I understand now, I think...

This forum is for discussing Reason. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
Flandersh
Posts: 124
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Norway

Post 25 Jan 2015

jfrichards wrote:Anybody would be very very lucky for their song to be a commercial success.
Someone would absolutely be lucky about that, and I find it likely that Propellerhead main focus is at that group of people since it makes very sense with the forum closing and so.

User avatar
JiggeryPokery
RE Developer
Posts: 1133
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 27 Jan 2015

avasopht wrote:

Did you not read the user agreement for your 8.1 update?

3.1 You retain all of your ownership rights in the Content that you create or upload to the Sharing Services. However, by uploading Content you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense). The license includes a right to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service. The license applies worldwide and is royalty-free and irrevocable
.



Did you not understand the user agreement for your 8.1 update?

The entire section is:

3.1 You retain all of your ownership rights in the Content that you create or upload to the Sharing Services.

Excellent!

However, by uploading Content you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense). The license includes a right to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service. The license applies worldwide and is royalty-free and irrevocable.

Oh. So anyone can use it. OK, I guess that's the whole point of the service, that's fine. But...
Because we offer an open music sharing service, we ask for broad rights, so we can publish files on the Internet, and so others can freely use the stuff that is posted. In kind, you’ll to be able to use everything you find on the service.
Know that even though you are granting broad rights to all, you always maintain ownership of your stuff.
We don’t intend to sell your content. Other people on the service might end up doing something successful with content they find and even make money from it (and so could you for that matter).

Let's parse that: Oh, and by the way, it's just "stuff", this word is deliberately used to subtly emphasize, reinforce and hammer home that the material you upload is totally worthless to you so you may as well share it! It's not your work, it's the not the fruits of your hard creative labour, it's just crappy old stuff! But it has value to us!

The last line of the quote above is telling "(and so could you for that matter)". If you are uploading stuff to Discover, chances are you're not making many producing music, it's a hobby. If you thought something was good enough to make money from, you'd use it yourself, not give away for someone else to make money from.

Someone like Sam Smith, on the other hand, or an unscrupulous producer (is there any other type?) could take a full track from Discover, re-arrange it a bit, have a No.1 hit, earn millions, and you are not entitled to a penny, as in the act of uploading "
you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense) ... even for commercial purposes". Just because Sam Smith can earn a million from your track doesn't mean you will earn a cent from your original version, or a cent from using anyone elses clips that you download - chances are you're still a hobbyist uses someone elses "stuff".

Can you afford to take Sam Smith to court to be recompensed? Probably not. Tom Petty can afford to, so Sam Smith is told to settle out of court! ;)

3.2 You understand that the Content uploaded by you may be used freely by other users, as well as included in the music, songs and Content of other users – even for commercial releases. You also understand that your uploaded music may be modified by other users of the Sharing Services without your prior approval.

So someone like Sam Smith, on the other hand, or an unscrupulous producer (there still isn't any other type?) could take a full track from Discover, re-arrange it a bit, have a No.1 hit, earn millions, and you are not entitled to a penny, or even entitled to recognition as the creator, although in principle you are, but there's nothing you can do about it because you've waived your right to it.
3.3 The license to Propellerhead includes a right to use the Content to perform the Sharing Services and in marketing of the Sharing Services or Propellerhead. Propellerhead has the right to assign and sublicense the license.

So PH can use your material for free to earn money, regardless of whether you use your material or anyone elses material to earn money. You might get a bit of kudos hearing your song on a PH video. That's cool, but it's a cheap way for them to produce marketing videos if they no longer have to pay PRS fees.
We want to be able to highlight cool stuff we find.
Note: there’s a way for you to set your content to “unlisted” (in the My Music section of your account). Your unlisted content won’t be discoverable by others, and we won’t highlight it. Unlisted files have secret links on the Internet and theoretically could be viewed if someone happens to get the secret URL.
You can always delete files, but know that someone could have already downloaded them before you deleted them.

So you upload your stuff, then realise it's quite good and can do something with it, but it's too late as Sam Smith has already pinched it, and you've already agreed to it.

