[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] interesting legal/licensing developments at scene.org [nexsound.org mp3 host]



Hi Derek:
I would make several points here.  First, although "an artist uses the
disk space, bandwidth and publicity resources of a free hosting site,"
it is also true that the site gains something by having good work on the
site.  New content gives people a reason to continue to visit and
support the site.  Furthermore, this content does not have to be on the
site permanently, the site could gain something by hosting a good piece
of music for six months, for example.

Second, is it true that the artist has placed there work in the "public
domain" by letting a free site host it?  I would argue that instead they
are giving the free site a limited license to host distribute the
artwork, not necessarily placing the artwork in the public domain.

I think that a good solution would be to host the works on a limited
license basis,say  for one year periods, with option of renewal if that
artist wishes.  OR the artist can explicitly place the works in the
public domain, in which case anyone can do what they wish with the work.
 Assuming that artists releasing on a netlabel wishes to give up all
control over the artwork for all time is quite problematic in my
opinion.  

~David

David Powers
Secretary
DePaul University, School of Education
Department of Leadership in Education, Language, and Human Services
773-325-4806

>>> derek@xxxxxxx 03/03/05 11:48AM >>>
Hi John,

John Nowak wrote:

> Scene.org has no legal right to do this unless prior agreements were

> made. If the artist wants to pull their tracks, fine. Let them. 
> Ruccas.org let's artists do this, and it hasn't caused any issues.
Not 
> sure why scene.org would be any different.

I guess my basic point of view on this doesn't necessarily revolve 
around the strict legal issues, but more the ethic of it.

Consider this: an artist uses the disk space, bandwidth and publicity 
resources of a free hosting site like Scene.org to promote his or her 
own work by sending prospective listeners there or linking to it
through 
their website.

This places the artwork in the public domain UNTIL such time as the 
artist begins to capitalize on the service which this host has
provided, 
and the publicity gained from having the work in the public domain.
Once 
a buck can be turned, the artist removes the work from the public
domain 
and possibly even causes trouble for the folks who provided him or her
a 
much-needed service in their rise to "professionalism". No thanks and a

big F-You to those who helped out on the way. You don't see many people

asking for their tracks to be removed from CD compilations, do you?

So, my basic question which follows this analysis would be: is it 
"right" for an artist to remove something they have placed in the
public 
domain, considering that the resources used to keep it in the public 
domain once represented a valuable publicity asset to that artist? And

on a deeper level, can something conceivably be *removed* from the 
public domain, once it is there? Might as well try to patent oxygen or

something...

Essays on my desk in one hour ;-)
derek


-- 
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl 
---Oblique Strategy # 36:
"Consult other sources
-promising
-unpromising"

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
website: http://www.microsound.org 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org