On 10-06-14 09:26 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: <snip> > Anyway, I'm interested in > http://web.archive.org/web/20051217184210/x-11.info/pml.txt: > > Personal Music Licence v1.0 > > This music is provided for your personal use, not for resale. You may > make verbatim copies of it, distribute it in any medium, and play it > in public as long as you do not charge money for doing so. > > You must preserve the artist name and title of the music with any > copies of the music that you distribute, and make a copy of this > licence available with the music. > > Commercial distribution, commercial public performance, sampling, > remixing and derivative versions are strictly prohibited without the > artist's explicit consent. The artist asserts copyright on this music, > and that the music contains no unauthorised copyrighted material. > > Is it a capable licence? And is the CC a capable licence? > No idea if this is a capable license. IMO all of the CC licenses are capable. No one should take my word for it, consult a lawyer if it matters to you.
> What does "derivative versions" mean? If I would like to publish a > non-commercial interpretation and I name the composer(s). Isn't it > allowed? If so, IMO it would be stupid. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ#Does_my_use_constitute_a_derivative_work_or_an_adaptation.3F In a nutshell what "derivative" means is kind of tricky. Using some piece of music as theme music for a podcast is generally regarded as being a derivative work. A good policy is that if you have to ask, just don't do it. In general, the FAQ (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ) answers a lot of questions. > > I'm against GEMA etc., but e.g. a friend, Achim Jaroschek did release > music by GEMA, e.g. "Subtil Twister" Achim and Peter Brötzmann. I wonder > if there are "cool" licenses for commercial musicians who aren't > capitalists. > I would check out the Creative Commons. They have a number of licences that cover a variety of situations. > Please everybody, if you know links or have information about capable > licences reply. > http://creativecommons.org/international/de/ For everyone else: http://creativecommons.org The CC site has a handy utility for helping you to choose a license: http://creativecommons.org/choose/ > I guess for my self, I won't pay my rent by making music, CC should be > ok, I just wish to avoid that capitalists do bad things, e.g. usage for > commercials. But I guess I don't really need protection, because I'm a > nobody and advertisings are done using music from Hendrix, The Beatles etc.. I use CC licenses for just this sort of thing. > > Anyway, I do know the webpage of CC, but not if it's really a capable > licence. And are there any or other capable licenses, but GEMA and Co.? AFAIK, the CC of licenses are capable. Consult a lawyer if in doubt.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 64studio-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