3.4 You agree to and warrant that the Content is created, owned or duly licensed by you and that Propellerhead does not need the permission or license from any third party to use the described rights. You may not upload Content that contain third party copyrighted material, or material that is subject to other third party proprietary rights, unless you have the permission from the rightful owner of the material.

Good luck with that! Eventually someone will upload a track that not is theirs to upload, someone will remix it, it becomes a hit, the copyright owners get wind of it - who's liable? The uploader? Or PH for making it freely available? Probably everyone.


3.5 By uploading Content you further – to the extent permitted by law – waive any moral rights that may be vested in you as creator.

So what's the point in maintaining the illusion of keeping ownership?


3.6 Content that you have uploaded may be removed from the Sharing Services on your request. Please note that such removal has no retroactive effect and that your license still applies to use of Content started before such removal.
3.7 As a user of the Sharing Services, you are granted a license in accordance with section 3.1 from each other user who uploads Content. You understand that Propellerhead is thus not the licensor and does not warrant or is liable in connection with your use of the Content. The terms in these Terms of Service limiting Propellerhead’s liability also apply to your use of the Content.
"We have a Get out of Jail Free card, you do not pass Go or collect two hundred pounds"

______________________________________________________


I'm not a legal expert, as you can probably gather, so I'd be curious to hear what a third-party music lawyer would make of these terms. It has been the case that contacts can be torn up in court simply because the court decides the terms of the contract are unreasonable. It's also true that most of these EULA's don't actually get tested in court as the end users tend not to a) really understand them, b) can't really afford to risk challenging them. Thus the terms of contracts are often written on that basis, the knowledge that such contracts are almost never seriously challenged.

So, my layman reading - something you upload

1) You still own the copyright but you've waived you rights. So, er, then you don't own the copyright. You either own copyright or waive your rights, how can it conceivably be both?

2) If person who uses it scores a hit and earns the money, you earn nothing because you gave it away for free.

So the copyright ownership seems to me to be worthless.

If you create a loop ReFill, you provide a license that says the buyer can use it commercially, however you earn money because the user gave you money to be allowed to use your work freely. With Discover you just give "stuff" away that has no value to you, but might have a LOT of value for others to potentially earn money from, UNLESS you are able to earn money from the work of others; don't be deluded into thinking that's the case, that's the myth that's being peddled here, that this is all egalitarian and we're all just musicians and we're all on a level playing field or at the party hanging out in the kitchen.

Well, no, it's the business, and to me it would appear these terms are designed to take advantage of people who aren't in the business. That's what contracts to: they always favour the party who produced the contract.



User avatar
rvman
Posts: 125
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 27 Jan 2015

There are plenty of music apps that work on android and you can collaborate with others how ever you want. It's not new. In fact. I think PH are actually behind the times with this.
********************************
Reason 8, EZ Drummer 2, Loop Loft loops

User avatar
zeebot
Posts: 628
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: The Factory

Post 27 Jan 2015

avasopht wrote:

Did you not read the user agreement for your 8.1 update?

3.1 You retain all of your ownership rights in the Content that you create or upload to the Sharing Services. However, by uploading Content you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense). The license includes a right to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service. The license applies worldwide and is royalty-free and irrevocable
JiggeryPokery wrote:.


