[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]



Howdy Kevin,

Kevin Ponto wrote:

If Scene.org refuses to remove a work, then I can see "demands" being made, but for the time being, I think the use of that word is simply for inflammatory reasons.

To be fair, I thought it better to reprint the original notice from Scene.org. "Inflammatory" is also such an inflammatory word ;-)


From: http://www.scene.org/discussnews.php?item=275

License change for Scene.org 03 Mar 2005

Scene.org staff has been receiving a lot of requests to remove files from artists whose previously-uploaded works have been sold to a commercial entity. Some of these requests have been polite, few have been not so polite and then there have been down-right threatening demands with associated legal language.

As you know, Scene.org exists as an archival and distribution service for the good of the community, run & supported by the members of the community. I'm sure you understand that we do not have the resources to continue to handle these requests nor defend ourselves should someone decide to initiate legal proceedings. Thus, we are investigating options to protect ourselves without taking away any rights from the creators of the works.

Chief among these options is requiring a CC (CreativeCommons) license for all works in the archive -- both past & present.

We realize this is a major change, and thus would very much welcome any comments and suggestions from our users through the discussions area. Should you be or know someone who is legally-savvy in these matters, we would very much welcome an opportunity to consult with you directly (contact: staff@xxxxxxxxx).

Please do visit the original site, as the letter from Jesse Rothenberg and the Scene.org staff to the Creative Commons organization asking for advice is also quite interesting:


<snip>
Historically, works created within the demoscene have been released more-or-less into the public domain by their authors. That is to say:
Sometimes the authors will append a (c) notice to their works (whether or not that is all that is required in the country of creation is a different
story) but in almost all cases have either signed a document or provided a packaged text in which they explicitly allowed non-profit distribution of the works.

Unfortunately, this trend is changing. As many demoscene participants are active in the design, videogame, animation, film, and music industries -- or will head in those directions -- it should come as no surprise that the demoscene has fostered the birth of new distribution mentalities, primarily the netlabel, as showcased by Simon Carless' (now of
archive.org) Mono411 and Monotonic labels, possibly the first explicit netlabels created.

So it turns out that a number of musicians are now releasing music directly or via netlabels hosted on Scene.org with the aim that free distribution will lead to increased awareness and possibly a commercial deal. So far, so good. The problem is when a commercial deal comes through for a work previously released by the author through Scene.org services.
As it stands we are receiving an increasing number of threatening emails demanding removal of a work.
</snip>

best,
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