How does the licensing work in Take/Figure Sharing?

This forum is for discussing Reason. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 30 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote:But a community refill is very different in that it's mostly sounds and templates to create musical ideas, rather than lyrics, vocals, melodies, hooks and other unique musically performed components.
I contributed to the Ochen K Chip84 refill and it's nothing like writing a vocal line or melodic hook and putting it on Discover for someone to add a kick drum to, and sell.
normen wrote:
If you think so, don't upload your stuff to Discover.. I think programming a kick-ass synth preset is pretty much the same as putting down a kick-ass take, it probably even takes longer to do so and certainly doesn't take less skill. I also think that the current generation mostly has no issue with people re-mixing their stuff (in any way, see youtube etc.). And if that hookline or whatever is the cause for that "fame" that brought in money.. You can still use it yourself to make the same money..

I am seeing stuff like this constantly, I am a co-developer of an open source game engine. Most people just use what we did in months worth of our spare time and make a game to sell it on some app store.. A few people come back and contribute something back to the engine that I in turn could use to make a game myself..

You can still use Discover to make music with single people, if its not public then its not open for public use. And I'm pretty sure they add some way to get a revenue stream from Discover as well at some point. Still can't agree to your basic notion of Discover and what it does in its current form being a no-go at all.
Are you kidding me Normen?
You're essentially saying Leo Fender designing guitars is no different from Jeff Beck, Satriani or whoever creating melodies on the guitar?
Creating a preset for an instrument is at best, making an instrument someone then creates music with.
Writing lyrics, melodies and hooks is very different to creating a synth preset. If I have to explain that to you this is a waste of time.

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 30 Jan 2015

normen wrote:I also think that the current generation mostly has no issue with people re-mixing their stuff (in any way, see youtube etc.). And if that hookline or whatever is the cause for that "fame" that brought in money.. You can still use it yourself to make the same money..
And this is just crazy talk.
1. There's no requirement for the person who takes your lyric and vocal to give you any credit. You've signed off on any "moral rights" in the license. There's no fame. There's no money. That meaningful poem you wrote is free for Monsanto to use to promote poison. You honestly think kids, creative kids with hopes dreams, ideals and aspirations are cool with that scenario?
I think you're dreaming.

2.What data have you used to reach this conclusion about the current generation? You've polled them? You've gone around and questioned them about whether they're cool with the rich getting richer, and the poor staying poor? You've asked them whether it's cool if Paris Hilton gets all the money and credit for something they create? Or have you just decided that because you feel a particular way, because you don't give a rats arse about what you create, you "just feel" that the rest of the generation must feel it to? Is that' what's happening?

Because in all my years of living, I have never met anyone cool with being legally robbed. Never.

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 30 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote: I don't know about you bro, but I'd call the police if someone stole my $200 guitar, or my wallet that had $20 in it. If you're fine with people making $200 here and there from something you wrote, while you make nothing, upload it to Discover. I'm not cool with that, nor with taking what someone created and making money from it.
platzangst wrote:
But if you gave someone a $200 guitar as a Christmas gift, you would be a jerk if they used it to record a hit song and then you came looking for your $200 back.

Anyone who pays attention to what they participate in should already understand that uploading material to Discover is, essentially, a gift to all other users. This should not be a surprise to anyone who can read.
Except giving someone a guitar is like giving someone synth presets or whatever. It's an instrument, it's not giving them intellectual property, but physical property.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 30 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote:Are you kidding me Normen? 
You're essentially saying Leo Fender designing guitars is no different from Jeff Beck, Satriani or whoever creating melodies on the guitar? 
Creating a preset for an instrument is at best, making an instrument someone then creates music with. 
Writing lyrics, melodies and hooks is very different to creating a synth preset. If I have to explain that to you this is a waste of time.
Well I am certain Mr. Satriani and Mr. Beck would strongly disagree with you as well and call a great guitar builder an artist (or better artisan) just as worthy as themselves. If I have to explain that to you then this is a waste of time I agree.