JiggeryPokery wrote:Did you not
JiggeryPokery wrote:understand
JiggeryPokery wrote: the user agreement for your 8.1 update?
[/color]
JiggeryPokery wrote:
JiggeryPokery wrote:The entire section is:
JiggeryPokery wrote:
3.1 You retain all of your ownership rights in the Content that you create or upload to the Sharing Services.
JiggeryPokery wrote:Excellent!
JiggeryPokery wrote:
However, by uploading Content
JiggeryPokery wrote:you grant every user
JiggeryPokery wrote: and Propellerhead a
JiggeryPokery wrote:non-exclusive right to use your music
JiggeryPokery wrote: (with the right to sublicense). The license includes a right to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content –
JiggeryPokery wrote:even for commercial purposes
JiggeryPokery wrote: – in
JiggeryPokery wrote:any and all media and distribution methods
JiggeryPokery wrote: and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service. The license
JiggeryPokery wrote:applies worldwide and is royalty-free and irrevocable
JiggeryPokery wrote:.
JiggeryPokery wrote:Oh.
JiggeryPokery wrote:
JiggeryPokery wrote:So
JiggeryPokery wrote:anyone
JiggeryPokery wrote: can use it. OK, I guess that's the whole point of the service, that's fine. But...
[/color]
JiggeryPokery wrote: Because we offer an open music sharing service, we ask for broad rights, so we can publish files on the Internet, and so
JiggeryPokery wrote:others can freely use the stuff that is posted
JiggeryPokery wrote:. In kind, you’ll to be able to use everything you find on the service.
Know that even though you are granting broad rights to all, you always maintain ownership of your stuff.
We don’t intend to sell your content.
JiggeryPokery wrote:Other people on the service might end up doing something successful with content they find and even make money from it
JiggeryPokery wrote: (and so could you for that matter).
JiggeryPokery wrote:Let's parse that: Oh, and by the way, it's just "
JiggeryPokery wrote:stuff
JiggeryPokery wrote:", this word is deliberately used to subtly emphasize, reinforce and hammer home that the material you upload is totally worthless to
JiggeryPokery wrote:you
JiggeryPokery wrote: so you may as well share it!
JiggeryPokery wrote:
JiggeryPokery wrote:It's not your
JiggeryPokery wrote: work,
JiggeryPokery wrote:it's the not the fruits of your
JiggeryPokery wrote: hard creative labour, it's just crappy old stuff
JiggeryPokery wrote:! But it
JiggeryPokery wrote:has value to
JiggeryPokery wrote:us!
[/color]
JiggeryPokery wrote:
JiggeryPokery wrote:The last line of the quote above is telling "
JiggeryPokery wrote:(and so could you for that matter)
JiggeryPokery wrote:". If you are uploading stuff to Discover, chances are you're not making many producing music, it's a hobby. If you thought something was good enough to make money from, you'd use it yourself, not give away for someone else to make money from.

Someone like Sam Smith, on the other hand, or an unscrupulous producer (is there any other type?) could take a full track from Discover, re-arrange it a bit, have a No.1 hit, earn millions, and you are not entitled to a penny, as in the act of uploading "
JiggeryPokery wrote:you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense) ... even for commercial purposes
JiggeryPokery wrote:"
JiggeryPokery wrote:. Just because Sam Smith can earn a million from your track doesn't mean you will earn a cent from your original version, or a cent from using anyone elses clips that you download - chances are you're still a hobbyist uses someone elses "stuff".

Can you afford to take Sam Smith to court to be recompensed? Probably not. Tom Petty can afford to, so Sam Smith is told to settle out of court! ;)
[/b]
JiggeryPokery wrote: 3.2 You understand that the Content uploaded by you may be used freely by other users, as well as included in the music, songs and Content of other users – even for commercial releases. You also understand that
JiggeryPokery wrote:your uploaded music may be modified by other users of the Sharing Services without your prior approval.
JiggeryPokery wrote:
JiggeryPokery wrote:So someone like Sam Smith, on the other hand, or an unscrupulous producer (there still isn't any other type?) could take a full track from Discover, re-arrange it a bit, have a No.1 hit, earn millions, and you are not entitled to a penny, or even entitled to recognition as the creator, although in principle you are, but there's nothing you can do about it because you've waived your right to it
JiggeryPokery wrote:.
JiggeryPokery wrote: 3.3 The license to Propellerhead includes a right to use the Content to perform the Sharing Services and in marketing of the Sharing Services or Propellerhead. Propellerhead has the right to assign and sublicense the license.
JiggeryPokery wrote:So PH can use your material for free to earn money, regardless of whether you use your material or anyone elses material to earn money. You might get a bit of kudos hearing your song on a PH video. That's cool, but it's a cheap way for them to produce marketing videos if they no longer have to pay PRS fees.
JiggeryPokery wrote: We want to be able to highlight cool stuff we find.
Note: there’s a way for you to set your content to “unlisted” (in the My Music section of your account). Your unlisted content won’t be discoverable by others, and we won’t highlight it. Unlisted files have secret links on the Internet and theoretically could be viewed if someone happens to get the secret URL.
You can always delete files, but know that someone could have already downloaded them before you deleted them.
JiggeryPokery wrote:So you upload your stuff, then realise it's quite good and can do something with it, but it's too late as Sam Smith has already pinched it, and you've already agreed to it.
JiggeryPokery wrote:
3.4 You agree to and warrant that the Content is created, owned or duly licensed by you and that Propellerhead does not need the permission or license from any third party to use the described rights.
JiggeryPokery wrote: You may not upload Content that contain third party copyrighted material
JiggeryPokery wrote:, or material that is subject to other third party proprietary rights, unless you have the permission from the rightful owner of the material.
JiggeryPokery wrote:Good luck with that!
JiggeryPokery wrote:Eventually someone
JiggeryPokery wrote:will
JiggeryPokery wrote: upload a track that not is theirs to upload, someone will remix it, it becomes a hit, the copyright owners get wind of it - who's liable? The uploader? Or PH for making it freely availabl
[/color]
JiggeryPokery wrote:e? Probably everyone.
JiggeryPokery wrote:
3.5 By uploading Content you further –
JiggeryPokery wrote:to the extent permitted by law
JiggeryPokery wrote: – waive any moral rights that may be vested in you as creator.
JiggeryPokery wrote:So what's the point in maintaining the illusion of keeping ownership?
JiggeryPokery wrote:

