 sj |
||
|
||
MySpace policies - ?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Alba Date: 13 Jun 06 - 11:13 AM MySpace. My Music. My Choice. No Thanks. Decided that a while back. Thank You as always Richard for the Legal Information. (I trust your advice a hellava lot more than I would trust any of RM's Legal Crew!) Best to All J |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 13 Jun 06 - 11:20 AM Jed, it's not so much "nay-saying" as nay-QUESTIONING. There are some pretty big issues to consider here. I have a lot of respect for the various opinions I've heard voiced, but what I want is hard fact. What I DON'T want is to see people polarised in opposition to each other. We all love the music and value interesting ways of discovering new talent. But that's not in debate. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: dwditty Date: 13 Jun 06 - 11:23 AM Bonnie, Back to my point about the legal system. It doesn't matter what the terms say about the rights...it only matters whose lawyer makes the better argument. It is a risk no matter what. If you do not want to take the risk, I would be hard pressed to argue that it is not the best choice. That said, I am still taking it. I may be a fool, but I am my own fool. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Anne Lister Date: 13 Jun 06 - 11:41 AM I too have made friends on MySpace, but quite frankly I don't think it's worth continuing my involvement there if there's a risk that my songs might be ripped off by Murdoch. I joined initially because it was warmly recommended by various friends and fellow musicians - but I don't think they had read the T&Cs, any more than I paid much attention to them at the time. I feel older and wiser now. Yes, it may be a wonderful place to find new music and new friends, but it's a potentially hazardous place, too, for an independent songwriter. I'm leaving my music hanging in there for a few days, until I can get a clear response to my message to the Customer Services Dept. So far the response that's arrived has had nothing whatsoever to do with my message to them, which doesn't bode well. But can we please have some legal clarification of the wording, as requested by me some messages back and by Bonnie, repeatedly since? Does anyone know? Because it sounds to me as if the licence wittingly or unwittingly granted to Murdoch ceases once the music on the site is removed - and if the licence ceases, so does the risk of exploitation. That's if the word "licence" is being used in its usual sense. Oh, and hi, Ralph! Anne |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST,Ralphie Date: 13 Jun 06 - 11:43 AM Point taken Lizzie. Don't suppose you'll want the next PJD cd then. OK R |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: JedMarum Date: 13 Jun 06 - 05:42 PM Jon - of course the legal and marketing folks for very big name artists reviewed very carefully the terms of contract. I doubt very seriously ANY of the stars actully set up their own Myspace pages. These are marketing decisions made by big time promo teams. You can be certain they read every bit of fine print ... and of course, I would not accept that out-of-hand as my only proof that the agreement was OK - but it is a strong indication. I am in good company. The numbers and stature of those artists and their opinions ARE meaningful to me. And certainly you don't see anywhere in my text where I called someone an idiot. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 13 Jun 06 - 06:05 PM Guess I must have missunderstood Rupie haters are simply blowing smoke are idiots." then Jed. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Anne Lister Date: 13 Jun 06 - 06:25 PM I think the Big Names and their promo teams are well able to take care of their own interests and, if necessary, pay the legal costs of taking Murdoch to court. That doesn't mean smaller fish like me are swimming in safe waters - I can't afford to lose the rights to my recordings, nor can I afford legal costs to deal with a Californian court. Murdoch won't be trying to pull any kind of a fast one with the Big Names - that's clearly doomed to all kinds of failure - but the Big Names are worth having on MySpace to pull in lots more people. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and have consistently tried to see the sunnier side of the whole thing, but unless and until I hear directly from MySpace that their intentions are pure, unsullied and clear of ambiguity I remain dubious. Anne |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Richard Bridge Date: 13 Jun 06 - 06:46 PM Lizzie, why the hell don't you look up who I am and what my track record is? My former partner James Wolsey and I, and some of our assitants, some years back, acted for some bands whose turnover was bigger than the GDP of many countries, and probably each of them as much as all those you cite put together. You want to dream on, dream on. You can take a horse to water...... Out of this thread now. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Jeri Date: 13 Jun 06 - 07:11 PM What Jed said was "and so, apparently all of the artists who believe the naysaying, Rupie haters are simply blowing smoke are idiots." |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 13 Jun 06 - 07:40 PM Thanks for the clarification, I think, Jeri. To be honest, while I read one way the first time, even though you have emphasised part, I not clear as to who is calling the idiots. I don't see why the artists who believe the naysaying (effectively agreeing that Rupies terms are wrong) would be calling the Rupie haters idiots. Maybe it's one of those different sides of the atlantic things or maybe I've just had a bad day (struggling to get my head round a microcontroller board) and my brain is tired. Aoplogies to Jed if due. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST Date: 13 Jun 06 - 08:12 PM Nice going, Lizzie. Probably the single most important contributor to this thread and you just HAD to piss him off didn't you? He might have been able to help with that license/agreement confusion but no chance of that now thanks to you and your obsessions. Yet another discussion polluted. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 13 Jun 06 - 09:07 PM And we thought killing off Farty Marty was progress... Sigh! |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:03 PM Well, it's been a long day. Thought I'd go for a wander around the net and clear my brain a little, maybe browse some music stuff. So I surfed about here and there, and landed in a nice-looking website that serves as an e-retailer for assorted small-label & independent non-commercial/mainstream CDs, as well as sheet music. I run a little publishing company so I thought I might consider placing some stock with them. Their sales policies and assorted money matters seemed quite straightforward, so I clicked on the Terms & Conditions (which to be fair were not hard to access or to read). And I got the most incredible feeling of deja-vu. (Richard – if you see this – thanks for making me aware of a lot of things I'd never even thought of before. I'm sorry you're gone.) Anyway, below is the relevant excerpt – notice how certain phrases sound eerily familiar, things like "perpetual" and "non-exclusive" and "sub-licensable". They also want you to waive moral rights. There's a bit at the end about terminating your sales agreement with them, returning stock etc. But not a word about nullifying that license. What is going on that you're expected to hand over these sorts of rights to an ordinary SALES RETAILER (and they will only handle things initially on a sale-or-return basis, which is already pretty risk-free)? This is a small outfit run by what do appear to be honest, quite aproachable & sincere people (and the type of music they deal in is never going to make anyone rich). So how common IS this sort of thing? Do Amazon & MusicRoom require stuff like this? - - - XXX may change these terms at any time by posting changes online. Please review these terms regularly to ensure you are aware of any changes made. Your continued use of the site after changes have been uploaded means that you agree to be legally bound by these terms as updated and/or amended… Intellectual Property Contributions to XXX [i.e. placing your CDs or sheet music for sale on their retail site] Where you are invited to submit any contribution to XXX (including any text, photographs, graphics, video or audio) you agree, by submitting your contribution, to grant XXX a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sub-licensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, play, and exercise all copyright and publicity rights with respect to your contribution worldwide and/or to incorporate your contribution in other works in any media now known or later developed for the full term of any rights that may exist in your contribution, and in accordance with privacy restrictions set out in XXX's Privacy Policy. ??????? |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: jeffp Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:28 PM It is entirely possible that the "big names" have negotiated their own individual agreements with MySpace. Agreements which do not have the language in question. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 13 Jun 06 - 10:30 PM You should read my webpage, where I say on teh bottom of my homepage :-) ========== Public Notice: The sender of any Unsolicited Commericial Email agrees that sending any Unsolicited Commericial Email of any type to rhayes or any of the other email addresses on this complete web site at "homepage.powerup.com.au/~rhayes/" and all associated local pages automatically assigns to the owner of this web site perpetual free use of any assignable copyright material in the content of the Unsolicited Commericial Email and any and all assignable copyright material on any web sites (and any other material published in any form) mentioned in the Unsolicited Commericial Email and associated websites. The Sender of any UCE/SPAM agrees that they will submit a vote for any sites that The Author of this Site desires, in any Internet Web Competition. Unsolicited emails advising details for pickup of "Free Electronic Postcards" may constitute Unwanted