Yorick wrote:And this is just crazy talk. 
1. There's no requirement for the person who takes your lyric and vocal to give you any credit. You've signed off on any "moral rights" in the license. There's no fame. There's no money. That meaningful poem you wrote is free for Monsanto to use to promote poison. You honestly think kids, creative kids with hopes dreams, ideals and aspirations are cool with that scenario?
I think you're dreaming.

2.What data have you used to reach this conclusion about the current generation? You've polled them? You've gone around and questioned them about whether they're cool with the rich getting richer, and the poor staying poor? You've asked them whether it's cool if Paris Hilton gets all the money and credit for something they create? Or have you just decided that because you feel a particular way, because you don't give a rats arse about what you create, you "just feel" that the rest of the generation must feel it to? Is that' what's happening?

Because in all my years of living, I have never met anyone cool with being legally robbed. Never.
First of all, when I start a sentence with "I think" you have no right whatsoever to call that "crazy talk", I would have thought better of you and you just went down about 4 to 6 notches in my personal opinion of you. Yet I'll explain how I arrive at my opinion.

1) I said that if this melody or whatever you uploaded is the reason for the fame then you can use it and achieve the same. If you can't then its either not your content or you are not capable of making that money yourself which both disqualifies you at getting a share of that pie. Tons of comedians make money off having watched people at bars or just at walmart, you think all these people should get a share off the money as well?

2) Again I said "I think" and I don't think that this deserves such a strong reaction from you. Anyway, just go to 4chan or youtube. All these memes that are on sites like themetapicture.com (which makes the money with them from the ads) are coming from somewhere. They are born from some guy posting a funny pic or a line, then others coming in and refining them until they are so good that they hit a spot with so many people that they keep reposting them on facebook. The people who invented the lines, did the photoshop work etc. don't get a dime but they are fine with doing it all over again and seeing their stuff being reposted and even made money with. Same with people posting vines on youtube that they sometimes invested a lot of time in.

And again, if you don't agree you don't have to post you music on Discover. Nobody "robs" you of anything, you agree to whats being done. I'm sure you have done (or have seen others who did) studio work and got paid your share of money just to see that the people who publish these pieces make a lot more money than you got. Did you get robbed? Is that unfair?

For an outwardly very christian guy you seem to be very much about the greed game. So we know you won't post any music on Discover and not collaborate with somebody openly because you're afraid you wouldn't get some virtually existing money that somebody potentially could make with what you create. And you complain about the "rich getting richer".. Could it be that this is just a bit of jealousy? Because those rich people getting richer certainly can't play guitar like you do but they play the greed game a lot better, they know how to make the money off something and that never comes from the core idea, melody or whatever.

User avatar
Lunesis
Moderator
Posts: 422
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 30 Jan 2015

I foresee this thread going down a dark path... calling somebody greedy or crazy is not likely to stimulate a constructive conversation.

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 30 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote:Are you kidding me Normen? 
You're essentially saying Leo Fender designing guitars is no different from Jeff Beck, Satriani or whoever creating melodies on the guitar? 
Creating a preset for an instrument is at best, making an instrument someone then creates music with. 
Writing lyrics, melodies and hooks is very different to creating a synth preset. If I have to explain that to you this is a waste of time.
normen wrote:
Well I am certain Mr. Satriani and Mr. Beck would strongly disagree with you as well and call a great guitar builder an artist (or better artisan) just as worthy as themselves. If I have to explain that to you then this is a waste of time I agree.
They're different art forms. I own Fenders. They're great guitars. But they are PHYSICAL creations. They're not intellectual property. The DESIGN of the guitar is intellectual property, but the guitar itself is physical, and it enables musical creations to be performed on it. This is not the same thing as being a musical composition.