3.6 Content that you have uploaded may be removed from the Sharing Services on your request. Please note that
JiggeryPokery wrote:such removal has no retroactive effect and that your license still applies to use of Content started before such removal
JiggeryPokery wrote:.
3.7 As a user of the Sharing Services, you are granted a license in accordance with section 3.1 from each other user who uploads Content.
JiggeryPokery wrote:You understand that Propellerhead is thus not the licensor and does not warrant or is liable in connection with your use of the Content
JiggeryPokery wrote:. The terms in these Terms of Service limiting Propellerhead’s liability also apply to your use of the Content.
JiggeryPokery wrote:"We have a Get out of Jail Free card, you do not pass Go or collect two hundred pounds"
JiggeryPokery wrote: ______________________________________________________

JiggeryPokery wrote:I'm not a legal expert, as you can probably gather, so I'd be curious to hear what a third-party music lawyer would make of these terms. It has been the case that contacts can be torn up in court simply because the court decides the terms of the contract are unreasonable. It's also true that most of these EULA's don't actually get tested in court as the end users tend not to a) really understand them, b) can't really afford to risk challenging them. Thus the terms of contracts are often written on that basis, the knowledge that such contracts are almost never seriously challenged.
JiggeryPokery wrote:
JiggeryPokery wrote:So, my layman reading - something you upload
JiggeryPokery wrote:
JiggeryPokery wrote:1) You still own the copyright but you've waived you rights. So, er, then you don't own the copyright. You either own copyright or waive your rights,
JiggeryPokery wrote:how can it conceivably be both?
[/color]
JiggeryPokery wrote:
JiggeryPokery wrote:2) If person who uses it scores a hit and earns the money, you earn nothing because you gave it away for free.
JiggeryPokery wrote:
JiggeryPokery wrote:So the copyright ownership seems to me to be worthless.
JiggeryPokery wrote:
JiggeryPokery wrote:If you create a loop ReFill, you provide a license that says the buyer can use it commercially, however
JiggeryPokery wrote:you earn money
JiggeryPokery wrote: because the user gave you money to be allowed to use your work freely. With Discover you just give "stuff" away that has no value to you, but might have a LOT of value for others to potentially earn money from, UNLESS you are able to earn money from the work of others; don't be deluded into thinking that's the case, that's the myth that's being peddled here, that this is all egalitarian and we're all just musicians and we're all on a level playing field or at the party hanging out in the kitchen.

