[cc-community] Ask for help: I agreed to a license by mistake

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Feb 21 13:22:57 EST 2008


On Thursday 21 February 2008 11:37, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 February 2008 08:51, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
> >> Thank you Tom and Lucas,
> >>
> >> I have already removed from opsound and asked to remove my tracks (or at
> >> least, put the correct license) on the other website that crawled the
> >> content from there.
> >>
> >> So I can keep the by-nc-nd license everywhere else?
> >>
> >> I'm not concerned too much about those who got the tracks from Opsound.
> >> I asked this mostly because I don't want to relicense them. Also, two of
> >> these tracks are part of two albums which are licensed as by-nc-nd. On
> >> Jamendo.com, for instance, you can't have different licenses for each
> >> track of an album.
> >
> > There is something that you are still not getting.
> >
> > You can license the same track with one license in one place and with
> > another license in another place.
> >
> > So, even if you were to give in an fix the mistake by going BY-SA, you
> > could leave them BY-NC-ND on Jamendo. You CAN give out more than one
> > license for the same work.
> >
> > Your comments seem to indicate that you are having trouble with that
> > concept.
>
> Drew, so you're here too! :-)
>
> Ok, now I have understood this point.
>
> >> By the way - just for curiosity - how can somebody prove that he got an
> >> mp3 track from a source (and with a particular license in the period in
> >> which the license was applied)? Consider that on Jamendo, the albums are
> >> distributed as a zip file and there's a text file with the licensing
> >> information. Moreover, the license is specified in the id3 tags. The
> >> tracks linked from Opsound were the ones hosted on my own website, which
> >> are simply mp3 files without any licensing info in the tags.
> >
> > Well, in your case, you have admitted that you listed your works with
> > opsound and all works listed on their site must be licensed BY-SA or be
> > PD.
>
> Yes, I've admitted it. I'm an honest person. I never thought to claim
> the false. I'm all for truth. :-)

I was not implying anything.
>
> I knew from the beginning that these mailing list would have been
> archived and it isn't a problem for me.
>
> I'm asking about how can you prove such things because I've made a
> mistake, and if somebody in the future would want use these tracks for a
> commercial purpose (or to make a derivative work) I will ask him/her to
> prove that he got them with the by-sa license. Is it fair to ask which
> instruments one could have to prove this? If he/she really got them from
> one of such places (or from somebody who gave him the tracks that he got
> from one of these places) he should consider them under the by-sa.

I saw someone suggest making a slight change and only hosting the changed 
version from here forward. That may help.

But, without changes, someone could possibly just pick up a CD with the song 
and the BY-SA license. Or someone could have been emailed the song and the 
license as an attachment. Tough to prove.

I think you would be best to give that effort up unless you make changes.

What particular commercial uses do you envision that concern you at this 
point?
>
> If somebody instead, get the tracks today from a place where they're
> licensed by-nc-nd he could claim he got them from Opsound in the past.
> How could I know he's claiming the truth?

Put him on a lie detector?
>
> Just this.
>
> > What happens when mistakes like that are made is a different question,
> > but people who got those tracks after finding them on opsound can point
> > to these mailing list archives as proof for one.
>
> No. These mailing list archives just prove that the tracks were
> distributed as by-sa for a brief period on a very low traffic web page.

The low traffic wbe page does not mean much, they could have been sent as 
attachments on those crazy chain letter email things my family always seems 
to send me. WIth tens or a hundred people in the TO:
>
> They don't prove that the track they have has been taken with that license.
>
> Am I wrong?

Well, we have had this discussion on one of the CC lists before. You might 
want to browse the list archives.
>
> > But, in general, how do you prove anything.
> >
> > If someone comes to you tomorrow and asks you to prove that you bought a
> > random item in your home and did not steal it, could you?
> >
> > It is tough to prove some things on the net.
> >
> >> -c.

all the best,

drew
> >
> > all the best,
> >
> > drew
> >
> >> Tomislav Medak wrote:
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>> Hash: SHA1
> >>>
> >>> Dear Cesare,
> >>>
> >>> | And the question is: what can I do? So far I have removed my page
> >>> | there. I've read that you can't revoke a creative commons license,
> >>> | but can I still keep the more restrictive (by-nc-nd) license on my
> >>> | own website (and everywhere else) for these particular tracks? Or am
> >>> | I obliged to change it?
> >>> |
> >>> | I understand that somebody who got the tracks from Opsound.org when
> >>> | they were linked there could use them for commercial purpose, but
> >>> | what about other people? Somebody told me that if one of such persons
> >>> | makes a copy of one of my tracks to somebody else, the old license is
> >>> | applied. Is it true?
> >>>
> >>> It depends on the jurisdiction whether granting use such as under a CC
> >>> license is revokable. Some copyright laws view revokability as an
> >>> inalienable author's right and some don't. In some jurisdictions
> >>> revoking might though burden for the revoking author to compensate the
> >>> loss of those who have received the work under the revoked licenses.
> >>> More importantly, however, revoking a perpetual, non-revokable free
> >>> work license would beat the purpose of having a license that allows
> >>> downstream use or re-use, and ultimately would have chilling effects on
> >>> the readiness of downstream users to use or, particularly, re-use free
> >>> works.
> >>>
> >>> ~From the perspective of a CC license you can always start distributing
> >>> your work under a different set of permissions (be that under a some
> >>> rights reserved license or under an all rights reserved regime). So,
> >>> you can re-licenses your work. However, for the copies of your work
> >>> that have entered downstream circulation before you have re-licensed
> >>> your work, remain under the license that they were originally
> >>> distributed under and this cannot be set back.
> >>>
> >>> I would advise you to go back and speak to Opsound.org to remove your
> >>> work from their catalogs, if this has not been already done so by the
> >>> removal of your page, and to inform contributors in a more straight
> >>> forward fashion what license they are choosing and what that license
> >>> means for the contributor's work.
> >>>
> >>> But, as Lucas has pointed out, likelihood of downstream use and re-use
> >>> of copies of your work under by-sa  such that it might harm your
> >>> commercial interest is not great.
> >>>
> >>> Tom
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >>>
> >>> iD8DBQFHvT4CkbN024ZV0z0RAh1+AKCaewGHufbQ+Lm2QfMxAVNbuu7MrgCgmQ+b
> >>> XJG+kyJtzBZnnudSAoUBWRQ=
> >>> =F0dT
> >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> cc-community mailing list
> >>> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-community mailing list
> > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community


More information about the cc-community mailing list