On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 08:28, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, that seems absurd. It certainly isn't compatible with any
> type of "open-source" license (including CC) that I'm aware of.
> The right to perform sheet music without royalties is one of the
> fundamental parts of any "open-source" license for music. I
> suppose that the "non-commercial" condition weakens this point.
How does that square with the language from the CC-BY-NC 3.0 license I
posted earlier? The 2.5 license seems even clearer:
#
For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition:
1. Performance Royalties Under Blanket Licenses. Licensor reserves
the exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a
performance rights society (e.g. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC), royalties for the
public performance or public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the
Work if that performance is primarily intended for or directed toward
commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
2. Mechanical Rights and Statutory Royalties. Licensor reserves the
exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a music rights
agency or designated agent (e.g. Harry Fox Agency), royalties for any
phonorecord You create from the Work ("cover version") and distribute,
subject to the compulsory license created by 17 USC Section 115 of the
US Copyright Act (or the equivalent in other jurisdictions), if Your
distribution of such cover version is primarily intended for or
directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
_______________________________________________
Mutopia-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/mailman/listinfo/mutopia-discuss
