Comments on: sound-free#3 http://www.investigata.com/sound-free/2007/02/26/sound-free3/ [...good music just wants to be free] Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:00:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: kxiojkyuey http://www.investigata.com/sound-free/2007/02/26/sound-free3/#comment-295 Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:04:54 +0000 http://www.investigata.com/sound-free/2007/02/26/sound-free3/#comment-295 Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! gwgxeqkxespism Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! gwgxeqkxespism

]]> by: matt http://www.investigata.com/sound-free/2007/02/26/sound-free3/#comment-29 Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:21:17 +0000 http://www.investigata.com/sound-free/2007/02/26/sound-free3/#comment-29 this podcast is great. some of the best cc music i've heard. please update! this podcast is great. some of the best cc music i’ve heard.

please update!

]]> by: rajbot http://www.investigata.com/sound-free/2007/02/26/sound-free3/#comment-7 Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:44:06 +0000 http://www.investigata.com/sound-free/2007/02/26/sound-free3/#comment-7 I thought I would stop ranting for a second and let you know we're absoutely digging your mixes at the archive.org office :) Please keep them coming! I thought I would stop ranting for a second and let you know we’re absoutely digging your mixes at the archive.org office :)

Please keep them coming!

]]> by: rajbot http://www.investigata.com/sound-free/2007/02/26/sound-free3/#comment-6 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:31:22 +0000 http://www.investigata.com/sound-free/2007/02/26/sound-free3/#comment-6 By licensing work under a license that they expect you to break, these netlabels are weakening the Creative Commons. It is a problem, and I have no idea what to do about it. I have been back-and-forth with many people over the course of two years about this.. Last year I talked with <a href="http://www.foundsoundrecords.com/" rel="nofollow">foundsound/unfoundsound</a>. They also use the Share Music license, and even go so far as to explicitly allow "the use of the unfoundsound releases during for-profit DJ performances". The thing is, their license disallows nonprofit dj mixes. I pointed this out to them, and they said the Share Music license didn't have a no-derivs clause. Then the put me on their spam list. I talked to a Creative Commons lawyer and some CC people, and they concluded they had done everything they could to explain the situation, and if the labels still didn't get that the Share Music license disallows DJ mixes, there was nothing they could do. I talked to a couple guys who came up with the Share Music license, and they said that they were only interested in friends trading CDs of unsigned bands with each other. These DJ-friendly labels could just as easily be using a DJ-friendly license. That's the whole point of the Creative Commons. By licensing work under a license that they expect you to break, these netlabels are weakening the Creative Commons. It is a problem, and I have no idea what to do about it. I have been back-and-forth with many people over the course of two years about this..

Last year I talked with foundsound/unfoundsound. They also use the Share Music license, and even go so far as to explicitly allow “the use of the unfoundsound releases during for-profit DJ performances”. The thing is, their license disallows nonprofit dj mixes. I pointed this out to them, and they said the Share Music license didn’t have a no-derivs clause. Then the put me on their spam list.

I talked to a Creative Commons lawyer and some CC people, and they concluded they had done everything they could to explain the situation, and if the labels still didn’t get that the Share Music license disallows DJ mixes, there was nothing they could do.

I talked to a couple guys who came up with the Share Music license, and they said that they were only interested in friends trading CDs of unsigned bands with each other.

These DJ-friendly labels could just as easily be using a DJ-friendly license. That’s the whole point of the Creative Commons.

]]> by: sound-free http://www.investigata.com/sound-free/2007/02/26/sound-free3/#comment-5 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:38:33 +0000 http://www.investigata.com/sound-free/2007/02/26/sound-free3/#comment-5 In principal you're right. However, my interpretation is that these licences are only in place to protect netlabel artists from loosing control of their material, sounds and samples. i think you also have to bear in mind that labels such as Yaki Yuki have themselves released mixes with tracks under no-derivative clauses (<a href="http://www.archive.org/details/YkYkMix001" rel="nofollow">here</a>), and that mixes are in general a great means of promoting their music, which is presumably what they want.... In principal you’re right.

However, my interpretation is that these licences are only in place to protect netlabel artists from loosing control of their material, sounds and samples.

i think you also have to bear in mind that labels such as Yaki Yuki have themselves released mixes with tracks under no-derivative clauses (here), and that mixes are in general a great means of promoting their music, which is presumably what they want….

]]> by: rajbot http://www.investigata.com/sound-free/2007/02/26/sound-free3/#comment-4 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:18:56 +0000 http://www.investigata.com/sound-free/2007/02/26/sound-free3/#comment-4 I love this mix... Unfortunately, several of the tracks you used have a stupid CC no-derivatives clause in their license. For example, Merzbau and Yuki Yaki both use the CC Share Music license, which includes the no-derivatives clause, which means no mixtapes are allowed. Unfortunately, most CC-licensed netlabels don't use a DJ-friendly license that allows pitch-shifting or beatmatching. I love this mix… Unfortunately, several of the tracks you used have a stupid CC no-derivatives clause in their license. For example, Merzbau and Yuki Yaki both use the CC Share Music license, which includes the no-derivatives clause, which means no mixtapes are allowed.

Unfortunately, most CC-licensed netlabels don’t use a DJ-friendly license that allows pitch-shifting or beatmatching.

]]>