Well, no, it's the business, and to me it would appear these terms are designed to take advantage of people who aren't in the business. That's what contracts to: they
JiggeryPokery wrote:always
JiggeryPokery wrote: favour the party who produced the contract.
[/color]
JiggeryPokery wrote:
In another post I highlighted the fact that already people are uploading tracks by artists onto Discover that could be loaded directly into a DAW for the purpose of inclusion in another track without clearance.
Whoever thought of Discover must of at least had an inkling that shit like this would happen if you gave a recording device away for free and also linked it up to social media.
The onslaught of teeny girls with iphones uploading one direction tracks so them and their friends can listen and sing over it on the back of the school bus is just the tip of the iceberg.
Props are not only providing a service for musicians and non musicians to noodle out random ideas to be lost in a mountain of mediocrity that nobody really owns but they are also providing a service for people to easily break copyrights.
Say teenybopper476 uploads a one direction track via take...
Young bedroom producer who got R8.1 for christmas loads the wav into reason and chops and edits away until he has a 'super hybrid 3Direction dubtwat remix'
He puts it up on social media and it goes viral!!! yay!! lots of attention!! Its another Harlem Shark/Gingham thingy, well done.
Someone at 1D HQ stumbles across a twitter feed with the dubtwat remix on it..blatant copyright infringement! Get the lawyers!
"What you mean this software company actually allows people to automatically load the material directly into the production suite? Hmmm..we may make some money here gentlemen" 
Its obvious to even a layman that there are serious issues here so how the hell didn't props see it?
I dont know if Discover was a whim one night over the fondue or part of a long term plan, I do commend props for attempting something like this. I always thought a kind of online user cloud where people upload samples, patches, song files would have been good but not this.

 


I have embraced Allihoopa. Come listen and play with my crap Figure loops here:
https://allihoopa.com/zeebot

They really are crap.

User avatar
Exowildebeest
Posts: 1544
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 27 Jan 2015

I would assume Propellerheads has consulted music/copyright lawyers in formulating that license agreement.

My reading of it is, that it might actually be something very smart and well thought out: they're leaving it all to the users of the service to settle any copyright issues. Want to collaborate? Up to you to sort out the copyright stuff according to decent human standards or otherwise simply law. Most people will probably do the decent thing and work it out. Some (very few) might fight it out in court - thus as it has always been, and thusly, it shall always be... Thus.

User avatar
zakalwe
Posts: 447
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 27 Jan 2015

i guess someone who can actually use it can try uploading content and see if they can get a DMCA takedown.  this has been an issue for soundcloud and youtube forever.

User avatar
zeebot
Posts: 628
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: The Factory

Post 27 Jan 2015

But SC and youtube are different creatures, they are copyright infringement for the sake of listening. A DMCA takedown is common.
This is something entirely different. Propellerhead are providing a service not just for listening but also for manipulation of the copyrighted audio.
They even say it, upload using take and directly import it into music production software which is clearly for more than listening.
I know if I was an established artist and one of my songs had gone through the Take-Reason reproduction mill and become a hit I would be mad firstly with the company that provided this service. I would also point my lawyers toward the company as I'd much more chance getting paid that pursuing and individual.
I have embraced Allihoopa. Come listen and play with my crap Figure loops here:
https://allihoopa.com/zeebot

They really are crap.

User avatar
zakalwe
Posts: 447
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 27 Jan 2015

zeebot wrote:But SC and youtube are different creatures, they are copyright infringement for the sake of listening. A DMCA takedown is common.
This is something entirely different. Propellerhead are providing a service not just for listening but also for manipulation of the copyrighted audio.
They even say it, upload using take and directly import it into music production software which is clearly for more than listening.
I know if I was an established artist and one of my songs had gone through the Take-Reason reproduction mill and become a hit I would be mad firstly with the company that provided this service. I would also point my lawyers toward the company as I'd much more chance getting paid that pursuing and individual.
well, propellerhead have to respond to DMCA requests the same as anyone else.  it just depends if they're going to be reactive or proactive about it.  like if they're scanning uploads for watermarked material using audio lock or something similar to spot things that shouldn't be on there.