A synth preset is not a song, nothing like a song. To even compare the two is like comparing Apples with The theory of relativity: One is a physical thing you eat. The other is an explanatory idea about a process. They're both awesome, but nothing alike.
Yorick wrote:And this is just crazy talk. 
1. There's no requirement for the person who takes your lyric and vocal to give you any credit. You've signed off on any "moral rights" in the license. There's no fame. There's no money. That meaningful poem you wrote is free for Monsanto to use to promote poison. You honestly think kids, creative kids with hopes dreams, ideals and aspirations are cool with that scenario?
I think you're dreaming.

2.What data have you used to reach this conclusion about the current generation? You've polled them? You've gone around and questioned them about whether they're cool with the rich getting richer, and the poor staying poor? You've asked them whether it's cool if Paris Hilton gets all the money and credit for something they create? Or have you just decided that because you feel a particular way, because you don't give a rats arse about what you create, you "just feel" that the rest of the generation must feel it to? Is that' what's happening?

Because in all my years of living, I have never met anyone cool with being legally robbed. Never.

First of all, when I start a sentence with "I think" you have no right whatsoever to call that "crazy talk", I would have thought better of you and you just went down about 4 to 6 notches in my personal opinion of you. Yet I'll explain how I arrive at my opinion.
C'est la vie.

1) I said that if this melody or whatever you uploaded is the reason for the fame then you can use it and achieve the same. If you can't then its either not your content or you are not capable of making that money yourself which both disqualifies you at getting a share of that pie. Tons of comedians make money off having watched people at bars or just at walmart, you think all these people should get a share off the money as well?
Google Jacob's Ladder. Bruce Hornsby wrote the song. Huey Lewis covered it and had a hit with it. Hornsby made a lot of money from the songwriting royalties and later released his own version of it. But it was never as popular as the Lewis version. Copyright law meant that he saw his publishing money though.
With Discover, that scenario can't happen because you assign a license for the next person to do whatever they want with the material. There's no publishing split guaranteed. There's no protection in place and no right to be credited (part of the moral right). So how are you going to get your original idea noticed? Youtube? A few keywords?

It's "crazy talk" because it ignores precedents and the current music industry reality of oversaturation, and this very weird copyright/license issue.
Apologies for the offense caused. I'm not suggesting you're really insane. It's just a turn of phrase.
2) Again I said "I think" and I don't think that this deserves such a strong reaction from you. Anyway, just go to 4chan or youtube. All these memes that are on sites like themetapicture.com (which makes the money with them from the ads) are coming from somewhere. They are born from some guy posting a funny pic or a line, then others coming in and refining them until they are so good that they hit a spot with so many people that they keep reposting them on facebook. The people who invented the lines, did the photoshop work etc. don't get a dime but they are fine with doing it all over again and seeing their stuff being reposted and even made money with. Same with people posting vines on youtube that they sometimes invested a lot of time in.

And again, if you don't agree you don't have to post you music on Discover. Nobody "robs" you of anything, you agree to whats being done. I'm sure you have done (or have seen others who did) studio work and got paid your share of money just to see that the people who publish these pieces make a lot more money than you got. Did you get robbed? Is that unfair?

For an outwardly very christian guy you seem to be very much about the greed game. So we know you won't post any music on Discover and not collaborate with somebody openly because you're afraid you wouldn't get some virtually existing money that somebody potentially could make with what you create. And you complain about the "rich getting richer".. Could it be that this is just a bit of jealousy? Because those rich people getting richer certainly can't play guitar like you do but they play the greed game a lot better, they know how to make the money off something and that never comes from the core idea, melody or whatever.
There are principals other than seeking protection for my own art at stake.

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 30 Jan 2015

EnochLight wrote:I think if Discover as a curated, communal, Factory Sound Bank. Nothing more.
JiggeryPokery wrote:
No, that's a really bad comparison and you need to stop that way of thinking now, imo.

You've
JiggeryPokery wrote:bought
JiggeryPokery wrote: Reason, thus
JiggeryPokery wrote:paid
JiggeryPokery wrote: a license fee (or rather, Props have paid a fee for the loops, eLabs et al, and all the other FSB sound designers, you pay Props) to freely use those paid for samples and patches in your commercial work.

