http://wiki.linuxaudio.org/apps/categories/dead_link ->
http://wiki.linuxaudio.org/apps/all/x-11_songs ->
http://web.archive.org/web/20051214134254/x-11.info/download.html

I still need to listen to the music ... I just listened to
http://web.archive.org/web/20051217184310/x-11.info/x-11/x-11_these_are_my_dark_days.ogg
and I like it . I'm twisted to "generation x punk-rock-cross-over" and
"free jazz", resp. hardbop etc. ... however that be, SST like stuff.

Anyway, I'm interested in
http://web.archive.org/web/20051217184210/x-11.info/pml.txt:

Personal Music Licence v1.0

This music is provided for your personal use, not for resale. You may
make verbatim copies of it, distribute it in any medium, and play it
in public as long as you do not charge money for doing so.

You must preserve the artist name and title of the music with any
copies of the music that you distribute, and make a copy of this
licence available with the music.

Commercial distribution, commercial public performance, sampling,
remixing and derivative versions are strictly prohibited without the
artist's explicit consent. The artist asserts copyright on this music,
and that the music contains no unauthorised copyrighted material.

Is it a capable licence? And is the CC a capable licence?

What does "derivative versions" mean? If I would like to publish a
non-commercial interpretation and I name the composer(s). Isn't it
allowed? If so, IMO it would be stupid.

I'm against GEMA etc., but e.g. a friend, Achim Jaroschek did release
music by GEMA, e.g. "Subtil Twister" Achim and Peter Brötzmann. I wonder
if there are "cool" licenses for commercial musicians who aren't
capitalists.

Please everybody, if you know links or have information about capable
licences reply.

I guess for my self, I won't pay my rent by making music, CC should be
ok, I just wish to avoid that capitalists do bad things, e.g. usage for
commercials. But I guess I don't really need protection, because I'm a
nobody and advertisings are done using music from Hendrix, The Beatles etc..

Anyway, I do know the webpage of CC, but not if it's really a capable
licence. And are there any or other capable licenses, but GEMA and Co.?

Cheers!

Ralf
_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users

PS:

> as you do not charge money for doing so.

The next problem. Assumed a poor DJ get less money for a job and he
wishes to support real independent musicians. What does he need to do?
He would like to play this music, but isn't allowed to do it. The
organizer pays the GEMA or similar organisations. So the DJ could play
all the odd chart stuff, but no cool music?
_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users

On 10-06-14 09:26 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
<snip>
> Anyway, I'm interested in
> http://web.archive.org/web/20051217184210/x-11.info/pml.txt:
>
> Personal Music Licence v1.0
>
> This music is provided for your personal use, not for resale. You may
> make verbatim copies of it, distribute it in any medium, and play it
> in public as long as you do not charge money for doing so.
>
> You must preserve the artist name and title of the music with any
> copies of the music that you distribute, and make a copy of this
> licence available with the music.
>
> Commercial distribution, commercial public performance, sampling,
> remixing and derivative versions are strictly prohibited without the
> artist's explicit consent. The artist asserts copyright on this music,
> and that the music contains no unauthorised copyrighted material.
>
> Is it a capable licence? And is the CC a capable licence?
>
No idea if this is a capable license. IMO all of the CC licenses are
capable. No one should take my word for it, consult a lawyer if it
matters to you.

> What does "derivative versions" mean? If I would like to publish a
> non-commercial interpretation and I name the composer(s). Isn't it
> allowed? If so, IMO it would be stupid.

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ#Does_my_use_constitute_a_derivative_work_or_a n_adaptation.3F

In a nutshell what "derivative" means is kind of tricky. Using some
piece of music as theme music for a podcast is generally regarded as
being a derivative work. A good policy is that if you have to ask, just
don't do it.

In general, the FAQ (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ) answers a lot
of questions.
>
> I'm against GEMA etc., but e.g. a friend, Achim Jaroschek did release
> music by GEMA, e.g. "Subtil Twister" Achim and Peter Brötzmann. I wonder
> if there are "cool" licenses for commercial musicians who aren't
> capitalists.
>
I would check out the Creative Commons. They have a number of licences
that cover a variety of situations.

> Please everybody, if you know links or have information about capable
> licences reply.
>
http://creativecommons.org/international/de/

For everyone else:
http://creativecommons.org

The CC site has a handy utility for helping you to choose a license:
http://creativecommons.org/choose/

> I guess for my self, I won't pay my rent by making music, CC should be
> ok, I just wish to avoid that capitalists do bad things, e.g. usage for
> commercials. But I guess I don't really need protection, because I'm a
> nobody and advertisings are done using music from Hendrix, The Beatles etc..

I use CC licenses for just this sort of thing.
>
> Anyway, I do know the webpage of CC, but not if it's really a capable
> licence. And are there any or other capable licenses, but GEMA and Co.?

AFAIK, the CC of licenses are capable. Consult a lawyer if in doubt.

_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users

Gustin Johnson wrote:
> I use CC licenses for just this sort of thing.
>
>> Anyway, I do know the webpage of CC, but not if it's really a capable
>> licence. And are there any or other capable licenses, but GEMA and Co.?
>>
>
> AFAIK, the CC of licenses are capable. Consult a lawyer if in doubt.
>

As far as I know the CC is capable by the German law, but a commercial
organisation like the GEMA will control the situation for you.

I'm looking for something with CCish like rules + a commercial term,
simplified: You are allowed to do anything, but if you e.g. do have a
disco, than pay me for playing my music.

As far as I know in Germany only the GEMA will guarantee you to get
money, but you aren't allowed to use the CC licence too, when using the
GEMA.

For me it's very easy, I just need the CC, but I know people who are
members of the GEMA, they pay their rent by their music. The GEMA
handles kindergarten charity events the same way as commercial discos.
An exemption clause is barred.

I'm missing this commercial aspect for the CC. Perhaps I should read it
again.

Musicians wish to get money for their music, but musicians won't take
kindergarten charity events to the cleaners.

This is the situation for Germany as far as I do understand it.

Cheers!

Ralf
_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users

On 10-06-15 01:51 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Gustin Johnson wrote:
>> I use CC licenses for just this sort of thing.
>>
>>> Anyway, I do know the webpage of CC, but not if it's really a capable
>>> licence. And are there any or other capable licenses, but GEMA and Co.?
>>>
>>
>> AFAIK, the CC of licenses are capable. Consult a lawyer if in doubt.
>>
>
> As far as I know the CC is capable by the German law, but a commercial
> organisation like the GEMA will control the situation for you.
>
> I'm looking for something with CCish like rules + a commercial term,
> simplified: You are allowed to do anything, but if you e.g. do have a
> disco, than pay me for playing my music.
>
The CC license can allow for this. All that needs to happen is that
person who wishes to use your work in a commercial sense needs to get
the author(s) permission.

The license I usually use
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/
has a notice at the bottom regarding waivers.

Of course the license I use allows for remixes, but there are other
licenses that do not. Pick the one that suites you the best.

_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users

Hi Ralf,

The Personal Music Licence was written many years ago, before Creative
Commons existed. I don't use the 'PML' any more.

>> as you do not charge money for doing so.
>
> The next problem. Assumed a poor DJ get less money for a job and he
> wishes to support real independent musicians. What does he need to do?
> He would like to play this music, but isn't allowed to do it. The
> organizer pays the GEMA or similar organisations. So the DJ could play
> all the odd chart stuff, but no cool music?

I agree, it's a major flaw in all non-commercial licence clauses.

Cheers!

Daniel
_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
64studio-users@lists.64studio.com
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users