Discover?

[normen]

What's the difference between having copyright but everyone on Earth has a royalty-free unrestricted license and not having copyright at all?  Is this any different from putting your work in the public domain?  I asked this before but didn't get a good answer.

Why in the world would someone license something from you that they could legally acquire free on Discover?  Is the hope that the licensee wouldn't be aware they can easily get a royalty-free license at no cost already because you uploaded it to Discover?

Because as I suspect you only have rights to use exactly that performance as it is on Discover, not the musical idea or anything like that.

[avasopht]

What's the difference between having copyright but everyone on Earth has a royalty-free unrestricted license and not having copyright at all?  Is this any different from putting your work in the public domain?  I asked this before but didn't get a good answer.

It is pretty much a license putting your work into the public domain, only difference to the public domain is that the license is limited to Discover users (if I remember rightly).

Why in the world would someone license something from you that they could legally acquire free on Discover?  Is the hope that the licensee wouldn't be aware they can easily get a royalty-free license at no cost already because you uploaded it to Discover?

I was only answering the question raised regarding that scenario. I think it was just raised to better understand the implications of the license.

[Some Desperate Glory]

What's the difference between having copyright but everyone on Earth has a royalty-free unrestricted license and not having copyright at all?  Is this any different from putting your work in the public domain?  I asked this before but didn't get a good answer.

Why in the world would someone license something from you that they could legally acquire free on Discover?  Is the hope that the licensee wouldn't be aware they can easily get a royalty-free license at no cost already because you uploaded it to Discover?

Because as I suspect you only have rights to use exactly that performance as it is on Discover, not the musical idea or anything like that.

What makes you think that?  Maybe you're correct but the license is not clear.  It certainly read to *me* that once you upload something to Discover it's gone and completely fair game.

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.


The license says that uploaded music may be modified by other users.  That certainly implies to me that they can change and modify the musical idea.  It doesn't say the specific or exact performance.   And what does "modify" mean in context of music?  Certainly it seems to me you can extract the melody and lyrics with no consequence.  That would certainly be modifying uploaded music, right?

Indeed they go further:

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.

Do you disagree that you could stop someone from taking your melody as a basis for their new song?  If Tom Petty had uploaded his song to Discover Sam Smith would have no issue, right?  If you've got no moral rights why would anyone refrain from reusing a melody or lyric idea?

[normen]

What makes you think that?  Maybe you're correct but the license is not clear.  It certainly read to *me* that once you upload something to Discover it's gone and completely fair game.

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.


The license says that uploaded music may be modified by other users.  That certainly implies to me that they can change and modify the musical idea.  It doesn't say the specific or exact performance.   And what does "modify" mean in context of music?  Certainly it seems to me you can extract the melody and lyrics with no consequence.  That would certainly be modifying uploaded music, right?

Indeed they go further:

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.

Do you disagree that you could stop someone from taking your melody as a basis for their new song?  If Tom Petty had uploaded his song to Discover Sam Smith would have no issue, right?  If you've got no moral rights why would anyone refrain from reusing a melody or lyric idea?

Well the only thing that seems problematic in reference to what I said earlier is the one mention of "music" instead of "content" here, otherwise to me it seems its still talking about exactly this performance you upload.

[Some Desperate Glory]

Well the only thing that seems problematic in reference to what I said earlier is the one mention of "music" instead of "content" here, otherwise to me it seems its still talking about exactly this performance you upload.

I think you're reading a lot into the word "content", but it's fine we disagree.  It will most likely come to nothing but if there ever is a conflict it will be for some court or another to decide, and people interpreting language on a music forum probably won't hold much weight!  

[normen]

I think you're reading a lot into the word "content", but it's fine we disagree.  It will most likely come to nothing but if there ever is a conflict it will be for some court or another to decide, and people interpreting language on a music forum probably won't hold much weight!  

I said its what I suspect and what makes sense to me in the context of normal licensing of art, performances and recordings of these. "The content uploaded" seems pretty straightforward to me though, "music" not at all I admit.

(To expand on this, for most music sold on CDs the record company holds licenses on the _recording_ and not on the music, which still belongs to the musicians. See the issues Def Leppard had with their record company which made them re-record their old albums 1:1.)

[avasopht]

Yes, the wording is key. If they use the word music, you could argue in court that your recording was not music and thus what they used was against the agreement! It may sound over the top but cases can be tipped on their head just by little nuances like that.