With Discover you can freely use other people's efforts in your commercial work and nothing has been paid to anyone else. Buy you'd be alright, Jack! You get all the royalities!! ;)

Of course, if you're
JiggeryPokery wrote:not
JiggeryPokery wrote: producing commercial work, i.e., you're a hobbyist, then Discover I imagine works fine. But who is a hobbyist and who is a commercial producer? Already last year we saw a commercial artist caught with his pants down, so to speak, using warezed music software. Let's recap that great excuse: Oh, it was my engineers laptop, no really, it was, it was an emergency and I didn't have my laptop with my own real license!

So commercial producers are happy to use material and software illegally if they can find ways to justify it to themselves. So someone will be more than happy to scour your work on Discover looking for something they can rip off. If Sam Smith found a musical loop of you farting on Discover, he can simply put a beat to it and his fans will buy it on iTunes in their hundreds of thousands and he'll make millions from you farting into your iPhone.

They have that fanbase, the quality of the content itself doesn't matter, cos fans will buy any old shit!

Although frankly, you farting into an iPhone is likely of far higher musical quality than Sam Smith ;)

joeyluck wrote:It never crossed my mind that I would ever upload my masterpiece to Discover. I would never upload something in which I am extremely attached. And if there's something I upload that I am not so fond of and someone makes a hit, there's no reason to be bitter.
JiggeryPokery wrote:
The first statement will likely be true of most users, people would keep what they consider their best work to themselves. But then what is one person's
JiggeryPokery wrote:rejected
JiggeryPokery wrote: material they've uploaded to Discovery can become gold-dust to someone else.

They could still potentially earn a lot of money on something they didn't write,
JiggeryPokery wrote:merely arranged
JiggeryPokery wrote:, and you still might not be able to do anything "good" (whatever "good" means here) with your original loop.

For example Adam Fielding's now infamous production is not his song. It's clearly written by the person who uploaded the loop. Adam did a typically great job of arranging it. But now Props are using that arrangement to market Discover, and by extension their commercial products, to whit, Take and Figure. So Props sell more Apps; Adam earns nothing for arranging, because he's agreed to do the work free, but does earn a bit of kudos, while the original uploader doesn't even earn that, he's long since forgotten. But let's be clear, that original uploader is the
JiggeryPokery wrote:writer
JiggeryPokery wrote: of that track. It's arguably no different to The Verve just using a brief Andrew Oldham string loop and writing a whole new song around it - the court ruled it was Oldham's song.

Props "get out of jail free card" is that they hope that people can sort this out between themselves. But in practice a lot of people are selfish and they simply won't bother. And the hobbyist who wrote a tune he didn't like or can't use, that then goes on to become a hit for someone else deserves to be paid. And the irony is that existing commercial producers are far more likely to steal stuff off Discover than hobbyists, because it saves them a ton of money ripping off existing material. The hobbyists likely do share and it will be a lovely, egalitarian commune with flowers and unicorns. Yeah, don't kid yourself!! :D

And let's be frank, the moment someone uploads a Disney loop, or anything else that isn't the creation of the uploader, and someone else unwittingly uses it commercially and someone somewhere notices, and they will, that will be the day PH find themselves up a gum tree without a paddle (apologies for the mixed metaphor), but I don't see that contract will be much of a defense in court.

Verily spake  :thumbup:




User avatar
Faastwalker
Posts: 2297
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: NSW, Australia

Post 30 Jan 2015

JiggeryPokery wrote:And let's be frank, the moment someone uploads a Disney loop, or anything else that isn't the creation of the uploader, and someone else unwittingly uses it commercially and someone somewhere notices, and they will, that will be the day PH find themselves up a gum tree without a paddle (apologies for the mixed metaphor), but I don't see that contract will be much of a defense in court.
It has been suggested elsewhere that liability in such a scenario would lie with the person who uploaded the material. You see this differently then? I posted a similar scenario in another thread & asked who would get in trouble but there's not been a reply yet. Obviously people are interpreting this differently.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ21k9M50l4