User avatar
zeebot
Posts: 628
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: The Factory

Post 27 Jan 2015

Springheeled Jock wrote:
well, propellerhead have to respond to DMCA requests the same as anyone else.  it just depends if they're going to be reactive or proactive about it.  like if they're scanning uploads for watermarked material using audio lock or something similar to spot things that shouldn't be on there.
Which is a possible reason for the PUF closing down. The resources were needed to moderate Discover? Maybe props have foreseen this issue but are yet to set it all up?
If so I dont envy the team tasked with keeping it all above board.
Not only have I seen multiple uploads of copyrighted material without permission but also the amount of double and treble uploads of the same content is an issue too as well as lots of silence at the start of uploads while users get their shit together.
I have embraced Allihoopa. Come listen and play with my crap Figure loops here:
https://allihoopa.com/zeebot

They really are crap.

User avatar
zakalwe
Posts: 447
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 27 Jan 2015

zeebot wrote:Which is a possible reason for the PUF closing down. The resources were needed to moderate Discover? Maybe props have foreseen this issue but are yet to set it all up?
If so I dont envy the team tasked with keeping it all above board.
Not only have I seen multiple uploads of copyrighted material without permission but also the amount of double and treble uploads of the same content is an issue too as well as lots of silence at the start of uploads while users get their shit together.
yes it'll be interesting to see how they deal with that.  i'd be really surprised if they didn't have a report system hooked into their database because dealing with that manually would make moderating PUF look like the oxford union.  probably you'll see stuff vanishing eventually.

User avatar
Exowildebeest
Posts: 1544
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 27 Jan 2015

zeebot wrote: I know if I was an established artist and one of my songs had gone through the Take-Reason reproduction mill and become a hit I would be mad firstly with the company that provided this service. I would also point my lawyers toward the company as I'd much more chance getting paid that pursuing and individual.
And your lawyers would point out that you don't stand a chance against Propellerhead, since you agreed to the terms and conditions ;) You can be mad all you like - it simply wouldn't be justified.

However, I can think of a more complex hypothetical situation, which is related to copyright, but stretches even further into weird legal territory.

Imagine a Neo-Nazi, or the Islamic State, or whatever evil fuckhead, makes a horrible hit song from your Discover upload. Would you 1.) Dare to sue for royalty money and/or 2.) Dare to sue for your material being abused by these people or be involved in a racism/terrorism case? :D

This situation isn't all that hypothetical btw, as here in Holland there are various jihadist rappers who regularly make hate-songs. And they have to get their beats somewhere...

User avatar
zeebot
Posts: 628
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: The Factory

Post 27 Jan 2015

zeebot wrote: I know if I was an established artist and one of my songs had gone through the Take-Reason reproduction mill and become a hit I would be mad firstly with the company that provided this service. I would also point my lawyers toward the company as I'd much more chance getting paid that pursuing and individual.
Exowildebeest wrote:
And your lawyers would point out that you don't stand a chance against Propellerhead, since you agreed to the terms and conditions ;) You can be mad all you like - it simply wouldn't be justified.
I think you are misunderstanding. When I say 'established' I dont mean in the reason community I mean like established in the music industry who probably have never even heard of reason let alone agreed to any terms or conditions.
I have embraced Allihoopa. Come listen and play with my crap Figure loops here:
https://allihoopa.com/zeebot

They really are crap.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9989
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 28 Jan 2015

jonheal wrote:It is kind of ironic that a developer of music creation software goes to great lengths to insure that their music creation software is not copied illegally, and then goes on to set up, promote and support a service which facilitates illegal copying of music.
Not sure I follow this - in one case the owner does not share the creation publicly (the Props/Reason), in the other the owner DOES share the creation (Us/our music). That's the beauty of the system - YOU can choose whether to share or not to share. Nothing illegal about sharing your music with others if you so choose, and systems like Creative Commons have arisen to more easily allow this. The internet itself "facilitates illegal copying of music", and yet supporting the internet doesn't mean you support the illegal copying of music.

Or am I totally missing your point? 
:)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
avasopht
Posts: 3127
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 28 Jan 2015

jonheal wrote: My point was, and it's a minor point, granted, that the service has the capacity to "facilitate" piracy. And yes, the Internet, in general, does that, as well. But Propellerhead doesn't own the Internet, and they do own Discover. A (maybe stretched) analogy would be if Propellerhead had a financial interest in Pirate Bay.
How is this different to any other service?
---

User avatar
avasopht
Posts: 3127
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 28 Jan 2015

jonheal wrote:I didn't say it was any different than any other service.