UCE/SPAM. The Current Rates and Charges for Processing Unsolicited Commericial Email are on this separate page. The sending of by any party and receipt by me of any Unsolicited Commericial Email indicates understanding and acceptance of this notice. For purposes of this notice, merely making one's e-mail address accessible to the public shall not constitute a request or invitation to receive messages. Note that claims of not having read this notice before sending any Unsolicited Commericial Email will not be recognised. I have a policy of not only refusing to buy from spammers, but advising everybody else I know not to buy from them or indeed their products as well as organising termination of their internet facilities for TOS breaches. UCE/SPAM may just turn my mind against various pseudo-religious/humanitariran ideas expressed in that UCE/SPAM - I will still organise termination of internet services of the sender. If any part of this Public Notice is rendered invalid by Law, the rest remains in force. This is a Public Notice (originally published on 26 August 1997 and subsequently modified) for the purposes of Australian Law, and may be modified without prior notice. Note: Some images may be displayed on these pages as a result of legal assignment of copyright to me under the terms of my Anti-UCE/SPAM Public Notice. Web Sites referenced in unwanted UCE/SPAM messages may have been the source of some of these images. Please do not steal these images. ================ Referred terms... :-) Regarding all Unsolicited Commercial Email. This notice is to be considered A Public Notice for purposes of Australian Law. The Current Rates and Charges for Processing Unsolicited Commericial Email are on this page. Notice to all Senders of Unsolicited Commercial Email Upon receipt of Unsolicited Commercial Email as per this notice and addendum to my regularly posted .sig file attached to my outgoing email, you will be rendered a bill for: Mail processing (15 minutes or part thereof) AU$30.00 Mail Volume (1MByte or part thereof) AU$10.00 ------------------------------------------------------------ Total AU$40.00 Note: All rates are subject to change without notice. ---------------------------------------------------------- Accounts are strictly 90 days, a substantial recovery fee (currently AU$100) and interest will be charged after that time. All payments are to be in Australian Dollars. Cheques must be drawn on an Australian Bank. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the National Bank of Australia each have a branch in New York. Due to the difficulties of international funds tranfer, I am prepared to consider realistic offers of acceptable (to me) goods and/or services to at least the equivalent value (before any Customs, Excise and other Import Duties and Sales Taxes which will also be paid over and above that value) including if necessary the international recovery fee (plus a minimum AU$10 processing fee). Note that I am also prepared to offer more detailed personalised Proof Reading Services on Unsolicited Commercial Email. Prices for that more detailed personalised service are much more expensive. The sending of any Unsolicited Commercial Email indicates understanding and acceptance of this notice. Note that claims of not having read this notice before sending any Unsolicited Commercial Email will not be recognised. This is a Public Notice (originally published on 26 August 1997 and subsequently modified) for the purposes of Australian Law. Robin Hayes (Address) Have a nice day! Robin ++++++++++++++ Fun, isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST,Russells goat Date: 14 Jun 06 - 06:31 AM Bonnie, Russell Brand is a comedian or so he thinks anyway. Billy replied to the thread, http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=81619316&blogID=130719844&MyToken=3754229c-f904-417e-9692-ba2483 |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 14 Jun 06 - 07:21 AM Fair enough - I thought so, but these are paranoid days... |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST,Liam Date: 25 Jun 06 - 02:29 AM In all this discussion of the concern about MySpace's terms, has anyone noticed clause 9 of the BBC's for their messageboard? Those are very similar, wrt the contributor granting the BBC a non-exclusive licence to anything they place on the BBC's servers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/ Namely "Where you are invited to submit any contribution to bbc.co.uk (including any text, photographs, graphics, video or audio) you agree, by submitting your contribution, to grant the BBC a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sub-licenseable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, play, make available to the public, and exercise all copyright and publicity rights with respect to your contribution worldwide and/or to incorporate your contribution in other works in any media now known or later developed for the full term of any rights that may exist in your contribution, and in accordance with privacy restrictions set out in the BBC's Privacy Policy. If you do not want to grant to the BBC the rights set out above, please