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 30 Jan 2015

JiggeryPokery wrote:And let's be frank, the moment someone uploads a Disney loop, or anything else that isn't the creation of the uploader, and someone else unwittingly uses it commercially and someone somewhere notices, and they will, that will be the day PH find themselves up a gum tree without a paddle (apologies for the mixed metaphor), but I don't see that contract will be much of a defense in court.
Faastwalker wrote:
It has been suggested elsewhere that liability in such a scenario would lie with the person who uploaded the material. You see this differently then? I posted a similar scenario in another thread & asked who would get in trouble but there's not been a reply yet. Obviously people are interpreting this differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Reco ... ster,_Inc.

Contributory infringement
In order to prove contributory infringement, a plaintiff must show that a defendant had knowledge of infringement (here, that Napster knew that its users were distributing copyrighted content without permission across its network) and that defendant supplied material support to that infringement.
Knowledge. The District Court ruled that the "law does not require knowledge of 'specific acts of infringement'"[1] and rejected Napster's assertion that, because they could not distinguish between infringing and non-infringing files, they did not have knowledge of copyright infringement. The Ninth Circuit upheld this analysis, accepting that Napster had "knowledge, both actual and constructive, of direct infringement."
The Ninth Circuit also held that Napster was not protected under Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., "the Betamax case", because of Napster's "actual, specific knowledge of direct infringement." "We are compelled to make a clear distinction between the architecture of the Napster system and Napster's conduct in relation to the operational capacity of the system."
  • First, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that it could not impute sufficient knowledge to Napster "merely because peer-to-peer file sharing technology may be used to infringe plaintiffs' copyrights." Paraphrased Sony into its own words, the Ninth Circuit explained that if a defendant "made and sold equipment capable of both infringing and substantial noninfringing uses," that fact alone—i.e., "evidence that such machines could be and were used to infringe plaintiffs' copyrighted television shows" – would not be sufficient grounds to impute constructive knowledge to defendants.
  • The Court also assumed that Napster's software is "capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses." This analysis differed from the District Court's, which allowed "capable of" to be limited to the concrete uses that Napster alleged were actually underway.
  • Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit found that, "Regardless of the number of Napster's infringing versus noninfringing uses", the question could be resolved on the basis of whether "Napster knew or had reason to know of its users' infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights."
  • Unlike Judge Patel, the Ninth Circuit accepted that Religious Technology Center v. Netcom might be relevant. Based on that case,
We agree that if a computer system operator learns of specific infringing material available on his system and fails to purge such material from the system, the operator knows of and contributes to direct infringement. ... Conversely, absent any specific information which identifies infringing activity, a computer system operator cannot be liable for contributory infringement merely because the structure of the system allows for the exchange of copyrighted material.
  • Applying this rule, the Ninth Circuit nevertheless concluded—in agreement with the district court—
that Napster has actual knowledge that specific infringing material is available using its system, that it could block access to the system by suppliers of the infringing material, and that it failed to remove the material.
Material contribution. The Ninth Circuit briefly approved the district court's analysis of this element.
Thus, the court affirmed the District Court ruling that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on a claim of contributory infringement.

User avatar
EnochLight
Moderator
Posts: 8439
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Imladris

Post 31 Jan 2015

joeyluck wrote:My responses are mostly towards the folks who are already responding like they have been wronged. Even when they know the terms of service of front and haven't even used the service...


Verily spake  :thumbup:
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite |  Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 31 Jan 2015

joeyluck wrote:My responses are mostly towards the folks who are already responding like they have been wronged. Even when they know the terms of service of front and haven't even used the service...
EnochLight wrote:

Verily spake  :thumbup:
I uploaded from Take & Figure without seeing the licensing stuff in the TOS. 

