copyright and licenses

Another thing... we've been a little lax in confusing the term
"copyright" with "licenses."

Yahoo does NOT have any "copyright" rights to the material we post to
the site or include in the files area of the site. That includes the
text that we post to the Tuning List. Copyright and responsibility
for the content posted on the site remains solely the province of the
poster, as they explain.

What they DO have is a "non-exclusive" license to show the material.

This is the same kind of thing as a "performing rights" license.
Every time somebody performs your music, they have to have a
"performing rights" license...paid to ASCAP or BMI (or to the
composer directly, if they are not a member of a performing rights
organization)

This is the same thing. "Non-exclusive" means, of course, that the
license pertains only to use on this service. The same materials can
be performed in concert, published in books, etc. simultaneously.

This has NOTHING to do with copyright!

"Yahoo does not claim ownership of Content you
submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. [THAT'S
COPYRIGHT. THEY DON'T OWN AND CAN'T COPY OR REPRODUCE ANYTHING ASIDE
FROM THEIR LICENSE TO SHOW IT OR MAKE IT AVAILABLE ON THIS SITE]
However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for
inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant
Yahoo the following world-wide,royalty free and non-exclusive
license(s), as applicable: [THAT'S THE LICENSE-- BUT IT IS "ROYALTY
FREE" SO DON'T EXPECT ANY PAYMENTS FROM IT]

I'm a little surprised that some of our "composer knowledgeables"
can't distinguish LICENSES from COPYRIGHT!

________ _____ ______ _
Joseph Pehrson

[Joseph Pehrson:]
>I'm a little surprised that some of our "composer knowledgeables"
>can't distinguish LICENSES from COPYRIGHT!

Joe, I don't want to pick a fight over this (especially if you're going
to say nice things about my tunings :-) ), but I would submit that IF
the stuff we post to the files area were subject to the language that
Graham originally reported (and I realize that it may not be):

(c) With respect to all other Content you elect to post to other
publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Yahoo! the
royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully
sub-licensable right and licence to use, reproduce, modify, adapt,
publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform
and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to
incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now
known or later developed.

then making a distinction between "copyright" and "license" becomes
pretty much a moot point!

JdL

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

/tuning/topicId_18268.html#18273

> [Joseph Pehrson:]
> >I'm a little surprised that some of our "composer knowledgeables"
> >can't distinguish LICENSES from COPYRIGHT!
>
> Joe, I don't want to pick a fight over this (especially if you're
going to say nice things about my tunings :-) ), but I would submit
that IF the stuff we post to the files area were subject to the
language that Graham originally reported (and I realize that it may
not be):
>
> (c) With respect to all other Content you elect to post to other
> publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Yahoo! the
> royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully
> sub-licensable right and licence to use, reproduce, modify,
adapt,publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute,
perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or
to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology
now known or later developed.
>
> then making a distinction between "copyright" and "license" becomes
> pretty much a moot point!
>
> JdL

Hi John...

No, this isn't really a "fight." I'm just pulling a "Paul Erlich,"
vigorous debate, etc., etc., etc., :)

The distinction between "copyright" and "license" is NEVER a moot
point! In fact, the key word in the above paragraph is LICENSE.
Yahoo
makes it CLEAR that it doesn't own the copyright EVEN the the MOST
public of it's areas! Right there, that means EVERYTHING
to a copyright lawyer! There would be nothing to worry about.

The entire paragraph about "translation" and "alteration" and
"derivative works" etc., looks very suspicious at first, I have to
agree. HOWEVER, I believe it is more in the nature of a PERFORMANCE
alteration.

In other words, if a violinist changes the interpretation of a
composer's work in a performance during the "transmission" of it, is
that REALLY a copyright infringement?? I don't think so!

I think they are just looking to the possibility of new ways of
delivering the material. In other words, if there would be a new
kind of "web system" that would deliver materials differently, they
would be "altered" or even "derivative works." This is STILL in the
PERFORMANCE or presentation aspect of it!

And, they even go so far as to say that none of this applys to Yahoo
groups that have MEMBERS, as ours does. So there's a "double"
firewall.

I maintain, though, that the distinction between copyright holding
and licensing is NEVER a "moot point" under ANY circumstances!

You can speak with a copyright lawyer about this (I know some) but I
am certain of this...

______ _____ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

[Joseph Pehrson:]
>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...

Quite right, Joe. And in point of fact I have a fistful of e-mails
from people giving me permission to tune and post the tunings of their
sequences. In a few cases, where the sequence has no attribution and
the place I got it has only a stale e-mail address (the Caravan sequence
is the only one I can think of), I have gone ahead and posted the
sequence without explicit permission.

Yahoo may or may not be trustworthy. I _know_ that I am trustworthy
in that, if someone came forward and said, "Please remove my sequence
from your web page," I would do so without argument or invocation of
some arcane bit of lawyer-speak.

