Quote:
Originally Posted by Hint  Myspace is the same, I think. There were similar clauses in their fine print and subsequent alarmed postings around the net when they were discovered.
As I understand it, the clause is necessary because legally they need to be granted the right to "broadcast" your music to whoever visits your page without the artist demanding performance royalties in return. You are waiving your right to receive airplay royalties through use of your material on their site.
In order to provide download links, they also need to be granted the right to "copy" your music (since a downloaded MP3 is a copy in the eyes of the law). You are waiving your right to receive mechanical royalties through use of your material on their site.
The clause exists because it needs to be made explicit that by uploading your music to the site, you are giving them permission to "broadcast" and "copy" your material through their site. I don't think anyone's planning on getting rich by stealing the rights to and selling a bunch of producers' demos. Independent artists are heavily involved in the creation and running of the site. |
Well, they should state this intent explicitly.
Alongside these spooky clauses should be some kind of "We're totally not interested in exploiting your music" statement. The absence of a statement of intent is just... very spooky.
Ironically, my presence on this thread was to
encourage people to sign up, but I have to say I feel quite uneasy about it now. In fact, I feel a little foolish.
You cannot deny the language is terrifying in its suggestion of absolute, uncurtailed despotism.
- c