It’s cool with me that other people not getting on ccmixter can hear ccmixter tracks but I’ve found a few sites streaming ccmixter material

http://leradiophone.net/ind...

http://webjay.org/by/histor...

Just wondered if these sites were somehow affiliated or were just linking straight to the podcast links?

if you’re NOT spreading ccMixter music then you’re doing something wrong ;)

The first site you point is just swallowing our most popular feed (remix) which is exactly why we publish it.

We have a special relationship with Webjay in that its founder, Lucas, wrote one of the first prototypes of ccMixter for Creative Commons and is who I took over the code from over a year and a half ago. (Since then I’ve rewritten the entire site so we could publish it as open source).

Many mixter’s have lists there:
http://webjay.org/by/teru
http://webjay.org/by/fourst...

Some time this year (depending on how Yahoo!’s recent purchase of Webjay affects things): you’ll be able to build an all-ccMixter playist on WebJay from here.

VS

yeah that’s cool I figured as much…I just recall reading a post on here about a site that was selling his music…some of which was on ccmixter. Ever since I found this site I’ve been telling everyone I know about it. It’s a real great concept with an awesome community of artists.

Quote: if you’re NOT spreading ccMixter music then you’re doing something wrong ;)

The first site you point is just swallowing our most popular feed (remix) which is exactly why we publish it.

We have a special relationship with Webjay in that its founder, Lucas, wrote one of the first prototypes of ccMixter for Creative Commons and is who I took over the code from over a year and a half ago. (Since then I’ve rewritten the entire site so we could publish it as open source).

Many mixter’s have lists there:
http://webjay.org/by/teru
http://webjay.org/by/fourst...

Some time this year (depending on how Yahoo!’s recent purchase of Webjay affects things): you’ll be able to build an all-ccMixter playist on WebJay from here.

VS

Sorry to keep harping on this, but I want to point out issues and also to have any of my misconceptions on the same cleared up.

Please look at this:

Post on CC mailing list.

and this:

pdf from the mail above.

If Mia Garlick is correct, and right now I see no reason to doubt her, then it would be a license violation for any corporation (other than a non profit) to spread any feeds that contain works with the NC option.

Or am I seeing this all wrong?

all the best,

drew

Quote: If Mia Garlick is correct,

the proper forum for this would be to bring it up with Mia on the lists.

Thanks,
VS

Quote: If Mia Garlick is correct, and right now I see no reason to doubt her, then it would be a license violation for any corporation (other than a non profit) to spread any feeds that contain works with the NC option.

Or am I seeing this all wrong?

all the best,

drew

I don’t understand how you came to this conclusion. A for-profit would have to meet other conditions, such as charge for access or play commercials as part of content viewing in order to qualify for commercial use. (Just follow the questionnaire in the PDF.)

*meow*

Quote: Quote: If Mia Garlick is correct, and right now I see no reason to doubt her, then it would be a license violation for any corporation (other than a non profit) to spread any feeds that contain works with the NC option.

Or am I seeing this all wrong?

all the best,

drew

I don’t understand how you came to this conclusion. A for-profit would have to meet other conditions, such as charge for access or play commercials as part of content viewing in order to qualify for commercial use. (Just follow the questionnaire in the PDF.)

*meow*

If only. I don’t think so. I think the import is that a for profit corporation never qualifies, not matter what the use. Individuals and proper non-profits may or may not qualify depending on use.

From the pdf:

"A. Nature of the User:
(1) Is the user an "allowable NC user" under the noncommercial license condition?
(a) Individual
(b) Nonprofit educational institution/library,
(c) Nonprofit organization as defined under US1 or equivalent law, (together
with (1) and (2) "allowable NC users")
(d) A copy shop, ISP or similar service provider who, in the course of
providing a service at the direction of the allowable NC user, may exercise
a right licensed under the Creative Commons license.
(i) No. License violation ­ this is not a noncommercial use.
(ii) Yes. Continue to Question B.

"

My reading is that if you are not one of the named "allowable NC users" you can never use NC works. Period. I never understood it to be this way until I saw Mia’s work, but that is what I see being said. I would be happy enough to learn I have misunderstood though.

(I brought this up here and not on the CC lists because some users here might be participating as a band or group which is incorporated and not a non-profit. If that is the case, and I understand things right, they could get in trouble with the law messing with NC works here.)

all the best,

drew

Hmm, you’re right. That could be … problematic and something to definately be addressed on the Commons lists. A number of corporations are mixed producers. (That’s what I get for reading quickly in a half-awake state. Heh.)

However, I would be careful of placing too much stock on Mia’s interpretation. Magnatune, which is strongly supported by the Commons, would seem to invalidate the assertion. (Even all the more reason to dicuss this directly with the Commons community.)

*meow*

Quote: Hmm, you’re right. That could be … problematic and something to definately be addressed on the Commons lists. A number of corporations are mixed producers. (That’s what I get for reading quickly in a half-awake state. Heh.)

