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

Cesare Marilungo cesare at poeticstudios.com
Thu Feb 21 19:27:29 EST 2008


drew Roberts wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2008 18:17:37 Cesare Marilungo wrote:
>   
>> drew Roberts wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thursday 21 February 2008 17:26:47 Cesare Marilungo wrote:
>>>       
>>>> drew Roberts wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:35:16 jonathon wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>  As I've already said on the LAU list, there are already some
>>>>>>> websites which are infringing the license putting all my tracks for
>>>>>>> download on pages full of ads and
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> The organizations that utilized your music failed to do due diligence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >From your statements, you did not intentionally release any of your
>>>>>>
>>>>>> music under a CC-BY-SA license.
>>>>>> Since no music that you released was hosted by a site with a CC-BY-SA
>>>>>> License, no music was released with that license.,
>>>>>>             
>>>>> I think you may be wrong in this case. It may be to not having the
>>>>> facts. (You may be right, but still not have the facts.) I may not have
>>>>> the facts as well, but as I understand it, it went something like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> Music creator lists works on opsound:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.opsound.org/info/license/
>>>>>
>>>>> Opsound only will lists works that have a BY-SA license or are PD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Music creator chose BY-SA as the license option when listing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Opsound only listed, did not host. But the creator chose the BY-SA
>>>>> option. Now, admittedly by the creator, by mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is how the ball got rolling.
>>>>>
>>>>> Presumably, people came by opsound, saw the track, listed by the
>>>>> creator / copyrightholder as BY-SA licensed with a link back to the
>>>>> creators site where the file could be obtained.
>>>>>
>>>>> They followed the link and got the files. (Or just linked to them? I am
>>>>> undclear there.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think, so far, this much is not in dispute but I do stand to be
>>>>> corrected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, at this point I would like to take this discussion away from this
>>>>> particular instance and go more general.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's assume something like this has happened in a general way.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have two possibilities where the copyright holder did the listing on
>>>>> opsound.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. They made a mistake and thought they were using an NC license od
>>>>> some sort when in fact it was BY-SA as opsound has been BY-SA from the
>>>>> beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. They knowingly chose BY-SA at the time, but now want to change their
>>>>> mind and claim they made a mistake in the beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Again, please do not read anything personal to this case into these
>>>>> two possibilities.)
>>>>>
>>>>> So, how do things stand with respect to people who saw the creators
>>>>> listing on opsound and pulled down the file under what they honestly
>>>>> thought was a valid BY-SA license under each of the cases 1. and 2.
>>>>> above?
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> What you have is an instance of where music was erroneously mislabeled
>>>>>> as regards to its license by a third party host. When the license
>>>>>> mislabeling was discovered, the error was rectified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you lived in the Ninth District of the US, you probably would be
>>>>>> able to win a copyright infringemenet case.   (In essence,there is no
>>>>>> difference between this and an ARR work to which a third party slapped
>>>>>> a CC license without the consent of the copyright owner.)
>>>>>>             
>>>>> As I say, this case is a bit more complicated as a third party did not
>>>>> slap the license on the work.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> I suspect that a DMCA take down order would also have your material
>>>>>> removed from the offending websites.     (You need to consult an
>>>>>> attorney for the exact wording.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ###
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something that organizations don't appear to have learned, is that
>>>>>> they need to do due diligence on all works that they use.
>>>>>>             
>>>>> So are you suggesting that we, and do you, check with all the
>>>>> contributors to every GPL or BSD or other Free licensed software
>>>>> program that you use to determine that it is indeed licensed as the
>>>>> license file states?
>>>>>           
>>>> You get the license included in a text file when you download GLP or BSD
>>>> licensed code. And you get the license when you download an album from a
>>>> website that does this right, like Jamendo.
>>>>         
>>> Sure, but what proof is there that some third party did not put the
>>> "package" together?
>>>       
>> There's plenty of evidence.
>>
>> Jamendo has the website that validated the license in its database. The
>> website owner is me. They can prove it.
>>     
>
> And how do they prove that the site wasn't hacked at the time? Or that you 
> were not sloppy with your laptop that went in for repairs and the guys at the 
> repair shop did the deed.?
>
> I am not arguing with you that such a procedure may not be better all around 
> than opsounds. It may very well be. I have not run them all down and thought 
> about them enough to know.
>
> And I am not arguing that these procedures are not important and a good thing 
> to discuss and see if we can figure out better ways to operate.
>
> Still, I ask if the only safe thing to do with Free licensed works are to 
> directly contact the claimed copyright holder to verify the license before 
> making use of the work?
>
> And what do we do where a false claim is made?
>
> And what do we do to prevent people falsely claiming to release their works 
> under a Free license for the benefits that arise and then when contacted, 
> claiming otherwise.
>   
>>> I could send you a tar file with the KJV text and a BY-SA license for the
>>> same in it.
>>>
>>> Or a tar file with "Who let the dogs out" and a BY license for that song
>>> in it.
>>>
>>> Just because we get the license and the file together is no rall
>>> assurance.
>>>       
>> Your confirming what I said. How can you prove it.
>>     
>
> I am not sure you can. I think perhaps you cannot. Not based on anything you 
> find online. So is the Free Software and CC world reduced to the friction of 
> having to contact all copyright holders directly in order to feel that one is 
> being safe in one's operatoins?
>   
>>> Don't get me wrong, in the general sense, it may very well be that
>>> opsound could do things better. I have not run down their process enough
>>> to know.
>>>       
>> Maybe this is important for this discussion to be meaninful. In fact I
>> said from the beginning that to me the license used on Opsound could be
>> invalid for many reasons, whilst you seem to ignore this possibility.
>>
>>     
>>> I have tried to help you think things through with your specific
>>> situation and to deal in generalities and hopefully I have been careful
>>> enough to point out which is which.
>>>
>>> I have pointed out that you should be aware of my bias.
>>>       
>> Scaring people it's not an effective way to promote copyleft. At least
>> for me, it's working in the other direction.
>>     
>
> Look, do what you want. I know of nothing I have said or done to scare you. 
> Unless the facts of your situation scare you.
>   