The fact that I have not posted any "Terms of Service" on my web page
is because I feel I have no need to protect myself. Yahoo has these
terms to protect themselves, not us!

[Joe:]
>The distinction between "copyright" and "license" is NEVER a moot
>point! In fact, the key word in the above paragraph is LICENSE.
>Yahoo makes it CLEAR that it doesn't own the copyright EVEN the the
>MOST public of it's areas! Right there, that means EVERYTHING
>to a copyright lawyer! There would be nothing to worry about.

>You can speak with a copyright lawyer about this (I know some) but I
>am certain of this...

Well, you seem to be missing my very simple point: no matter what a
lawyer says, if a license agreement gives someone the right to make
any number of copies of something I do, and to distribute those copies
in any way they see fit, what remaining meaning is there to the word
"copyright" which I supposedly still hold? What actual substance does
it have?

But perhaps any thought of moving the group is over-reaction. I don't
see it happening in any case, do you?

JdL

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

/tuning/topicId_18268.html#18280

>
> Well, you seem to be missing my very simple point: no matter what a
> lawyer says, if a license agreement gives someone the right to make
> any number of copies of something I do, and to distribute those
copies in any way they see fit, what remaining meaning is there to
the word "copyright" which I supposedly still hold? What actual
substance does it have?
>

Well, my understanding in reading this, is that they only mean on the
VERY SITE IT'S ALREADY ON! In otherwords, it covers the
"transmission
detail" of what we see and hear right on the Tuning List site.

They make it clear they do *NOT* own any copyrights, otherwise, and
the "copyright" is just that, the "right to make copies."

So, aside from the very site we are on and are
viewing/downloading/listening to, they can't make any other copies or
distribute the material in any way. That's how I read it, anyway:

"Yahoo does not claim ownership of Content you
submit or make available for inclusion on the Service.
However, with respect to Content you submit or make
available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of
the Service, you grant Yahoo the following world-wide,
royalty free and non-exclusive license(s), as
applicable:"

THEN, the paragraph you cite is placed... It's obviously a
"refinement" of the licensing agreement and has NOTHING to do with
copyright, which is the crucial issue.

In fact, Yahoo seems to be quite concerned about ownership and
copyright infringement of users who take material from the sites and
"infringe" copyrights.

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/copyright/copyright.html

Glad to hear that people like you to use their MIDI sequences. That
I guessed. However, if you can't reach the people and make every
effort to do so, and can prove it, I don't believe you can be accused
of copyright infringement. You can check with a copyright lawyer,
but I don't think so...

[Anybody ever see Jim Carrey's LIAR, LIAR?... just an aside...]

> But perhaps any thought of moving the group is over-reaction.

I believe it is. A rather severe one.

I don't see it happening in any case, do you?
>

Not yet. I think before that happens, since it would be such a
severe disruption, and would also severely disrupt the ARCHIVES (!!),
maybe even cause us to lose them... certainly the "searchable"
function, I think people ought to conver with Yahoo by e-mail to have
them answer any questions.

The copyright situation looks pretty clear to me, but if somebody
else has problems, we should ASK before abandoning the Titanic...

__________ _______ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

[I wrote:]
>>Well, you seem to be missing my very simple point: no matter what a
>>lawyer says, if a license agreement gives someone the right to make
>>any number of copies of something I do, and to distribute those
>>copies in any way they see fit, what remaining meaning is there to
>>the word "copyright" which I supposedly still hold? What actual
>>substance does it have?

[Joseph Pehrson:]
>Well, my understanding in reading this, is that they only mean on the
>VERY SITE IT'S ALREADY ON! In otherwords, it covers the
>"transmission
>detail" of what we see and hear right on the Tuning List site.

All well and good, as long as we're really sure that this is the meaning
of the TOS.

>Glad to hear that people like you to use their MIDI sequences. That
>I guessed. However, if you can't reach the people and make every
>effort to do so, and can prove it, I don't believe you can be accused
>of copyright infringement. You can check with a copyright lawyer,
>but I don't think so...

As I said, I'm not concerned about this, largely because I really do
respect the right of a sequencer not to grant me the right to mess with
their work and post the results. There's some great stuff I'd just love
to share that I can't, because the sequencer has not responded to my
request (as far as I remember, no one has yet said "no", but silence
comes to the same thing...).

>[Anybody ever see Jim Carrey's LIAR, LIAR?... just an aside...]

Yes, a very funny movie!

>>But perhaps any thought of moving the group is over-reaction.

>I believe it is. A rather severe one.

>>I don't see it happening in any case, do you?

>Not yet. I think before that happens, since it would be such a
>severe disruption, and would also severely disrupt the ARCHIVES (!!),
>maybe even cause us to lose them... certainly the "searchable"
>function, I think people ought to conver with Yahoo by e-mail to have
>them answer any questions.

>The copyright situation looks pretty clear to me, but if somebody
>else has problems, we should ASK before abandoning the Titanic...

Are you sure this is the analogy you want? ;->

JdL