However, I would be careful of placing too much stock on Mia’s interpretation. Magnatune, which is strongly supported by the Commons, would seem to invalidate the assertion. (Even all the more reason to dicuss this directly with the Commons community.)

*meow*

I have been discussing it on the CC lists for a good while now. I will not play with NC licensed works because I think they are too dangerous. I want to obey the licenses when playing with CC stuff, but there is just too much confusion when it comes to NC as to what is allowable and what is not. It seems like it should be simple, but when you try pinning things down, it gets very complex very fast.

all the best,

drew

(I’ve moved this topic to our "off topic" area where folks are free to exchange tips on what medicines go well together, proper accounting practices for tax time, dispense free legal advice, etc. etc.)

Quote: (I’ve moved this topic to our "off topic" area where folks are free to exchange tips on what medicines go well together, proper accounting practices for tax time, dispense free legal advice, etc. etc.)

Victor, you are the board opp and obviously you can do as you wish.

I do think that you are wrong in this case though in thinking that this is off topic and belongs only on the CC lists.

People here who may never go to those lists may get themselves in trouble with the law our of ignorance.

I was only trying to give a heads up so that people who operate as corporations what are not non-profit could take a closer look at the issue.

As I say, it is no real skin off of my teeth as I don’t use NC works and don’t intend to until I do see things cleared up. I am not trying to use this forum to clear them up though.

I am new here though and you have not have much experience with my overall attitude and behaviour and so I will cool it for a good while in this area, perhaps for good.

Can you eplain to me where you think I am wrong in the above thinking?

all the best,

drew

1. It’d be nice if you posted something so we knew where you were coming from.

2. We all have concerns about the licenses. We have to trust the people at CC to evolve as things progress.

3. I have no idea what you’re trying to accompish here. If you want people to remix you why be APITA?

ccMixter = a remix site
Creative Commons = licensing

Why discuss it here?

Teru says it well and I will add:

you don’t go to the cc-community and license lists to discuss compressor and EQ settings because it would be innapropriate and you’d get a lot of blank stares.

Now you’ve posted 20 messages on this forum on subjects that have a passing interest to some, but we just don’t have that kind of expertise here. And it’s exactly because people get into trouble taking legal advice from remix forums that I’ve asked you drop it.

The fact is, I don’t know anything about that stuff. It’s simply above my pay scale. Every single time this subject comes up I have to defer, offline, often to the very same people that are on the community and license lists.

Now, I mean no disrepect, in fact I think I’ve been indulgent (I could be wrong about that) and I’ve said ‘ please’ and I’ve said ‘thank you’

If you want to comment on my dubious remixing advice or one of my bugs that you’ve found on a linux mp3 player feel free to rant away and I will do my best to rectify.

Otherwise, upload a remix or please move on.

VS

Quote: 1. It’d be nice if you posted something so we knew where you were coming from.

2. We all have concerns about the licenses. We have to trust the people at CC to evolve as things progress.

3. I have no idea what you’re trying to accompish here. If you want people to remix you why be APITA?

ccMixter = a remix site
Creative Commons = licensing

Why discuss it here?

I will try and answer some of oyur points together. I may also touch on some of Victor’s as well and on some of your’s when I reply to him.

A little history of my short time here and my motivations and some misc stuff.

I had seen ccmixter a while back but had nothing to contribute at the time.

Recently I decided to run a contest around recordings of some songs (lyrics) I wrote as a part of writing a novel in the NaNoWriMo 2005 novel writing contest.

I am putting $1,000.00 of my own money as a prize in this contest.

I passed by here, I saw SA works. My stuff is license BY-SA. I thought it might interest some here. I posted a notice of the contest.

IIRC, this was my first post.

It was only later I came to understand that the SA option has been dropped. Cool, I don’t really like the decision, but I can live with things I don’t like, no problem.

Now, another thing I do is run bysa Radio which is designed to showcase BY-SA music and some BY music. So, I also am looking to find music here to play on the radio.

For those interested, it uses Rivendell as station Automation and ices-kh, jackd, and peercast to get things out to the listeners.

Now, since I don’t like to just take and not give, I want to upload here if I can. I don’t want to use plain BY and I would be cool with BY-NC but I think NC is too dangerous for me to use and so do not feel right at this point in offering the option I consider dangerous to others. I am in a bind and don’t know what to do with this issue.

I have almost talked myself into producing some stuff specifically for here and releasing under a straight BY license. I might.

Now, I have stuff here:

Internet Archive

and here:

OurMedia

but so far no audio at ourmedia, there are lyrics though.

The audio at the Internet Archive is under a BY-SA license. I am happy for anyone to grab and play with that. It is just that it will not be usable here.

Finally, another thing I do (one of my day jobs) is work here in the Bahamas for three on air radio stations, one of which is number one in the nation. If I find things here I like, I will ask my PD to consider them. (As I think I already posted, I don’t have much pull with him in this area even though we are friends and I work closely with him on practically a daily basis.)

I feel like I have been way too long winded in this post.