Contracts usually go a little further and detail exactly what THE CONTENT is. Maybe the agreement is also in beta 

[Yorick]

What would happen if you wrote 10 jingle-worthy clips and first posted them on a site that grants full copyright to you exclusively, like Soundcloud, then you post them on Discover?  Have you then established your copyright which obliges Discover downloaders to get your permission before making money from them?

Uploading to Soundcloud doesn't do anything, because you still have your exclusive copyright if you upload to Discover. It doesn't change the copyright. It's assigning a license to Discover users.

The owner of a song's copyright can assign third parties a license to use, sell, record etc their song. The owner of the copyright of a recording can also do this. Obviously - in the case of a cover song - the song and the recording copyrights are owned by different parties.

You cannot therefore legally upload a cover song recording into Discover or Soundcloud, because while you own the recording, you do not own the song. 

So what happens if someone does upload a cover, and it gets reworked into a derivative work by a third party? I guess the uploader would get sued. Would Propellerhead also get sued?

When you upload a song and recording to Discover, anyone using Discover has the permission from you, to do whatever they like with the song and then go on to sell or exploit their creation.

[Faastwalker]

The other thread discussing Discover has been locked so I guess we post in this one now?

After reading all the legal stuff & people's interpretations of it I have to say I'm still not particularly clear on all of this. But it certainly seems to be the case that by uploading to Discover & placing your material in the public domain you effectively allow it to be used in any way anyone else sees fit. So potentially someone could use your material, make money with it & you wouldn't have any legal standing to claim a share. Of course this is not all about money. This is supposed to be about sharing of musical ideas. But the potential is there for this sort of situation to arise.

So it really boils down to whether or not you'd be happy with this situation, if it should occur, or not. If not then the options are to keep your uploads private (or in a smaller group of collaborates, if this is possible?) or not use the service at all. I thing that just about sums it up. But no doubt I'll stand corrected with an another alternative interpretation of the legal details! :frown:

[avasopht]

Regarding covers, etc.

Common sense prevails. Anyone releasing on a major label would be asked for clearance of all samples. And, well, a quick google can confirm lyrics are a cover.

And that's all assuming a commercially successful artist is going to get their material from discover in the first place. But if they did, they'd be foolish not to check the origin of the material. It's like we're simultaneously over thinking this while under thinking this.

[Faastwalker]

Anyone releasing on a major label would be asked for clearance of all samples.

You would expect that. But what if something slips through the net? Let's say (and this is a ridiculous, completely hypothetical scenario granted) someone uploads the Amen Break to Discover. Some kid who's never heard it thinks, 'that's awesome. I'll use that in my new track'. The track becomes quite huge amongst music sharing sites & social media. The artist gets signed to a small label & the track does very well. Then the lawyers come knocking. Who gets in trouble? Who's going to court?

[Yorick]

Regarding covers, etc.

Common sense prevails. Anyone releasing on a major label would be asked for clearance of all samples. And, well, a quick google can confirm lyrics are a cover.

And that's all assuming a commercially successful artist is going to get their material from discover in the first place. But if they did, they'd be foolish not to check the origin of the material. It's like we're simultaneously over thinking this while under thinking this.

What if it's a cover of a not famous song that doesn't have lyrics?
As in, I go to your soundcloud page, and do a cover of your song, and upload it to Discover, where someone creates a derivative work and makes a million bucks from it.
Who do you sue? Me? I'm not making any money from it.
Propellerhead? They're not making money from it either.
The other user who creates the derivative work? They were operating in good faith believing they had a license to use the material.

It's not a good system.

[Yorick]

Now you see how all the new technologies & laws got people confused!

Not only to relation of music, but to relation of everything!

And no amount of arguing seem to help solve a problem!

Just don't use the site, either uploading or download, until this crap is sorted out better.

[jonheal]

Another aspect of Discover?

From a ZoomInfo Propellerheads description:

http://www.zoominfo.com/s/#!search/prof ... id=profile

"This infinitely expandable instrument rack is another step on the way to fulfil the company statement but by no means the final word from Propellerhead Software. In fact, the up coming development of own distribution channels is our commitment to the future, and a sign that, in many ways, we have only just begun."