 From one of your messages at the LAU list:

"Go to the CC licenses or CC community list. Then get a lawyer. You are not in 
a fun situation at this point no matter what."


Get a lawyer? Not a fun situation? Isn't this scaring?


>>> I have sent you here from LAU when it felt like you wer not getting
>>> enough input on that list and I fely more input from the guys on this
>>> list would do you good.
>>>
>>> I feel like you have kicked off a fairly important general discussion
>>> with your problem.
>>>       
>> I think this too. But to me it seems that your bias is  preventing you
>> from seeing all the sides and implications of this story.
>>
>> I'm not attacking you. But if you keep telling that you're biased, and
>> you keep giving biased suggestions, what value are you adding to the
>> discussion?
>>     
>
> I am not purposefully giving biased suggestions. I am trying my best to state 
> the facts of the situation as I see them. Any advice is a different matter.
>
> Are you happy with the input you have received here? Have you benefitted from 
> the input here in addition to the input from the LAU list?
>
> If so, that is at least a bit of the value I have added to you from my input.
>
> Also, if you only want to hear from people who tell you you are right and 
> don't want to hear of possible problems with those views, by all means, add 
> me to your ignore list. I hope that is not the case and it does not come to 
> that though.
>
> Look,
>
> in a general sense (and this is not directed to your specific case here and I 
> am looking for answers from the list and not just a response from you)
>
> What happens if I put up a web site:
>
> www.freecopyleftworks.com
>
> On the site, I state that you may not list works here unluss you own the 
> copyright to the works. I further state that you are not allowed to list your 
> works here unless you license them under a Free and Copyleft license as 
> specified on my license page.
>
> Then when you list your work, I let you specify which license your work is 
> licensed under.
>
> So, someone comes along and lists a work for which they hold the copyright and 
> pick one of the approved licensed and provied a link back ot the work on 
> their site.
>
> So that someone chooses CC BY-SA as the license and links back to the file on 
> their site.
>
> Sometime later, someone comes along and pulls down the file by following the 
> link.
>
>   
It seems to me that you're implying that I voluntarily chose the by-sa 
license to benefit the publicity of people like you who only consider 
this kind of license, and promote music relased this way.

It isn't so.

Even in the creativecommons wiki:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Opsound

you can read:

CC-only portal: everything is CC-licensed

I don't remember how I knew about opsound. I could have followed this 
page and registered to try it.

I've just tried to reregister and to go to the track submission page. At 
the end of the page (all the process is completed on a single page, and 
you have just to click sumbit or press enter to publish) there's the 
choice of the license. At the moment you can only choose the different 
versions of by-nc or public domain. By-sa 2.5 is preselected (you don't 
even need to check a checkbox). I cannot prove that this has changed 
since when I registered, as this message I've found seems to imply:

http://diveintomark.org/archives/2006/09/13/mix-tape (read the comment #7).

I wrote to the folks at opsound and they told me that the license has 
always been by-sa and I'm trusting them.

> Do they have a proper BY-SA license to the work in question?
>   
>> Best,
>>
>> -c.
>>     
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
>   
>>> I would like the discussion and any "conclusions" reached to be based as
>>> much as possible on the actual facts of the case on the one hand and then
>>> on the what ifs on the other hand.
>>>
>>>       
>>>>> And is every user of a CC licensed work needing to check with the
>>>>> copyright holders?
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> It doesn't
>>>>>> matter what the license allegedly is,they need to verify with the
>>>>>> copyright owner that the material was indeed released under the
>>>>>> license that it allegedly is under.
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Can Linus now claim that he used the GPL by mistake and the kernel is
>>>>> really ARR?
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> There is material out there which was released ARR, but third partties
>>>>>> have slapped a CC license onto.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>  What is important for me, is which is my intention. What kind of
>>>>>>> uses I endorse.
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> I'd suggest adding both copyright and license metadata to everything
>>>>>> you release/distribute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>>  What some people don't understand is that with music (at least with
>>>>>>> mine) there are emotions and personal stories involved.
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Most music is a personal story.
>>>>>> (The major exception is that which Clear Chanel calls "music".)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> xan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jonathon
>>>>>>             
>>>>> all the best,
>>>>>
>>>>> drew
>>>>>           
>>> all the best,
>>>
>>> drew
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>   


-- 
www.cesaremarilungo.com 



More information about the cc-community mailing list