In short, after this and my reply to Victor, I will try my best to not initiate any new license discussion here. I will try my best not to get involved in any either.

I will also try and convince myself to create some stuff for here and license it under a straight BY license. (I just don’t feel good giving this level of rights to the world, but I will see if I can convince myself.

I am already working with thorwil on a project off site.

I generally try not to be a PITA and am sorry if I have been one so far.

One final comment from me here:

"We have to trust the people at CC to evolve as things progress."

I might like to, but, as I have been led to understand, in my country, the copyright laws have changed in such a way that the simple posession of a knock-off cd or dvd can get you serious jail time.

I am paranoid enough to want to understand these things before I risk going to jail down here. Do some research on the jail situation in the Bahamas if you want to understand a bit more why this might be so.

all the best,

drew

Quote: Teru says it well and I will add:

you don’t go to the cc-community and license lists to discuss compressor and EQ settings because it would be innapropriate and you’d get a lot of blank stares.


Correct.

Quote:
Now you’ve posted 20 messages on this forum on subjects that have a passing interest to some, but we just don’t have that kind of expertise here. And it’s exactly because people get into trouble taking legal advice from remix forums that I’ve asked you drop it.


I feel like I should go back and see how this came about, but it has been a long hard day and I have bee living with a headache for a lot of it and I can’t bring myself to at this point.

I feel like it started with my first post which was a request for collaboration in the form of a contest which I will be running. I made my initial post which related to a BY-SA work before I realised BY-SA was no longer welcome here.

When I found out that BY-SA was no longer welcome, I think I expressed an opinion and I am sure I, too, at least tried to be polite about it.

I think some of the others were in response to posts by others. Including this thread here.

I am quite happy to have my license discussion on the CC lists and shut up here, but I do feel like there are times when it is neighbourly to point out possible dangers I perceive for the benefit of others who might not have thought of them.

I think that was the reason I commented in this thread in the first place.

Quote:
The fact is, I don’t know anything about that stuff. It’s simply above my pay scale. Every single time this subject comes up I have to defer, offline, often to the very same people that are on the community and license lists.


Is there a reason why you must do this unless the questions are put to you directly? For instance, in my initial post in this thread, I merely sought to warn those operating as corporations that they may want to check into the situation with NC works.

Naturally, anyone not operating as a corporation need not pay attention.

I know it was in refernece to your quote:

Quote: if you’re NOT spreading ccMixter music then you’re doing something wrong ;)

but i did not really expect you to have to respond. sorry if i was misunderstood.

Quote:
now, i mean no disrepect, in fact i think i’ve been indulgent (i could be wrong about that) and i’ve said ‘ please’ and i’ve said ‘thank you’


I don’t think you have been disrespectful, I have tried not to be, although you mention 20 posts, I feel like some were polite replies to responses by others. (I guess I could have just ignored them.)

In any case, like I said to Teru, I will try and keep far away from license discussion for a long time.

Thank you for your kind patience.

Quote:
If you want to comment on my dubious remixing advice or one of my bugs that you’ve found on a linux mp3 player feel free to rant away and I will do my best to rectify.


When I get better, I may take you up on that offer.

Quote:
Otherwise, upload a remix or please move on.

VS

The last part of that sentence was perhaps unnecessary, but I can understand it in light of my being new and unproven. Hopefully, over the years, we won’t go there over such things.

If I can bring myself to use a BY license, I will do so soon. In the meantime, I have stuff on the net under a BY-Sa license if anyone wants to work with it off site.

all the best,

drew

p.s. If anyone does want to point out things they would like me to listen to for PD shopping, please point me to a "radio edit."

Dear Drew:

I’m going to "sit out" the debates on cc.

But if you ever want some PD samples of weirdbient music to get you started remixing, just e mail me at
gurdonark@aol.com, and I’ll create some and e mail them to you. I don’t mind dedicating some drones to PD if that will help give you a setting for a beat, or, if you prefer (as I would) a beatless morph.

I look forward to hearing your mixes.

Bob

Quote: Dear Drew:

I’m going to "sit out" the debates on cc.

But if you ever want some PD samples of weirdbient music to get you started remixing, just e mail me at
gurdonark@aol.com, and I’ll create some and e mail them to you. I don’t mind dedicating some drones to PD if that will help give you a setting for a beat, or, if you prefer (as I would) a beatless morph.

I look forward to hearing your mixes.

Bob

Thanks for the offer. I’ll let you know. As soon as I can find some time, I am gonna work on something and put it up here with a BY license. We’ll see what develops.

all the best,

drew

Honestly, I appreciate the comments…while confusing at times. It does help to discern between what different artists perceptions of license agreements are. I for one have not visited the cc forums and don’t know how to get on them and ask Mia about anything or who Mia is…or if Mia’s name really means Missing In Action…which then might cuase concern. I’m joking in the last part… but not all of this is a joke. It’s serious stuff and of concern to newcomers who may be considering whether or not to share material freely, while analyzing the upside and downside to doing so.