.

This sounds like a sensible idea,I don't care what happens with the shit I do, but if a stranger were to profit & I didn't I would care VERY much, I don't really understand any of these license's, but I take your word for it Kevin.

I'm with Kevin on this. I'm speaking up ^

.

I think I am one of the "Old Timers". So ultimately there is no protection with the various licenses, just a well my songs are crap !

Stand by, let me call my attorney before I respond. Ralph your songs are great man

.

Ha, some good some not so good, I wish they could all be good but who's are ?

I thought mine were all OK.. Now I'm starting to second guess myself Ralph :)

I think we are our own harshest critics, your songs are still good,as are Kevins.

I am in favor of Kev's suggestion. I would like to have
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License as an option.

.

The problem I see is the ND part of it. ( You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.) If a member creates a project under this liscense then anybody who contributes is in violation of the terms. I know his particular liscence can only be made available after it's "published" but if all contributiing members don't agree, its a moot point. All told, this old timer (check your calendar you newbies) thinks CC BY-NC-ND might conflict with the spirit of the purpose of kompoz. 

Brannon, I think that you can contribute to a ND proj based on this understanding:

Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

I would think that allows the contribution of tracks if the proj owner gave global permission in their proj description, or some other public post like a discussion.

I'm in favor of offering the flexibility:

It would never stop me from contributing, but I would never choose it for one of my own projects, so it's really not an issue for me.

But I could change my mind and it would be nice to know it's there as an option.

Yep. You're right. The audition process in place here takes care of it. 

I think the option should be there to choose a CC BY-NC-ND, and I think the CC licensing needs to be here as a better than nothing protection.  But at the end of the day, if you're concerned about absolutely protecting your works to the fullest extent, then traditional copyright-all rights reserved- would be your "safest" route.  I mean, if you really wanted to be a stickler about it, in the scenario you guys are talking about regarding the inability to allow people to contribute to projects- look at provision 8 (c) of the "legalese" version of the license:

8. Miscellaneous

1. Each time You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work or a Collection, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.
2. If any provision of this License is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the terms of this License, and without further action by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable.
3. No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent.

The CC wiki (See Link), maintains a list of some court cases, I'm not sure how current this is as I have to rely on the CC site for the info, but the only US case (Jacobsen v. Katzer) dealt with whether the Creative Licensure fell underneath the purview of contract law or whether copyright law and remedies were applicable.  The 9th District Federal Court of Appeals found that traditional copyright did apply, which is how the Creative Commons Licensure is supposed to work- it is not meant to circumvent copyright law, it is meant to reserve some rights and give out other rights underneath applicable copyright law.  In contrast, we've all seen the traditional copyright contains "all rights reserved."  This Federal Court of Appeals case however is only binding on the 9th circuit (Us Crazy West Coasters ;) ), therefore it is not "nationwide" precedence.  There are a couple of international (to the US) cases listed, but still, there is little to go on compared to well-established copyright precedence.  

So I guess my point is, if I have one (not sure if I do? :) ) even with the lack of substantial case law precedence, I think CC is better than nothing, and is seeking to resolve an important issue in this age of quick access to information and file sharing.  I agree with Kev that we should have the additional option, and at the same time, I think if you are really worried about it and want to protect your work to the fullest extent, use a traditional copyright.  Is the likelihood very high of Coldplay (OK bad example, insert another band name there) or some nefarious song thief snatching stuff from kompoz users?  Probably not at this juncture, but there is always the chance, and as the site grows (I hope) maybe the risk will increase. New users really should definitely be careful with which license they choose.  OK blahblahblah I'm done :).  

@Chronozon (Ralph) wrote: "I think I am one of the "Old Timers". So ultimately there is no protection with the various licenses, just a well my songs are crap !"

Not entirely accurate.  Remember every single project here is ALSO under full copyright protection.  CC licensing does not REPLACE the copyright.  So every project begins with full copyright protection.  However, you as project owner may decide to grant licensing of your work to others based on the current CC licenses available.  What rights others may have with your work depends on which of the four CC licenses available are chosen.  Two of those option clearly state "non-commercial".  But none of the licenses prohibit the copyright holder from exploiting their own work in any manner they so choose, even if it might allows others to also use the work in some non-commercial way. 

It is also worth noting that any work published here would also be subject to Compulsory Mechanical License, meaning that anyone else can re-record your song, as long as they pay you the copyright holder a mechanical licensing fee.  (and you can't tell them "NO"...hence the word "compulsory" in the license!) Your published song could also be used by someone else as a soundtrack in their media work, but ONLY if they pay the appropriate syncronization fee.  That's what all those fees are about that you select when you publish here on Kompoz. 

And you're always free to cut your own deal with your own work no matter what. All those rights remain with the copyright holder no matter what CC license is granted.

As I see it, the additional CC license is fine as another option, but I'm not sure it is completely necessary given the rights that the copyright holders already have.

I think the value in the ND would be if you don't publish the song, or if you publish and DON'T choose the options to allow it's use.

.

I like the ND option idea.

As you upload to a project you upload to that project according to the license the project owner stipulates so that means you are agreeing to those terms for your own work as well.

If that is so then this license would be fairer to me as there is an imbalance between project owner and collaborater. If I submitted under this license then my idea in it's form has some form of protection, if it were altered then I would have the right to say that's not how I see it.

So the licensing is not just about the project owner but all who contribute and really I think it only fair you be allowed to have some say in how you are represented on a track, currently the project owner can just make a descsion regardless of your wishes. I have done tracks and expressed my concern at how it turned out and asked to be left out only to be told no it stays.

Now I can see people will say this will open a whole new can of worms but honestly the can is already open. Trust is an important thing to me and I like to work with those I can trust to avoid those problems. That said I avoid someone who does that so it's a one shot deal for them not to meet me half way.

At the end of the day if I continued to be difficult and pulled my ideas because it didn't meet my standards then I would pay the cost so like anything in life it must be used sparingly and with care. I always choose the non-commercial license and would greatly appreciate this option and just maybe the option to license your contribution as you prefer could be considered too instead of the current project owners license. Not sure that would work but to me it seems unfair not to be able to license what you have done in the manner you choose.

.

geez..you autotune a drummer once and its like the end of the fucking world...

oh, wait...

I must admit a slight temptation to alter your seps on Odin's prayer to pots and pans samples and I was really tempted to autotune Joe's voice once but it couldn't find the key and kept thinking it was 4/4 and not 6/8.

sorry I'm a little Astronutty comment idiocy deprived of late.

I want to apologise to anyone who was offended by me saying "fucking". I fucking hate it when I offend anyone...unless it's the wind from down under. Then I'm ok.

(Hi Andrew!)

:D

Sorry - I'm way off topic....um...yeah: rice noodles are key.

No?

...fuck.

you can make void the cc license by simply stataing the terms of your agreememt in accordance with your concent to it:as follows yes i agree with the cc lincensing so long as these terms  are met - state your tems and if they are violated  it nullifys all other agrement . put your terms in the over view box for all to see 

I object to being called windy downunder I am not I'm just flatulently low.

Hi Mr. Thunder

They have a pill for that now....

I think this is a great idea Kevin!

I want a license option that limits Bill to 10 mixes, 5 submixes and 3 queries.