All I am saying is that it is somewhat humorous and ironic that a company obviously concerned about the piracy of their own product sets up a service that could possibly facilitate (I don't know how I can qualify those words with less emphasis :-)) piracy of others' material.
Because it's not exactly a service that favours piracy or provides any new freedom to piracy.

Really failing to see there relevance of the observation. Discover isn't going to kick start a wave of piracy and any acts of piracy would be taken down once noticed.
---

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9989
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 28 Jan 2015

jonheal wrote:I didn't say it was any different than any other service.

All I am saying is that it is somewhat humorous and ironic that a company obviously concerned about the piracy of their own product sets up a service that could possibly facilitate (I don't know how I can qualify those words with less emphasis :-)) piracy of others' material.
The term "could possibly" can apply to just about ANYTHING. I think that's why most are having a difficult time making the connection you suggest.

No biggie, carry on!
:)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
avasopht
Posts: 3127
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 28 Jan 2015

selig wrote: The term "could possibly" can apply to just about ANYTHING. I think that's why most are having a difficult time making the connection you suggest.

No biggie, carry on!
:)
Exactly!

The connection is a massive leap. We can be 100% certain that Discover will not increase piracy. We can be 100% certain Discover will not replace existing methods of piracy. We can be 100% certain that Discover will not become a prominent place for piracy, there are much more appropriate places for that that require much less effort.

Hence why the fear of Discovery being used for piracy is highly irrational.
---

User avatar
Social Exodus
Posts: 388
Joined: 19 Jan 2015
Location: The wilds of North Idaho

Post 29 Jan 2015

But in the face of all this legal mumbo-jumbo (can a US record company really sue a Swedish DAW company anyway?) I just like the idea of being able to collaborate with other people to see what's possible.  My sole goal in this area of my life is artistic creation so I guess I wouldn't even think of all these other "what if/when" scenarios.
:reason: 11 Suite/12 Perpetual License :re: Too many to count :refill: A few choice items

Nektar Panorama P4
Korg padKontrol

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 Jan 2015

JiggeryPokery wrote:

Did you not understand the user agreement for your 8.1 update?

The entire section is:

3.1 You retain all of your ownership rights in the Content that you create or upload to the Sharing Services.

Excellent!

However, by uploading Content you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense). The license includes a right to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service. The license applies worldwide and is royalty-free and irrevocable.

Oh. So anyone can use it. OK, I guess that's the whole point of the service, that's fine. But...
Because we offer an open music sharing service, we ask for broad rights, so we can publish files on the Internet, and so others can freely use the stuff that is posted. In kind, you’ll to be able to use everything you find on the service.
Know that even though you are granting broad rights to all, you always maintain ownership of your stuff.
We don’t intend to sell your content. Other people on the service might end up doing something successful with content they find and even make money from it (and so could you for that matter).

Let's parse that: Oh, and by the way, it's just "stuff", this word is deliberately used to subtly emphasize, reinforce and hammer home that the material you upload is totally worthless to you so you may as well share it! It's not your work, it's the not the fruits of your hard creative labour, it's just crappy old stuff! But it has value to us!

The last line of the quote above is telling "(and so could you for that matter)". If you are uploading stuff to Discover, chances are you're not making many producing music, it's a hobby. If you thought something was good enough to make money from, you'd use it yourself, not give away for someone else to make money from.

Someone like Sam Smith, on the other hand, or an unscrupulous producer (is there any other type?) could take a full track from Discover, re-arrange it a bit, have a No.1 hit, earn millions, and you are not entitled to a penny, as in the act of uploading "
you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense) ... even for commercial purposes". Just because Sam Smith can earn a million from your track doesn't mean you will earn a cent from your original version, or a cent from using anyone elses clips that you download - chances are you're still a hobbyist uses someone elses "stuff".

Can you afford to take Sam Smith to court to be recompensed? Probably not. Tom Petty can afford to, so Sam Smith is told to settle out of court! ;)

3.2 You understand that the Content uploaded by you may be used freely by other users, as well as included in the music, songs and Content of other users – even for commercial releases. You also understand that your uploaded music may be modified by other users of the Sharing Services without your prior approval.

