a short overview: an indie metal label took previosly released material that was under a Creative Commons License and made vinyl copies without the band (Cloudkicker) knowing or without his consent. and it was 100% legal.
Thoughts/opinions on what the label did and what this could lead to or happen with people who release music under CC licenses?
http://www.heavyblogisheavy.com/2014/04 ... music-lps/
first open sourced music release in history
-
- KVRAF
- 35718 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
If the band didn't want this to happen, why didn't it choose one of the Creative Commons licenses which prohibits to use their material commercially? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_C ... s_licenses
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35529 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
and the band had no issue with it. quite the opposite.H.86 wrote:a short overview: an indie metal label took previosly released material that was under a Creative Commons License and made vinyl copies without the band (Cloudkicker) knowing or without his consent. and it was 100% legal.
UPDATE: Metal Injection got in touch with Ben Sharp for further detail, and he wrote back with :
“I think it’s a great outcome for the Creative Commons experiment. These were albums that I had no intention of pressing myself, so a third party took the initiative and did it for me. To be totally clear on this: Blood Music did not owe me a cent and I would not be bothered if they hadn’t payed me. They deserve the profits because they took the financial risk in seeing a hole in the market and trying to fill it.
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- KVRian
- 1224 posts since 2 Dec, 2008 from Finland
I think it's cool.
The article also says the label gave the band 600 dollars, 120 cds and 20 vinyls in compensation for what the band gave away for free. I think that's fair. Further on it says the album is already sold out in the US, meaning those physical copies the band received are already worth more than the copies put on sale in record stores. And if the music is any good or the release has any historical signifance for being the first one doing this with a Creative Commons-license, the copies they received will be worth even more in a few years time.
Everybody wins?
Thumbs up.
The article also says the label gave the band 600 dollars, 120 cds and 20 vinyls in compensation for what the band gave away for free. I think that's fair. Further on it says the album is already sold out in the US, meaning those physical copies the band received are already worth more than the copies put on sale in record stores. And if the music is any good or the release has any historical signifance for being the first one doing this with a Creative Commons-license, the copies they received will be worth even more in a few years time.
Everybody wins?
Thumbs up.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 190 posts since 15 Jun, 2007 from San Antonio, Texas
True that in this case the label did everything right and even hooked him up. My point is that CC isn't the same as copyright. Some states/countries might not even recognize or backup CC. Do you think this might start a trend where artists who use CC won't be as lucky as this one?
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35529 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Copyright is the right of a creator to determine how their work may be redistributed. CC is a set of definitions of the distribution they are allowing.H.86 wrote:True that in this case the label did everything right and even hooked him up. My point is that CC isn't the same as copyright.
So, no, a CC license is not 'the same' as copyright, its actually the specific terms of its application.
In that case they're not recognising or backing up copyright in the first place.Some states/countries might not even recognize or backup CC.
There's no 'lucky' to it. You would only use a CC license if you specifically wanted people to be able to redistribute your work.Do you think this might start a trend where artists who use CC won't be as lucky as this one?
This is pretty much the same reaction as 'oh noes someone is making money off GPL'd software' ; it fallaciously conflates the license terms of 'must stay free as in speech' with 'must stay free as in beer'.
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- KVRAF
- 3227 posts since 4 Jan, 2005
In think CC is great , but you have to copyright stuff too . Look at all the artists that have there music remixed , not every artist is EDM especially singer songwriter types . Cool story .
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35529 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Erm, copyright is actually automatic in most places. And giving something a CC license is stating the license terms of your copyright.fedexnman wrote:In think CC is great , but you have to copyright stuff too
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."