User avatar
EnochLight
Moderator
Posts: 8439
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Imladris

Post 31 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote:I uploaded from Take & Figure without seeing the licensing stuff in the TOS. 
You belong to a PRO.  You should probably make it a point to read EULA's and TOS before signing up for new services that involve sharing your music.  Just say'n.. 
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite |  Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD

User avatar
platzangst
Posts: 731
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 31 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote: I don't know about you bro, but I'd call the police if someone stole my $200 guitar, or my wallet that had $20 in it. If you're fine with people making $200 here and there from something you wrote, while you make nothing, upload it to Discover. I'm not cool with that, nor with taking what someone created and making money from it.
platzangst wrote:
But if you gave someone a $200 guitar as a Christmas gift, you would be a jerk if they used it to record a hit song and then you came looking for your $200 back.

Anyone who pays attention to what they participate in should already understand that uploading material to Discover is, essentially, a gift to all other users. This should not be a surprise to anyone who can read.
Yorick wrote:
Except giving someone a guitar is like giving someone synth presets or whatever. It's an instrument, it's not giving them intellectual property, but physical property.
So?

The principle is still the same, since (one assumes) you know that what you might upload to Discover is intellectual property. And that you are aware of all the ramifications, beforehand. It's not some kind of sleight-of-hand, and intellectual properties are no more sacred than physical properties. You can sell them or transfer them as you like (at least in the US).

I don't understand what this constant pointing back to "but it's intellectual property" is meant to convey in the terms of this discussion. If it's a gift, it's still a gift regardless of what type of property it is.

User avatar
Gaja
Posts: 1001
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Germany

Post 31 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote:...they could sell your song for $200 for an internet commercial for some local politician. Or sublicense the "beat" your hook gets used in, for $20 on Rocbattle. Or a host of other little ways people can make bibs and bobs from this "free music" you're licensing them for no money...
jfrichards wrote:
This is a very good point Yorick.  It points to the idea that you should not post any music on Discover that you think has any potential for commercial use.  As it stands now, the bra1nbox/heygo/fielding/lunesis piece with the hook "Memories Remain" could be taken by anyone and sold by them as a jingle for Hallmark Cards.  I still think it would not hold up in court, but is a normal musician going to take the difficult path of suing to get their $1000?  Probably not.
Yorick wrote:
I don't know about you bro, but I'd call the police if someone stole my $200 guitar, or my wallet that had $20 in it. If you're fine with people making $200 here and there from something you wrote, while you make nothing, upload it to Discover. I'm not cool with that, nor with taking what someone created and making money from it.

Until I knew for certain, that's why I experimented with only uploading this sort of silliness:
http://phead.mu/s/NNAcHs5x
Yorick wrote: If you can turn that silly lyric/vocal into something that makes money, you deserve it. :D
But I don't have R8, only Take/Figure, and the license agreement wasn't anywhere I could find until someone posted it here.
I must have agreed to it prior to uploading though... :frown:
You might call the cops, but they might be surprised if you told them they stole it from the sharing project's place with a sign in the front that says:" Free stuff for everyone"
If you're uncomfortable with sharing that's fine. One might argue that most people are uncomfortable wit sharing their ideas or goods, which is part of the Reason that 1% of the people own 90% of the stuff.
But this discussion seems weird to me. The goal of the service is obvious and clear (to me anyway): sharing musical ideas for free, witth anyone.
I understand the problem arises, when people demand a slice of the cake in the case that someone uses a loop you uploaded to make money. Which frankly doesn't make sense to me, because why would you upload to a sharing service, if you're not ready to share?
Cheers!
Fredhoven

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 31 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote:They're different art forms. I own Fenders. They're great guitars. But they are PHYSICAL creations. They're not intellectual property. The DESIGN of the guitar is intellectual property, but the guitar itself is physical, and it enables musical creations to be performed on it. This is not the same thing as being a musical composition. 

A synth preset is not a song, nothing like a song. To even compare the two is like comparing Apples with The theory of relativity: One is a physical thing you eat. The other is an explanatory idea about a process. They're both awesome, but nothing alike.
So if they're both art forms why do you consider it fine when one is given away for free and for the other its not? (note we're talking about synth presets, you did the guitar comparison) And theres heaps of songs that have zero original music ideas and only got successful because of the SOUNDS they use. (I'm not even starting about loops because it would be too easy :P )

For Bob Dylan it might be true that its only about the song and lyrics but a song isn't sellable if its not actually played, no non-musician buys musical notes and reads them for fun in their spare time, they buy albums that have been played by people with sounds generated from instruments. So theres your guitar design vs. physical guitars, its exactly the same.