(My emphasis)

[KEVMOVE02]

What is mindbogglingly amazing and amusing is that so many people are worried about rights to music they haven't sold, and may never sell. If everyone is truly this paranoid about intellectual property theft, why participate in an open community at all? Think about it: intellectual property includes any ideas, concepts, or solutions posted here on this (and similar) forums. What's to prevent a person from asking a question, getting responses, then using this information to earn money, without your knowledge? Someone posts a tutorial, what stops a person from plagiarizing it? if you freely share your expertise here (or other sites) then you should not be afraid to share your music. What do you do when you go to a jam session? Do you tell everybody that you won't play unless they agree to not use any notes or arrangements without your consent or compensation? The irony is IOS apps like iPolySix and iMPC have file sharing built in and users post their music for others to download and rearrange everyday. The same community that Take and Figure is targeting. So are we really worried that someone is going to steal our ideas or are we mad at Propellerhead because they made all these changes without our consent or advice? 

[Yorick]

What is mindbogglingly amazing and amusing is that so many people are worried about rights to music they haven't sold, and may never sell.

I've sold licenses to loads of songs. What if I uploaded one of them? Selling the same song twice is not advisable...
As has been pointed out, if I upload a song to discover, I can no longer sell an exclusive license for it. This is a big problem for me, and for anyone else making music professionally.

If everyone is truly this paranoid about intellectual property theft, why participate in an open community at all?

It's not theft, it's a legal assignment of a license.

Think about it: intellectual property includes any ideas, concepts, or solutions posted here on this (and similar) forums. What's to prevent a person from asking a question, getting responses, then using this information to earn money, without your knowledge?

That's a very different scenario to Discover. The music is the thing of value. Music has financial value. It can be traded for money. The information you're talking about, would be used to create music that can then be traded for money. With Discover, I can take your Reason/Take session and legally use your vocal take in my own recording, and not have to pay you or credit you.

I don't see how you can't see that as fundamentally different from idea sharing?

[Yorick]

Yes, the wording is key. If they use the word music, you could argue in court that your recording was not music and thus what they used was against the agreement! It may sound over the top but cases can be tipped on their head just by little nuances like that.

Contracts usually go a little further and detail exactly what THE CONTENT is. Maybe the agreement is also in beta 

(I'm not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.) There's no way that the rights being shared in the "music" posted on Discover would be any less than all of the rights in the music - the creative work (that is, the composition itself) AND the sound recording, and all of the accompanying performance, communication and copying rights. One implication of this is that any member of Discover can use the melody, harmony etc, separate from the shared sound recording. They can create something based on what you post without even necessarily downloading your track. If the composition itself wasn't part of the rights being shared, anyone's use of any Discover music would be illegal - even if they incorporated a downloaded Discover track unmodified into their own new track.

True. That's how I'm reading it.

[KEVMOVE02]

What is mindbogglingly amazing and amusing is that so many people are worried about rights to music they haven't sold, and may never sell.

I've sold licenses to loads of songs. What if I uploaded one of them? Selling the same song twice is not advisable...
As has been pointed out, if I upload a song to discover, I can no longer sell an exclusive license for it. This is a big problem for me, and for anyone else making music professionally.

If everyone is truly this paranoid about intellectual property theft, why participate in an open community at all?

It's not theft, it's a legal assignment of a license.

Think about it: intellectual property includes any ideas, concepts, or solutions posted here on this (and similar) forums. What's to prevent a person from asking a question, getting responses, then using this information to earn money, without your knowledge?

That's a very different scenario to Discover. The music is the thing of value. Music has financial value. It can be traded for money. The information you're talking about, would be used to create music that can then be traded for money. With Discover, I can take your Reason/Take session and legally use your vocal take in my own recording, and not have to pay you or credit you.

I don't see how you can't see that as fundamentally different from idea sharing?

Yorick, while you have a right to comment on any issue, you don't represent the average user of Reason, in that you earn a living making music. In fact, due to the fact you live in New York, you must be making a lot of money from making music. That is not the reality for most users of Reason (or any other music suite). I fear is that all of this heightened awareness will lead to Reason users not wanting to collaborate because of all this talk creates the perception that it is a certainty that your music will get lifted. The cynic in me says don't worry, because only people reading these threads are the same lot who posted to PUF, so post PUF users will probably never see this thread. What is most troubling is that there are no less than 6 threads devoted to this topic, which is crowding out any conversations related to actually making music. If I stumbled on this site right now, I would probably not come back. That's not amazing or amusing; its just sad. I guess we found a way to resurrect PUF.