do not submit your contribution to bbc.co.uk." |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST Date: 25 Jun 06 - 05:44 AM Yes Liam, but you can't add your music to the BBC in he way that you're encouraged to do on myspace. The BBC is also regulated by the govt, the governers and OFCOM, no one regulates myspace. Does the right issue go for adverts as well? Could Rupert sell off say, the Show of Hands song Roots for a hair dye ad? |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST Date: 25 Jun 06 - 06:02 AM I know it was a long way up this thread, but for the record I seriously doubt that Russell Brand posted the link to his own blog above. He's a comedian, TV presenter on Channel 4 (he presents a Big Brother show) and MTV, and a columnist for the Guardian. Hes also a ex-heroin addict and describes himself as a "sex addict" - he was in the tabloids last week for sleeping with Kate Moss. I do like the idea that he hangs around mudcat trying to plug his own myspace blog, but I'm sure its not true... |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST,Liam Date: 25 Jun 06 - 06:31 AM >>I know it was a long way up this thread, but for the record I seriously doubt that Russell Brand posted the link to his own blog above. He's a comedian, TV presenter on Channel 4 (he presents a Big Brother show) and MTV, and a columnist for the Guardian Phone him up and ask him. He's broadcasting his regular Sunday morning show live on BBC Radio 6 at the moment. It is rather more entertaining than listening to Parky. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Jun 06 - 06:52 AM ...but you can't add your music to the BBC in he way that you're encouraged to do on myspace. Interesting though and again something I think people should at least be aware of. BBC are an odd lot with the boards BTW. A few of us have been modded out for posting maybe a verse, link to an arrangement, etc. of our own work on the grounds it infringes copyright. I've also seen traditional songs suffer the same fate. On the other hand, I've seen cases that I'm sure clearly do breach thier rules copyright stand. That, unlike some of the comments I've read lately, is one of the genuine mysteries of the BBC moderation system. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 25 Jun 06 - 07:18 AM My apologies to Russell Brand |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 25 Jun 06 - 07:22 AM Re the clause Liam has pointed out: In the original article which kicked off this thread (if anyone can remember back that far) Andrew Orlowski writes: "It's the return of the old favorite, the ambiguous ownership contract. Myspace is actually using a boilerplate text designed to allow it to republish the content. Five years ago Microsoft was forced to change a similar, but even more acquisitive click... Apple had introduced a similar click through before retreating, and two years ago Google attached almost identical terms to its Orkut service. That was in 2004, the bloggers' love affair with the ad giant was still untarnished, and very little protest was heard." The bloggers' love affair with the ad giant. Hmmmm. Anyway, I have since seen the offending clause pop up in a number of places, some of them quite alarming such as ordinary retail sellers' terms & conditions (my post 10:03) so it's something a lot of outfits are obviously latching onto. I STILL think that we won't know for sure what the actual consequences are until there's some real money at stake. Like when some MySpacer has a global smash hit with a song. There have been precedent-making lawsuits over this sort of thing before, and that could well be another. A final word on MS (MySpace, not Micro$oft): Before a lot of people jump in saying what a good thing MySpace is for artists' exposure & contact, etc: PLEASE – WE ALL AGREE ON THAT. As a useful, even fascinating, fun way to hear/display new talent and make new friends, it's great. Ian (I think it was Ian?) describes it as a do-it-yourself John Peel show, which is the best definition I ever heard. But that's not in dispute. It is the question of how vulnerable these artists are, and I don't think that's been really proved yet because it's probably going to take a landmark law case to settle. And I STILL don't know the difference between "the license" which ends, and the "Agreement" which does not (my post 6:15). An agreement that doesn't terminate with the removal of one's material is something I would sure want to know more about before submitting to. There has been a truly thundering silence on this topic which suggests that no one else knows either. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: The Borchester Echo Date: 25 Jun 06 - 07:46 AM The alternative take on that crucial clause on content was made thus by a contributor to Billy Bragg's site: That clause does not mean myspace owns the content. it says they have a licence to that content. there's a big difference. The publisher/writer/etc. still owns all rights... but myspace gets to store, display, and use the content. It's like software, you the rightful (non-pirate ) owner are granted a licence to use the software -- but not to make copies of it or use the code etc. This clause i think basically protects MySpace from hassles over the fact that copywritten content is all over their site. by posting content here, you're granting MySpace a licence to actually have it on their site and display it to the world. (anything you create is automatically copyright to you BTW, unless you put it in the public domain, of course... and interestingly i'd interpret this licensing clause as meaning myspace isn't public domain, which means you keep ownership of anything you post say in your blogs... which is good)... so the ownership of the content is not in question... but according to that clause it seems like myspace basically gets to do whatever they feel like with the content... it protects them, it allows the site to function smoothly for everyone... but it doesn't seem to protect MySpace from "re-using" content or from giving it to other people. and that's where IMO the problem might be I quote this not because I agree with it but because it's the only coherent, non-hysterical, contrary point of view I have come across. I think it's too complacent and I, like Bonnie, would be very wary indeed of entering into a contract that doesn't end with the removal of material. However, I've never heard of Russell Brand either and really don't know or care if this reduces my credibility in the nu-media blatant self-promotion stakes. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Lizzie Cornish Date: 25 Jun 06 - 08:02 AM I'm still with Ian Anderson on this, just as, I'd presume, that *for once* he is still with me. Would there be this much discussion and slagging off going on over Myspace, if Rupert Murdoch did not, at present, own it? Oh....and you may like to read this, seems Billy's making it in New York these days too, and don't just read about Billy, read what Myspace themselves are saying: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/424418p-358103c.html |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 25 Jun 06 - 08:09 AM Lizzie, this discussion is about the LEGAL TERMS not who owns the site. Whether it's a giant like Murdoch or some little Joe McNobody, if you're signing something over to them you need to know exactly what it is you're agreeing to be bound by. (I mis-typed "signing" as "singing" - wishful thinking, perhaps?) |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST Date: 25 Jun 06 - 08:10 AM Here we go again... |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Lizzie Cornish Date: 25 Jun 06 - 08:22 AM Bonnie, that's what the article in the link is about. Here it is, from the New York Daily Press: >>>Musicians' rights: Lost in MySpace? Rupert Murdoch Is Rupert Murdoch taking the "My" in MySpace.com a little too literally? Murdoch's News Corp. owns the popular networking Web site, having paid $580 million last July for MySpace.com's parent company. But now, according to some MySpace.com users, the media giant thinks it also owns anything and everything that's posted there. In recent years, the site has become the online venue for musicians to release their new material. Name-brand bands such as Weezer, Nine Inch Nails — and even aspiring rapper Kevin Federline — have debuted music on their MySpace.com pages. But popular English songwriter Billy Bragg claims the MySpace.com "terms of service" give Murdoch's minions the right to exploit their content as they see fit. Bragg has deleted his tunes from his MySpace.com page, which offers this explanation: "SORRY THERE'S NO MUSIC," because "once an artist posts up any content (including songs), it then belongs to My Space (AKA Rupert Murdoch) and they can do what they want with it, throughout the world without paying the artist." The troublesome fine print informs users that by posting any content, "you hereby grant to MySpace.com a non-exclusive, fully-paid and royalty-free, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense through unlimited levels of sublicensees) to use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, publicly display, store, reproduce, transmit, and distribute such Content on and through the Services." Sounds dire. But Myspace.com spokesman Jeff Berman says not to worry. "Because the legalese has caused some confusion, we are at work revising it to make it very clear that MySpace is not seeking a license to do anything with an artist's work other than allow it to be shared in the manner the artist intends," Berman says. "Obviously, we don't own their music or do anything with it that they don't want." Nice to know.<<<< That's what I was talking about, the LEGAL side of it. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST,Liam Date: 25 Jun 06 - 08:30 AM >>I've never heard of Russell Brand either and really don't know or care if this reduces my credibility in the nu-media blatant self-promotion stakes. Fortunately Russell does a weekly podcast for you http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/shows/russell_brand/ |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Lizzie Cornish Date: 25 Jun 06 - 08:36 AM And here is a similar article from the BBC...that Billy sure is getting around!! And again, at the bottom of the page, Myspace is saying the same thing..that they are NOT after artists music. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5065632.stm |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 25 Jun 06 - 09:56 AM Fine. I just wish they would explain the contradiction in the following, and also clarify whether "non-exclusive" means that they too are free to "license your content to anyone else". In short, what is the difference between "License" and "Agreement" and which has precedence; and does Clause (2) "Term" overpower subheading 1 in Clause (6) "Proprietary Rights…" ? The latter is reassuring, the former is not. I know they have already amended some of their contract stipulations in response to public protest, but perhaps a bit more modification is needed. At one time they could keep portions of an artist's work even after the artist had departed. This has now been scrapped - but only after objections were raised. If no one ever queries anything, nothing will happen. This whole question is certainly not going to threaten the continued existence of MySpace (nor would I want it to). But it might improve the artists' benefits. Capital letters to emphasise certain passages are mine, not theirs. 1 Eligibility… 2 Term. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while you use the MySpace Services or are a Member. You may terminate your Membership at any time, for any reason, by following the instructions on the Member's Account Settings page. MySpace.com may terminate your Membership at any time, without warning. EVEN AFTER MEMBERSHIP IS TERMINATED, THIS AGREEMENT WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT, INCLUDING SECTIONS 5-17. 3 Fees... 4 Password... 5 Non-commercial Use by Members.. 6 Proprietary Rights in Content on MySpace.com. 1.MySpace.com does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post to the MySpace Services. After posting your Content to the MySpace Services, you continue to retain all ownership rights in such Content, and you continue to have the right to use your Content in any way you choose. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the MySpace Services, you hereby grant to MySpace.com a limited license to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Content solely on and through the MySpace Services. Without this license, MySpace.com would be unable to provide the MySpace Services. For example, without the right to modify Member Content, MySpace.com would not be able to digitally compress music files that Members submit or otherwise format Content to satisfy technical requirements, and without the right to publicly perform Member Content, MySpace.com could not allow Users to listen to music posted by Members. THE LICENSE YOU GRANT TO MYSPACE.COM IS NON-EXCLUSIVE (MEANING YOU ARE FREE TO LICENSE YOUR CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE IN ADDITION TO MYSPACE.COM), fully-paid and royalty-free (meaning that MySpace.com is not required to pay you for the use on the MySpace Services of the Content that you post), SUBLICENSABLE (so that MySpace.com is able to use its affiliates and subcontractors such as INTERNET CONTENT DELIVERY NETWORKS to provide the MySpace Services), and worldwide (because the Internet and the MySpace Services are global in reach). THIS LICENSE WILL TERMINATE AT THE TIME YOU REMOVE YOUR CONTENT FROM THE MYSPACE SERVICES. The license does not grant MySpace.com the right to sell your Content, nor does the license grant MySpace.com the right to distribute your Content outside of the MySpace Services. http://collect.myspace.com/misc/terms.html?z=1 |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Anne Lister Date: 25 Jun 06 - 04:23 PM Well, all I know is that they've made no attempt to answer the email I sent to their Customer Services Dept, asking them to clarify their policies with regard to copyright. So I suppose I'll have to take my songs off my pages ...*sigh* Anne |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: hesperis Date: 29 Jun 06 - 03:53 PM Notice that the policy as listed in Bonnie Shaljean's post of 25 Jun 06 is the one modified by them as of 15 Jun 06. So I think we're looking at the "clarififed" version of the myspace terms. I do recall them being quite a bit more sketchy when I first signed up. How much do the sentences in parenthesis have weight in an interpretation though? Also, it still doesn't define what MYSPACE SERVICES actually are... although that's difficult to do without limiting adding new parts to the site such as video uploads, an area for filmmakers, etc. For a big company, I think this is probably the best they can do. It'd be a good idea to keep a sharp eye on the terms though as they can still change without notice. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 29 Jun 06 - 04:12 PM Hespiris, see this thread for the new terms posted to MC on 28th June 2006. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Chris Cole Date: 29 Jun 06 - 05:18 PM And Billy has now blogged his own comments http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=34570397&blogID=137856388&MyToken=64b01726-1bb3-4c42-83e9-12d889 |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Chris Cole Date: 29 Jun 06 - 05:32 PM From Lizzie's post of 12 June 2006 < I've already written to them. No doubt Rupert Murdoch has signed a contract of a very different sort for me, for doing that, but hey..I'm an ex Radio 2 Folk & Acousticer and I love to live dangerously! ;0) Billy has asked as many people as possible to help him on this, so get out there and do just that! >> LOOKS LIKE YOU AND BILLY GOT THE RESULT HERE. WELL DONE. Let's sit and watch the apologies fly in now shall we? |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST Date: 29 Jun 06 - 06:03 PM Looks like BILLY and all the people who supported HIS call for action got the job done you mean. All Lizzie did was deny there was any problem. Now that it's over and sorted out she's very quick to jump aboard the let's-help-Billy train. But that's a new face she's showing. She doesn't deserve credit for getting this change made and NOBODY owes her any apologies. It's the other way around. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Anne Lister Date: 29 Jun 06 - 06:05 PM Breathing a sigh of relief here ... So now all you all have to do is toddle on over to My Space and become my friends! But I never did get a reply to my message to their Customer Services. I suspect Billy Bragg pulls more weight than I do! Anne |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 30 Jun 06 - 05:42 AM Pud - read Lizzie's posts. She has NOT been calling for change or working with Billy Bragg to bring it about. She has been consistently against it - until now. NOW she's celebrating this change, but it was one she did nothing to instigate, and no congratulations of any kind are due, much less apologies (for what???). She has called those of us who had questions or doubts about MySpace "detractors". But the new benefits favouring the artists only happened BECAUSE THOSE DOUBTS & QUESTIONS WERE FINALLY ADDRESSED. Nothing would ever have improved without public pressure, which Lizzie actively discouraged. So "looks like you and Billy got the result" just sticks in the throat. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: The Borchester Echo Date: 30 Jun 06 - 05:53 AM The pudding person is probably just another of madlizzie's logins, of which there are many. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 30 Jun 06 - 06:01 AM pudlover was in the BBC thread that prompted me to leave for a while encouraging Lizzie to be silly and accusing others of bullying, has turned up in this years Sidmouth thread, this thread making quite an absurd comment, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: George Papavgeris Date: 30 Jun 06 - 06:02 AM I said, she said, he didn't...enough already. Having achieved a result/prize, are we going to argue now about who deserves any remnants of credit (after Billy Bragg)? Who cares? Why does it matter in the bigger scheme of things? So, Pudlover (Diane, I know the person, and it's not Lizzie) apportioned credit where it wasn't due - but for it to "stick in the throat" it must be coated with spite. Let's swallow hard, lighten up and celebrate the result. To paraphrase Robb: Workers 1 - Murdoch NIL! |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 30 Jun 06 - 06:10 AM George, I have to respond to your accusation of spite. It's not fair and it's NOT true. It's a matter of keeping the record truthful - such a blatant distortion of the facts as Pudlover posted is misleading and galling. So DO NOT impugn my motives. If you're going to wave all comments all away with one generalising sweep of the hand then please refrain from commenting yourself. You are adding to this discussion too. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 30 Jun 06 - 06:11 AM George, I agree with the move one bit. I think we had moved on with people like Bonnie and myself saying the victory was good news. But to shout LOOKS LIKE YOU AND BILLY GOT THE RESULT HERE. WELL DONE and hint at apologies to someone who argued there was no problem is provocative. If you say they are different people, I believe you, but it pretty similar style baiting. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: George Papavgeris Date: 30 Jun 06 - 06:20 AM They are indeed different, Jon. And I don't want to add to any provocation, Bonnie, I shouldn't presume to know your motives. But sometimes we have to swallow provocation too, to free ourselves for better things in life. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: GUEST Date: 30 Jun 06 - 06:21 AM George this looks like your first post in this thread. Did you actually READ all the others? Maybe you should before calling names. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 30 Jun 06 - 06:23 AM Please don't preach to me. |
|
Subject: RE: MySpace policies - ? From: George Papavgeris Date: 30 Jun 06 - 06:31 AM Yes it was, Guest, and yes, I did. Neither did I call any names; feelings of spite are part of the human condition, we all have varying degrees of it at different times. Bonnie, apologies; no preaching intended - your life, your call. |
| Share Thread: |