User avatar
EddieG
Posts: 109
Joined: 18 Jan 2015

Post 31 Jan 2015

Your next royalty check has 7,655,432,1 recipients!
How to license for that and keep track

Dont share publicly, where applicable

Collaborate yes
Give-away No

Upon each new iteration creates a potential new SR copyright

IMHO
stratcatfl in the house !

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 31 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote:I uploaded from Take & Figure without seeing the licensing stuff in the TOS. 
EnochLight wrote:
You belong to a PRO.  You should probably make it a point to read EULA's and TOS before signing up for new services that involve sharing your music.  Just say'n.. 
I don't read long TOS on my iphone. I hate doing anything of substance on an iphone.
I don't have Reason 8 so I'm simply assuming there was a new TOS that popped up when I installed the updates (there was no Discover when I initially got Take & Figure). I also just uploaded throw-away tracks - including a joke lyric - to discover anyway, nothing of worth to me.

Clearly I have read the TOS now on a computer, and tried deleting the files, but 'delete' does nothing.

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 31 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote:They're different art forms. I own Fenders. They're great guitars. But they are PHYSICAL creations. They're not intellectual property. The DESIGN of the guitar is intellectual property, but the guitar itself is physical, and it enables musical creations to be performed on it. This is not the same thing as being a musical composition. 

A synth preset is not a song, nothing like a song. To even compare the two is like comparing Apples with The theory of relativity: One is a physical thing you eat. The other is an explanatory idea about a process. They're both awesome, but nothing alike.
normen wrote:
So if they're both art forms why do you consider it fine when one is given away for free and for the other its not? (note we're talking about synth presets, you did the guitar comparison) And theres heaps of songs that have zero original music ideas and only got successful because of the SOUNDS they use. (I'm not even starting about loops because it would be too easy :P )

For Bob Dylan it might be true that its only about the song and lyrics but a song isn't sellable if its not actually played, no non-musician buys musical notes and reads them for fun in their spare time, they buy albums that have been played by people with sounds generated from instruments. So theres your guitar design vs. physical guitars, its exactly the same.
I take it you're unfamiliar with Beck's latest album? Which is only sheet music, no audio recordings? Or the publishing industry that still publishes sheet music just as it has for centuries? Or that believe it or not, there are peopke that buy sheet music to play others songs for their own enjoyment? Or to sing in church? Or to sing/play in a piano bar?

I don't consider any human a "non-musician", everyone speaks with pitch, walk in rhythm, have a heartbeat and cry.

There is a huge difference between a synth preset, and composing a melody - one is a facet of technology, the other needs no technology. One only works with said technology, the other just needs a brain, perhaps a voice, ears, some air & some time. One exists so other people can create a sound. It's a tool. The other is a form of expression.
You're comparing a screwdriver setting with a poem. You're comparing a drill bit size with a speech. You're comparing a lathe with a conversation.
A preset is a tool. Music is expression.
You honestly can't see the difference?

Nowhere have I denigrated the craftsmenship that goes into creating a lathe, drill bit, screwdriver setting or synthpreset. It's disingenuous to claim I am. But to equate tool-making with music-creating is false.

User avatar
EnochLight
Moderator
Posts: 8439
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Imladris

Post 31 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote:I uploaded from Take & Figure without seeing the licensing stuff in the TOS. 
EnochLight wrote:
You belong to a PRO.  You should probably make it a point to read EULA's and TOS before signing up for new services that involve sharing your music.  Just say'n.. 
Yorick wrote: I don't read long TOS on my iphone. I hate doing anything of substance on an iphone. I don't have Reason 8 so I'm simply assuming there was a new TOS that popped up when I installed the updates (there was no Discover when I initially got Take & Figure). I also just uploaded throw-away tracks - including a joke lyric - to discover anyway, nothing of worth to me. Clearly I have read the TOS now on a computer, and tried deleting the files, but 'delete' does nothing.
I read the the TOS before even trying the service, but that's just me. I like to know what I'm getting myself into prior to trying something. 

