Paranoia, polls, and Yahoo

It may be true, as some have suggested, that there's really nothing
wrong with Yahoo's TOS (Terms of Service). But I'm not sure, reading
them, which category MIDI files would fall into. Therefore, I have
moved the files I had posted there to my Colorado web page, accessible
through

http://www.adaptune.com

I've put a link from the tuning files to there. Yahoo is now free to
spread that link around all they like; they don't own the content of my
web.

As for paranoia, I'd rather err on the side of caution. I don't want
to risk "giving away" others' work (the original sequencers of the
files I've tuned), something I have no right to do.

Whether there is another list hosting choice that would offer more
unambiguous terms is an open question, but if one could be found, I'd
agree with moving, and I have so voted in Daniel Wolf's poll. I wonder
if someone at Yahoo might be willing to allay our fears, making such a
switch unnecessary?

Then for Dante's poll, I voted for the interval 32768:32805, since my
actual favorite, 7:4, wasn't listed. But I found that no one else had
voted, even Dante himself. What's the matter, Dante, are you shy? ;->

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18264.html#18264

> It may be true, as some have suggested, that there's really nothing
> wrong with Yahoo's TOS (Terms of Service). But I'm not sure,
reading them, which category MIDI files would fall into.

The copyrighted MIDI files are just "licensed" through the Yahoo site
to be played by anyone accessing the "files" area. [That is, if
the MIDI files ARE copyrighted. Can somebody copyright a MIDI
performance rendition of music of the past?? If so, then it's like a
"translation" and there could be a potential problem... if the guy
who originally sequenced the material was not notified and finds out]

Essentially we have TWO copyrights... apparently the "sequence
copyright" and your OWN retuning. If you were to stay on Yahoo, you
have given your implicit permission to the Terms of Service license
agreement. They assume people have read it. However, clearing the
"original sequence" with the maker of the sequence is another matter.

I would presume, if you were to contact this person, he would be
DELIGHTED that his work is available in various tuning forms on the
Internet. But then, I can't really speak for somebody else...

Yahoo has, as outlined in the terms of service, NO copyright claim to
the material.

If the original MIDI sequences are copyrighted, you should
have, technically, obtained the right to retransmit or "license"
them, whether they are on Yahoo or on "Adaptune." In other words,
you are still doing EXACTLY what Yahoo is doing, only, apparently,
you didn't inform the original "MIDI sequence maker" of your OWN
"Terms of Service!"

Therefore, I have moved the files I had posted there to my Colorado
web page, accessible through
>
> http://www.adaptune.com

See above. Same difference, but, apparently with no "Terms of
Service" explicitly outlined.

>
> I've put a link from the tuning files to there. Yahoo is now free
to spread that link around all they like; they don't own the content
of my web.
>

No... but they didn't "own the content" on the Yahoo site
either. However, perhaps you don't own the content of the original
MIDI sequences, either. I would confer with the "owner(s)..."

Did the person doing the sequencing put a "copyright" sign on it?

The original musical material is in the public domain. Perhaps a
MIDI rendition is somewhat like a "translation," in which case, there
IS a copyright problem. I would need to talk to a "music lawyer,"
though, to confirm this...

> As for paranoia, I'd rather err on the side of caution. I don't
want to risk "giving away" others' work (the original sequencers of
the files I've tuned), something I have no right to do.
>

Please explain how putting them on your own page, rather than on
Yahoo makes this difference? I would say it makes matters WORSE...
You haven't expressed any explicit "Terms of Service..." (!)

Again, Yahoo has made it clear that they do NOT own the copyright of
any materials on the site. They can't "spread anything around"
(this sound like an infection!) without the permission of the
copyright holder!

All they can do, under the terms of their "non-exclusive" license, is
make the material available on the Tuning List Yahoo-groups site.

> Whether there is another list hosting choice that would offer more
> unambiguous terms is an open question,

The terms of service are very clear. Actually, I finally read them.
There is nothing ambiguous in them at all. Lawyers have to eat too,
after all!!

>but if one could be found,
I'd agree with moving, and I have so voted in Daniel Wolf's poll.

I believe this is a real mistake, and a severe and unnecessary
interruption! Let's not be yahoos! I mean, let's BE Yahoos!

________ _____ ___ __
Joseph Pehrson

-----Original Message-----
From: John A. deLaubenfels [mailto:jdl@adaptune.com]
>Then for Dante's poll, I voted for the interval 32768:32805, since my
>actual favorite, 7:4, wasn't listed. But I found that no one else had
>voted, even Dante himself. What's the matter, Dante, are you shy? ;->

In the interests of scientific obfuscativity and as the pollstergeist, it is
not morally unreprehensible for me to vote.