DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Help: Whoa now ... let me get this straight (Artist Agreement)

Electric guitars, Classical guitars, Guitar amps and more.

zZounds.com offers recording equipment for starting and experienced musicians. Find the best prices on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, classical guitars and more.

Forums > Help

Whoa now ... let me get this straight (Artist Agreement)

chuckles572	Date: September 28, 2002 @ 11:12 PM The section before that says that we retain all copyrights and interest in our matierals, but this section essentially nullifies our retention of copyrights. Modification, derivative works, sublicensing... Is it some sort of technicality that this clause has to be included, or does DMusic actually take advantage of that clause?? It would seem to me that if it were such the case, anyone could licence or othwerwise use music from here (with permission of DMusic) and the musician would never see a cent of any royalties because of the Royalty Free clause... I'm assuming the original author of the song would recieve credit, but still... I'm no lawyer, so I could be wrong ... and if I am, please correct me." id="21323">"(c) to modify, adapt, change or otherwise alter the Artist Materials; (d) to create derivative works based on the Artist Materials or any part or element thereof; and (e) the right to sublicense to any third party the Artist Materials or any part or element thereof. Artist hereby disclaims any and all right, title, or interest in any and all material with which Artist Materials may be combined or into which all or any portion of Artist Materials may be incorporated." The section before that says that we retain all copyrights and interest in our matierals, but this section essentially nullifies our retention of copyrights. Modification, derivative works, sublicensing... Is it some sort of technicality that this clause has to be included, or does DMusic actually take advantage of that clause?? It would seem to me that if it were such the case, anyone could licence or othwerwise use music from here (with permission of DMusic) and the musician would never see a cent of any royalties because of the Royalty Free clause... I'm assuming the original author of the song would recieve credit, but still... I'm no lawyer, so I could be wrong ... and if I am, please correct me.
GrooveTonic	Date: September 28, 2002 @ 11:53 PM yeah it does seem kinda shady
chuckles572	Date: September 29, 2002 @ 2:06 AM Do admins hang around here or should I write one personally??
Wordsense	Date: September 29, 2002 @ 3:19 AM look if you're worried about anyone taken off with some of your material, just hook yourself up with a 'poor man's copyright'.... take your lyrics (and music sheets if you have them), put the written dates on them....take all that shit, put it all in a big manilla envelope and mail it back to yourself (BUT DO NOT OPEN IT, UNLESS SOMEONE TRIES TO PULL SOME BULLSHIT WITH YOUR MATERIAL)...keep it in a safe place so you'll have it if anyhting ever pops off in the future, you'll have the material in a dated envelope...thus you have a POOR MAN'S COPYRIGHT
chuckles572	Date: September 29, 2002 @ 3:25 AM It's not the copyrights themselves that I'm worreid about, I have that all taken care of. It's the fact that through this agreement you seemingly give up what protection ANY copyright (poor-man or otherwise) would provide. And I'm just curious as to what extent Dmusic would take advantage of their ability to basically do whatever they want with your music...
Wordsense	Date: September 29, 2002 @ 3:36 AM let 'em try anything...i'll still sue their asses...agreement or not...
thumbtack	Date: September 29, 2002 @ 3:40 AM leflaw.dmusic.net for the latest. the artist agreement that is currently shown in the artist sign up pages is the old one. (and I have a feeling was inspired by the other place that's now owned by Universal music. " id="21358">Check out leflaw.dmusic.net for the latest. the artist agreement that is currently shown in the artist sign up pages is the old one. (and I have a feeling was inspired by the other place that's now owned by Universal music.
chuckles572	Date: September 29, 2002 @ 3:44 AM Eh ... but you can't. You agreed to all this when you signed up. Now you see what I'm getting at?" id="21360">"let 'em try anything...i'll still sue their asses...agreement or not..." Eh ... but you can't. You agreed to all this when you signed up. Now you see what I'm getting at?
chuckles572	Date: September 29, 2002 @ 3:46 AM BTW thanks for the link Thumbtack ... I checked and it looks like the one I saw from the start (on the sign up page) is the same one posted there.