You tried deleting the files but it did nothing?  Strange - have you reported this as a bug?
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite |  Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 31 Jan 2015

Yorick wrote:I uploaded from Take & Figure without seeing the licensing stuff in the TOS. 
EnochLight wrote:
You belong to a PRO.  You should probably make it a point to read EULA's and TOS before signing up for new services that involve sharing your music.  Just say'n.. 
Yorick wrote: I don't read long TOS on my iphone. I hate doing anything of substance on an iphone. I don't have Reason 8 so I'm simply assuming there was a new TOS that popped up when I installed the updates (there was no Discover when I initially got Take & Figure). I also just uploaded throw-away tracks - including a joke lyric - to discover anyway, nothing of worth to me. Clearly I have read the TOS now on a computer, and tried deleting the files, but 'delete' does nothing.
EnochLight wrote:
I read the the TOS before even trying the service, but that's just me. I like to know what I'm getting myself into prior to trying something. 

You tried deleting the files but it did nothing?  Strange - have you reported this as a bug?
I have not. I read others were having the same problem. I can't delete from either the computer or phone. Can you delete?

User avatar
EnochLight
Moderator
Posts: 8439
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Imladris

Post 31 Jan 2015

EnochLight wrote:You tried deleting the files but it did nothing?  Strange - have you reported this as a bug?
Yorick wrote: I have not. I read others were having the same problem. I can't delete from either the computer or phone. Can you delete?
Hold on - let me try.

*UPDATE: here's a shared clip I goofed around on: http://phead.mu/s/f5kh2snh

Lets see if I can delete it.

Yep - deleted fine for me.  I would report a bug, Yorik:

Image 


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite |  Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD

User avatar
rcbuse
RE Developer
Posts: 1183
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: SR388

Post 31 Jan 2015

Gaja wrote:I interpret it as follows (I'm no lawyer, so what I say might not be entirely accurate) The user grants anyone using the discover non exclusive publishing rights. That means that each collaboration partner has a right to publish the works (on discover and also other platforms) imcluding the right to make a shitload of money with it. That means if you create a loop and someone downloads it and uses it in a production (because you agreed to grant non exclusive rights), that becomes a massive hit then you as creator of the loop have can't claim ownership. The copyright remains yours, but you've already granted non exclusive rights, so you couldn't sue the dude and would have to put up with having contributed to a massive hit. You can find the ToS here https://www.propellerheads.se/agreements
The single reason I would never use discover for source material is because you have no idea who owns it or where it originated.  Sure, the agreement says whoever uploads it grants rights for use, but what if they never held that right to begin with? What if they just ripped off a bunch of loops and uploaded them to discover?  Or uploaded recordings of their friends work?  Then you as the end user end up looking like the asshole because you are accused of stealing and all you did was find and use cool loop on discover.

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 31 Jan 2015

Gaja wrote:But this discussion seems weird to me. The goal of the service is obvious and clear (to me anyway): sharing musical ideas for free, witth anyone. I understand the problem arises, when people demand a slice of the cake in the case that someone uses a loop you uploaded to make money. Which frankly doesn't make sense to me, because why would you upload to a sharing service, if you're not ready to share?
I thought it was a collaboration service. 7 billion bandmates and all that. 
How many bands have you been in Gaja?
If your bandmate takes a phrase you wrote and writes a song, you split the songwriting. He doesn't just take it all and you don't give it freely. 
If everyone in the band comes up with a jam-idea, everyone in the band is listed as a songwriter. And each bandmember individually owns their own performances. Until they sign off on them. They still have the moral right to be credited. There are still rights each member has. It's not like you join a band and just sign away all your rights for no money.

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 5 guests