[cc-community] Ask for help: I agreed to a license by mistake
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Feb 21 13:28:03 EST 2008
On Thursday 21 February 2008 11:43, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
> By the way (as I've already said on the LAU list) as a result of this
> episode, I'm considering to relicense everything under the by-sa
> license. I thought about it and your reasoning that it is the equivalent
> of GPL for music made me think. On the other hand, your attitude is
> scaring me. You admitted that you're biased, but it seems that you're
> happy that I've made this mistake,
Not at all, I am sorry that you have made this mistake. I am just trying to
warn you to be careful in considering what I say as I am biased in this. I
would hate for you to make another mistake on biased advice...
> while all the other parties involved
> have been supportive (they removed the content or corrected the license).
I think I sent an email yesterday that bounced and I resent today. I think I
pointed out that you can pull all reference to the BY-SA copies yourself and
just distribute from here on in with whatever other license you wish.
I was just trying to hash out the possibilities with you.
Now, I wish everyone would put Free and copyleft licenses on their music etc,
but out of conviction and not by mistake.
I also wish that we can find the models such that those who wish to earn a
living or just a bonus creating and working with Free works can do so.
>
> Best,
>
> -c.
all the best,
drew
>
> 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.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >> 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