So someone like Sam Smith, on the other hand, or an unscrupulous producer (there still isn't any other type?) could take a full track from Discover, re-arrange it a bit, have a No.1 hit, earn millions, and you are not entitled to a penny, or even entitled to recognition as the creator, although in principle you are, but there's nothing you can do about it because you've waived your right to it.
3.3 The license to Propellerhead includes a right to use the Content to perform the Sharing Services and in marketing of the Sharing Services or Propellerhead. Propellerhead has the right to assign and sublicense the license.

So PH can use your material for free to earn money, regardless of whether you use your material or anyone elses material to earn money. You might get a bit of kudos hearing your song on a PH video. That's cool, but it's a cheap way for them to produce marketing videos if they no longer have to pay PRS fees.
We want to be able to highlight cool stuff we find.
Note: there’s a way for you to set your content to “unlisted” (in the My Music section of your account). Your unlisted content won’t be discoverable by others, and we won’t highlight it. Unlisted files have secret links on the Internet and theoretically could be viewed if someone happens to get the secret URL.
You can always delete files, but know that someone could have already downloaded them before you deleted them.

So you upload your stuff, then realise it's quite good and can do something with it, but it's too late as Sam Smith has already pinched it, and you've already agreed to it.

3.4 You agree to and warrant that the Content is created, owned or duly licensed by you and that Propellerhead does not need the permission or license from any third party to use the described rights. You may not upload Content that contain third party copyrighted material, or material that is subject to other third party proprietary rights, unless you have the permission from the rightful owner of the material.

Good luck with that! Eventually someone will upload a track that not is theirs to upload, someone will remix it, it becomes a hit, the copyright owners get wind of it - who's liable? The uploader? Or PH for making it freely available? Probably everyone.


3.5 By uploading Content you further – to the extent permitted by law – waive any moral rights that may be vested in you as creator.

So what's the point in maintaining the illusion of keeping ownership?


3.6 Content that you have uploaded may be removed from the Sharing Services on your request. Please note that such removal has no retroactive effect and that your license still applies to use of Content started before such removal.
3.7 As a user of the Sharing Services, you are granted a license in accordance with section 3.1 from each other user who uploads Content. You understand that Propellerhead is thus not the licensor and does not warrant or is liable in connection with your use of the Content. The terms in these Terms of Service limiting Propellerhead’s liability also apply to your use of the Content.
"We have a Get out of Jail Free card, you do not pass Go or collect two hundred pounds"

______________________________________________________


I'm not a legal expert, as you can probably gather, so I'd be curious to hear what a third-party music lawyer would make of these terms. It has been the case that contacts can be torn up in court simply because the court decides the terms of the contract are unreasonable. It's also true that most of these EULA's don't actually get tested in court as the end users tend not to a) really understand them, b) can't really afford to risk challenging them. Thus the terms of contracts are often written on that basis, the knowledge that such contracts are almost never seriously challenged.

So, my layman reading - something you upload

1) You still own the copyright but you've waived you rights. So, er, then you don't own the copyright. You either own copyright or waive your rights, how can it conceivably be both?

2) If person who uses it scores a hit and earns the money, you earn nothing because you gave it away for free.

So the copyright ownership seems to me to be worthless.

If you create a loop ReFill, you provide a license that says the buyer can use it commercially, however you earn money because the user gave you money to be allowed to use your work freely. With Discover you just give "stuff" away that has no value to you, but might have a LOT of value for others to potentially earn money from, UNLESS you are able to earn money from the work of others; don't be deluded into thinking that's the case, that's the myth that's being peddled here, that this is all egalitarian and we're all just musicians and we're all on a level playing field or at the party hanging out in the kitchen.

Well, no, it's the business, and to me it would appear these terms are designed to take advantage of people who aren't in the business. That's what contracts to: they always favour the party who produced the contract.

This assessment of the situation seems spot on bro. That's how I'm reading it too.

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: BlueEddie, CommonCrawl [Bot] and 2 guests