Re: [linux-audio-user] The MySpace terms for content

On Wed May 3 2006 15:41, Brett McCoy wrote:
> (collectively, "Content") on or through the Services, 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. This license will terminate at the time
> you remove such Content from the Services. You represent and

I'm no lawyer, but to me it seems that all those rights you're
giving them only applies to Myspace itself ("to use, ... and
distribute such Content on and through the Services.")
Regardless, I don't think you're giving them the right to sell
it on CD or use it in a soundtrack, or a commercial (unless it's
airing on Myspace itself.) There's no "including but not
limited to", just "on and through the Services". But millions
have been lost through the presence or absence of a comma, so
who knows.

I also don't see where this agreement allows them to "claim
copyright on EVERYTHING posted, including all text, pictures and
music" as Folderol suggested, and it doesn't appear that "This
applies even after you take down the material yourself".

My lay interpretation of this agreement is, "You agree not to sue
us for sharing the stuff you've uploaded, or at least not before
you delete it. You promise you're legally allowed to upload it
under these terms in the first place and if it turns out you're
not, you promise to pay the offended parties whatever they're
due and not try to stick us with it." I don't think that's
incompatible with any free/open content licenses, nor at all
draconian. If I were foolish enough to try to start a social
music hosting site, I'd certainly have words to that effect in
my signup agreement to cover my own ass.

Not that I'm fond of Myspace or anything.... at all... but I
don't think the sky is falling yet, either. Is the above
agreement even any worse than the one in place before Murdoch
came into the picture?

Rob
Received on Thu May 4 00:15:09 2006