Wordsense	Date: September 29, 2002 @ 3:47 AM well, i'll jsut take my work off the site then..lol
ChillinBuzz	Date: September 29, 2002 @ 4:16 AM Is this true?
forrix	Date: September 29, 2002 @ 4:54 AM i'll be the first to admit i'm out of my element on this one, but the big question in my mind is: Why does DMusic have to have any kind of agreement at all? I could understand some kind of disclaimer releasing DMusic from liability if an 8-year-old's parents sued because their son downloaded a song with profanity in it... but I have no clue why DMusic needs THIS sort of thing. the theory behind this? anybody??
chuckles572	Date: September 29, 2002 @ 11:25 AM Whenever any kind of service is provided there has to be some sort of contract or agreement. In cases like this (i.e. music sites), you have to give the site permission to host and distribute your music and agree that they can do that without payment to you, blah blah... But like I said, that part in my first post is a little odd. BTW I'm not trying to chase anyone away from DMusic with this ... all the musicians agreed to it, so it shouldn't be a shock to anyone ... I'm just curious here.
chuckles572	Date: October 3, 2002 @ 2:02 PM 4 days and not even a comment on who to contact to ask a question??
Cryxan	Date: October 3, 2002 @ 3:20 PM Yeah, you'd think someone would have been able to come up with an explanation by now. You can try emailing leflaw@leflaw.com or tech@leflaw.com. Leflaw owns the site and is probably the one who wrote the agreement. He should definitely be able to address this.
chuckles572	Date: October 3, 2002 @ 8:30 PM Ah... well thank you
Cryxan	Date: October 3, 2002 @ 8:43 PM
Frawgster	Date: October 3, 2002 @ 8:46 PM Strangely, no one listened :\|" id="21939">Back when I was a more active admin, I tried to persuade the writers of the artist agreement to have it say the following: "ALL YOUR MUSIC ARE BELONG TO US." Strangely, no one listened
NeoFlash	Date: October 3, 2002 @ 9:55 PM Leflaw is a lawyer, whatdaya expect anyway they are so confusing. All the fine print, my eyes are burning... reading the fine print of kazaa's user agreement was funny, people have NO IDEA what they are agreeing to.
Cryxan	Date: October 3, 2002 @ 10:00 PM You wanna talk funny? The Kazaalite agreement it funny. "Installing this software is illegal..."
NeoFlash	Date: October 3, 2002 @ 10:04 PM Yeah. And they try to pass off gator and gain as things that pop up windows based on your interests, aka spys on you and puts ads up depending on what you do, even if it is not even closely related. Imesh has the most spyware actually. I got it just so I could find the files and block them in zonealarm, just like I gave my computer a vaccine.
leflaw	Date: October 4, 2002 @ 3:20 AM what do you think dmusic should be able to do with your music? Or not do?
Wordsense	Date: October 4, 2002 @ 3:44 AM you shouldnt do anything with it...other than host it on this site
ChillinBuzz	Date: October 4, 2002 @ 8:24 AM The site needs more promotion. Seeing as it's free at least maybe compilation CDs of someone's choice (like a vote perhaps?) to 'pay the DM bills', so to speak maybe just listening to the music is cool enough
RevHope	Date: October 4, 2002 @ 8:43 AM every website needs an agreement to cover their ass. After all, they're copyright laws to obey. Personally, if I take the time to produce a track, I would like to think I have some rights to it. Maybe not sole rights, but at least some. I agree with Chillin, more promotion is needed.
milladrive	Date: October 4, 2002 @ 9:36 AM ;)" id="22043">This is what I think the agreement should say: "DMusic may do whatever it damn well wishes with any music that is uploaded to its servers. The only exclusion to this rule is in the form of compensation. Should DMusic be compensated for the use of said work, the artist shall be fairly compensated, with DM rataining a certain percentage. Thank you."
boycott	Date: October 4, 2002 @ 9:38 AM To the point Milla!
