costs money to pull that kind of crap as well, and I pity the > copyright owner who tries this strategy the first time he uses it > against someone with more money and time than he has. > > Oh, wait. No I don't, because that would once again be SCO. > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Linux-audio-user mailing list > Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user > > > For the record. I asked for help on the creative commons mailing list. It seems that I should not worry and that I can keep the by-nc-nd for these tracks. Moreover, I think that to be valid, the license should be specified at least in the id3 tags, and/or it should come with the download. When you download my albums from Jamendo, for instance, the license is specified both in the id3 tags and in a text file included in the zip archive. At Opsound the downloads pointed to the tracks hosted on my own server, which had no licensing information. Best, -c. -- www.cesaremarilungo.com _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
