Skip to content

Forum

Notifications
Clear all

How not to send lyrics...

Page 2 / 2

(@noteboat)
Famed Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 4933
 

Amazon caused quite a stir in the publishing industry when they unveiled the 'look inside the book' feature a year or so ago. They contacted all their publishers (including NoteBoat), pitched how wonderful it was, and had a little link for their terms and conditions, just in case you happened to be interested... it contained similar, perhaps identical, language.

That's the only reason we decided not to let people browse a few pages on Amazon.

Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL


ReplyQuote
(@ignar-hillstrom)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 5384
 

Unless you have deep pockets to fight them your S.O.L.

That's indeed what they are hoping for. Ofcourse such licenses are utter nonsense, and will never ever hold up in court, but what can the average person (often not even living in the US!) do against it?


ReplyQuote
(@gnease)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5058
 

Same applies to free web space. Sometime back when folks wanted to upload their songs to Free Web Hosts I explained you need to read everything carefully because on most of them you'll find that anything uploaded to their server belongs to them, which includes holding copyright's. Whether it's images, songs, text, poems, etc.

Also if the site becomes sticky or a hit, they can cancel your account. Then turn around and have it themselves. Unless you have deep pockets to fight them your S.O.L.

Please be careful with your original material no matter what it is.

Joe

Yeah, I'm with Joe on this. If you value your original material, and expect to use it one day, I'd avoid putting it up on the likes of Soundclick and Dmusic unless you really understand what you are giving away to them. Too many rights issues there. Even the non-exclusive rights given many of these sites lower the market value of one's work when it comes time to shop it to publishers. Better to pay for some server space for those gems, and of course take the time to properly copyright one's material.

Just because something doesn't seem right, doesn't mean it isn't supported by the laws of one's country -- we can't all live in the Neatherlands.

-Greg

-=tension & release=-


ReplyQuote
(@kingpatzer)
Noble Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 2198
 

Unless you have deep pockets to fight them your S.O.L.

That's indeed what they are hoping for. Ofcourse such licenses are utter nonsense, and will never ever hold up in court, but what can the average person (often not even living in the US!) do against it?

Actually, for the most part they will hold up in court.

They will hold up because these companies are not common carriers. You have the choice to not accept the license.

Some of them do over-stretch, and there are often technicalities involved that would let you win a specific case. But the licenses themselves are perfectly reasonable legal documents from a contract law perspective.

You are not coerced into pressing saying "I have read and agree to the terms of this license." You have to check the box that says you did that. You have to press the "I accept" button.

Guess what . . you've entered into a binding legal agreement.

Now, you might still find a way to fight them, or a point of interpretation to dispute, and you might win. But you have to have the money to do that, and unless you are independently wealthy, you aren't going to be able to stand up to AOL's legal staff.

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST


ReplyQuote
(@crank-n-jam)
Noble Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1232
 

Good thing I don't use AOL. Good thing my stuff stinks so bad nobody would want it. :D

"Rock And Roll Ain't Noise Pollution"


ReplyQuote
(@gnease)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5058
 

Good thing I don't use AOL. Good thing my stuff stinks so bad nobody would want it. :D

But understand: AOL (ISP) and AIM are two different things owned and operated by AOL-the-Company. The first is a paid service, the second a 'free' service -- agreements and encumberances are different for each.

-=tension & release=-


ReplyQuote
(@danlasley)
Noble Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2135
 

I belive that timing is involved. If you have a copyrighted song, and you later send the lyrics (or sound file), AOL can't claim the author's copyright. They can't claim that they wrote it, nor can they sell it. However, it might be sent all over the world for free. I think this is the reason for the clause: they don't want to be sued for distribution of emails containing copyrighted materials.

And, as a private space (as ntoed above), they retain the right to assist the authorities pursuing illegal activities. Conversely, many ISPs insist that they must protect the privacy of their accounts. The RIAA has been fighting through that mess (not to start that discussion).

I'm guessing at some of this.

"Often in error, never in doubt!"

-Laz


ReplyQuote
(@kingpatzer)
Noble Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 2198
 

Laz, according to the AIM aggreement by AOL, if you have the right to assign copyright, then you do so if you use AIM for collaborative efforts.

It doesn't matter if you own the copyright, what matters is if you have the legal right to assign the copyright. As the producer of the content, you most often will have that right.

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST


ReplyQuote
(@undercat)
Prominent Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 963
 

Laz, according to the AIM aggreement by AOL, if you have the right to assign copyright, then you do so if you use AIM for collaborative efforts.

It doesn't matter if you own the copyright, what matters is if you have the legal right to assign the copyright. As the producer of the content, you most often will have that right.

So what you're saying is that if I send some U2 lyrics over AIM, no harm, but if Bono does, then AOL owns the song, even though U2 may have sold 6 billion copies of an album containing those lyrics?

Do something you love and you'll never work a day in your life...


ReplyQuote
 Taso
(@taso)
Famed Member
Joined: 19 years ago
Posts: 2852
 

I don't think Bono has the ability to assign copyright, so the answer would be no right? This is nice and confusing.

http://taso.dmusic.com/music/


ReplyQuote
(@undercat)
Prominent Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 963
 

It doesn't matter if you own the copyright, what matters is if you have the legal right to assign the copyright. As the producer of the content, you most often will have that right.

I'm not getting this... You can have the legal right to assign it without owning it?!??

Do something you love and you'll never work a day in your life...


ReplyQuote
(@kingpatzer)
Noble Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 2198
 

Bono is probably under contract, the studio or label more than likely owns the right of assignment. Bono may have right of rejection for any reuse, but he probably doesn't own his stuff outright.

If you own the copyright in conjuction with another party, you may or may not have assignment rights.

Copyright law is not simple, except in simple cases. Add in contract law and it gets real muddy real fast.

In the case most of us would find ourselves in -- we are working as the primary author on an original work with no contractual burdens, then we'd have the right of assignment. So when we send it to our collaborator over AIM, AOL now owns the work.

Long story short -- don't use AIM. :)

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST


ReplyQuote
(@moonrider)
Noble Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1309
 

Don't do it via AOL IM...

Although you or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product, AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating this Content. In addition, by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. You waive any right to privacy. You waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses.

This paragraph has generated a whole lot of flak for AOL, and they're changing it to address the copyright and privacy concerns. Seems a lawyer got a bit overzealous....

here's a link . . . http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1776146,00.asp

Playing guitar and never playing for others is like studying medicine and never working in a clinic.

Moondawgs on Reverbnation


ReplyQuote
(@davec)
Trusted Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 56
 

I remember MSN has a very similar paragraph in the agreement and has done for a couple of years now.

"And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on earth." - Eric Idle, The Galaxy Song.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2