chuckles572	Date: October 4, 2002 @ 12:02 PM Well, I DO think DMusic should be able obviously to distribute, modify (for the purpose of lo-fi or sound clips, etc...), and things along those lines. On the other hand, there's the whole derivative work and sublicensing thing. I copyright my music so that I have sole right to it, and so that I may be conpensated if my music is used. Obviously, I must agree to allow DMusic certain rights to my music (i.e. distribution and limited modification for distribution's sake), however I do think that things like derivative works and licensing should still be the interest, responsibility, and right of the owner of the music and the copyright. Honestly, I don't like the fact that someone can come to DMusic, LICENESE MY MUSIC from DMusic, use it as per the agreed license, compensate DMusic for it, and I'd never see a cent of it. This agreement would even allow DMusic to modify my music and then license it. Licensing, in my eyes, should occur directly between the copyright owner and the licencee since that is a major reason for holding a copyright in the first place. Again, I'm not a lawyer so if I'm wrong here correct me. But my point is, that this agreement seems to do everything except transfer ownership of the music to DMusic. " id="22063">"what do you think dmusic should be able to do with your music? Or not do?" Well, I DO think DMusic should be able obviously to distribute, modify (for the purpose of lo-fi or sound clips, etc...), and things along those lines. On the other hand, there's the whole derivative work and sublicensing thing. I copyright my music so that I have sole right to it, and so that I may be conpensated if my music is used. Obviously, I must agree to allow DMusic certain rights to my music (i.e. distribution and limited modification for distribution's sake), however I do think that things like derivative works and licensing should still be the interest, responsibility, and right of the owner of the music and the copyright. Honestly, I don't like the fact that someone can come to DMusic, LICENESE MY MUSIC from DMusic, use it as per the agreed license, compensate DMusic for it, and I'd never see a cent of it. This agreement would even allow DMusic to modify my music and then license it. Licensing, in my eyes, should occur directly between the copyright owner and the licencee since that is a major reason for holding a copyright in the first place. Again, I'm not a lawyer so if I'm wrong here correct me. But my point is, that this agreement seems to do everything except transfer ownership of the music to DMusic.
chuckles572	Date: October 4, 2002 @ 12:04 PM I also realize that this is all part of the DMusic agreement and that I don't have to agree with it. I'm just wondering why such things would be in an agreement like that...
RevHope	Date: October 4, 2002 @ 1:37 PM Milla: What would DMusic actually use the songs for tho? That part puzzles me a little bit? To do with whatever they want such as?????? Fill in the blank please?
mracky	Date: October 4, 2002 @ 2:28 PM wordsense: I'm stretching my memory back to 1970's when I used the 'poor man's copyright' -- I don't think the law has been changed since then, so be warned that this may not be adequate protection. This method falls under the same class as the common copyright: 'copyright (c) 2002 your_name' which protects your stuff as long as its a limited distribution -- meaning demos being sent out to companies,e tc. The number of 'demos' you can send out are not defined, but I remember 500 to 1000 being our guideline. I would think that releasing your music to the internet for public consumption would not be considered a limited distribution, which might make the poor man's copyright superfluous. (lawyer's please correct me if this has changed) An alternative trick is to pool all your songs under a canopy: 'My Songs Suite Number 1' and pay one official fee for the lot.
chuckles572	Date: October 4, 2002 @ 7:31 PM http://msg.mp3.com/artistforums/liststory/?topic_id=107136&month=200 208" id="22142">As far as the poor man's copyright ... it was just upheld recently in court, check this out: http://msg.mp3.com/artistforums/liststory/?topic_id=107136&month=200 208
milladrive	Date: October 5, 2002 @ 1:20 AM Ahh, I'm only kiddin' Rev. I personally don't think we should wanna do anything with anyone's creations without lettin'em know about it. I just think it shouldn't be all about legalese and run-on sentences dealing with subclauses, sublicenses, and submarine sandwiches. If no money is made from the music, then I fail to understand why an artist would require compensation for the use of the work. At the same time, I see no reason why DMusic would wanna make money from the track and not compensate the creator/copyright holder. That'd make us no better than Hilary and her labelled cronies. All things bein' equal, I think any exposure is good exposure.
ChillinBuzz	Date: October 5, 2002 @ 4:10 AM woohoo! Poor Man's Copyright holds it's own!
RevHope	Date: October 5, 2002 @ 9:50 AM Milla: heh, k. I kinda figured u were joking. Personally, it doesn't really matter to me one way or another.

Post A Reply
From:	guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: