| Author
|
Trance under Creative Commons License
|
Basilisk
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
168
Posts :
2984
Posted : Nov 7, 2008 20:48
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-11-07 12:00, ocelot wrote:
creative commons license is total shit
it does nothing to protect your work
and any big corporation can use it for anything they want to.
free download is free download
creative commons license is satan himself
fuck the CCL |
|
What makes you say that? Creative Commons licences specify terms and conditions for usage. Perhaps you are intimating that without lawyers to back you up this is all meaningless... but if that's the case, so is regular copyright--as trance artists and labels would not be able to mount a successful defence of their creative property should a large corporation make an unfair use of it.
The whole point of the Creative Commons is to extend copyright law. There is an enormous grey area between the strict protections of full copyright and the virtual anarchy of the public domain. In the public domain anything goes--but many creators would like to retain certain rights, i.e. the right to share in profit, prevent unauthorized remixes, or ensure attribution (credit), none of which is required in the public domain. And on the other side, copyright includes far too many implicit protections, many of which are creatively limiting and undesirable.
Neither copyright law nor the Creative Commons actively protects your work. These are legal frameworks that specify rights and freedoms concerning your work, but it is always up to the intellectual property owner to protect their work. Using a Creative Commons does not forfeit your rights under copyright law; again, it is only extends the law to explicitly permit certain activities disallowed under conventional copyright (sharing media, for example).
|
|
|
Yidam
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
144
Posts :
3171
Posted : Nov 8, 2008 08:42
|
hmmm ..
So how do you release free music for listeners but still maintain control over the commercial use of the track ? Does CC have clauses in their contract that can be used in a court of law ?
+ whats the story behind copyrights and hosting music on archive.org
shall be trying to figure out the answers of the same but if anyone has already ... please let us know.
|
|
|
|
Elad
Tsabeat/Sattel Battle
Started Topics :
158
Posts :
5306
Posted : Nov 8, 2008 12:58
|
|
Dopese
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
29
Posts :
298
Posted : Nov 8, 2008 13:22
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-11-08 08:42, Yidam wrote:
hmmm ..
So how do you release free music for listeners but still maintain control over the commercial use of the track ? Does CC have clauses in their contract that can be used in a court of law ?
|
|
An example is given on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons
quote:
A Creative Commons license was first tested in court in early 2006, when podcaster Adam Curry sued a Dutch tabloid who published photos without permission from his Flickr page. The photos were licensed under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license.
While the verdict was in favour of Curry, the tabloid avoided having to pay restitution to him as long as they did not repeat the offense. An analysis of the decision states, "The Dutch Court’s decision is especially noteworthy because it confirms that the conditions of a Creative Commons license automatically apply to the content licensed under it, and bind users of such content even without expressly agreeing to, or having knowledge of, the conditions of the license."
 http://my.opera.com/Dopese/ |
|
|
|
Basilisk
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
168
Posts :
2984
Posted : Nov 8, 2008 19:33
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-11-08 08:42, Yidam wrote:
So how do you release free music for listeners but still maintain control over the commercial use of the track ? Does CC have clauses in their contract that can be used in a court of law ? |
|
Have a look at the standard human-readable licence I use for most Ektoplazm releases:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/
As you can see, this licence disallows commercial usage. At the bottom you will find a link to the full legal text of the licence. This text is designed to hold up in a court of law.
Quote:
| + whats the story behind copyrights and hosting music on archive.org |
|
Same deal. archive.org hosts the files and you specify the Creative Commons licence. The "BY-NC-ND" licence is most popular (that stands for "give credit, noncommercial, no derivatives (AKA remixes)"), but there are others that provide a more liberal set of terms to end users. You will find these same licenses used on Wikipedia, Flickr, and thousands of other major web sites. It isn't some niche thing just for netlabels. Check out the Creative Commons homepage and browse the sorts of content released under their licenses if you'd like to know more:
http://www.creativecommons.org/
|
|
|
|
ocelot
ocelot
Started Topics :
94
Posts :
783
Posted : Nov 9, 2008 01:54
|
your song can be used in a mcdonalds commercial without your consent or compensation if you release it under CC
FUCK cc. make your own terms of free release.
|
|
|
|
Basilisk
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
168
Posts :
2984
Posted : Nov 9, 2008 19:39
|
|
Can you provide any evidence for that claim? I've never even heard anyone advance such an argument.
|
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Nov 9, 2008 20:33
|
There are versions of CC that allow commercial use, but the one basilisk linked to doesn't:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/legalcode.en
Quote:
|
1. Performance Royalties Under Blanket Licences. Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a performance rights society, royalties for the public performance or public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the musical Work, sound recording or performer's performance if that performance is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
2. Mechanical Rights in Musical Works.
Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a music rights agency, collective society, or designated agent, royalties for any soundrecording You create from the musical Work ("cover version") if Your Use of such cover version is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
|
|
Of course by disallowing commercial public performance of your works you also disallow DJ's or internet streams to use your tracks unless they reach an agreement directly with you or through a royalty organisation, and that does defeat one important aspect of open licenses IMO.
I use the following license on http://www.resonantearth.com
http://www.rootrecords.org/licenses.html
Quote:
|
You may broadcast the Original Music as you wish, provided you give credit to the original author(s), and directions on where to obtain the Original Music following each broadcast.
|
|
Of course it is a bit silly since to demand from DJ's that they make announcements to ensure that the copyright owners get their credit, but if for example McDonals use it an advertisement the credit can be quite valuable.
It might seem easy to write your own, but chances are that unless you get a decent lawyer to do it your license might not be able to hold up against McDonalds lawyers scrutiny if they should happen to use your track without permission.
But I guess one could add a clause to an existing license that it cannot be used for ads without permission if that is a concern.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
ocelot
ocelot
Started Topics :
94
Posts :
783
Posted : Nov 11, 2008 04:22
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-11-09 19:39, Basilisk wrote:
Can you provide any evidence for that claim? I've never even heard anyone advance such an argument.
|
|
flickr
just stop antagonizing and propose a different license already. cc is unacceptable to many of us... |
|
|
|
Basilisk
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
168
Posts :
2984
Posted : Nov 11, 2008 06:49
|
There are 90 million Creative Commons licensed images on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/
I have found only ONE case where improper use led to court... and the judge upheld the terms of the Creative Commons licence!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/22/creative_commons_dutch_court_ruling/
Consider this: there are literally hundreds of millions of works licensed under the Creative Commons. Wouldn't you expect there to have been some cases of improper use? Now consider the alternative: what is more likely to be violated, standard copyright or a Creative Commons licence? And if you want to get right down to it, what is it about any other licence that would make it somehow immune to whatever issues you have with Creative Commons licensing?
Aaron, you leave me guessing. I honestly don't know what your concerns are based on... feel free to bring something to the discussion though; I'd really like to hear what it is that has you so fired up about this topic.
For anyone else curious about what the Creative Commons is all about, try this article by Cory Doctorow:
http://www.locusmag.com/Features/2007/11/cory-doctorow-creative-commons.html
|
|
|
|
waveshapist
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
29
Posts :
68
Posted : Nov 12, 2008 15:58
|
|
aum
Started Topics :
-1
Posts :
44
Posted : Nov 17, 2008 22:03
|
|
Soul Kontakt
Soul Kontakt
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
632
Posted : Nov 18, 2008 18:53
|
|
