Slashdot Mirror
Stock Music Artists Aren't Always Happy About How Their Music Is Used (wired.com)
mirandakatz writes: If you're a stock music composer, you sign over the rights to whatever music you put up on a variety of hosting sites. That can get complicated -- especially when your music winds up being used to soundtrack hate speech. At Backchannel, Pippa Biddle dives into the knotty world of stock music, writing that stock music is 'a quick way for a talented musician to make a small buck. But there's a hidden cost: You lose control over where your work ends up. In hundreds, if not thousands, of cases, a tune becomes the backing track to hate speech or violent videos. Often such use violates the license the buyer agrees to when purchasing the track. But nobody reads the licenses -- and, more importantly, no one enforces them.'
While this is true, the artist enters into a contract with an agency that provides stock clips and a condition of this is that they can be used by whomever the agency decides to allow to pay for them. They generally don't know how they are going to be used, and in most cases don't care. It's just an extra money opportunity that for most will never yield anything, but for a few might result in a few bucks every now and then.
So, if for example you were a tech worker who is a hobbyist bluegrass guitar player and you home-recorded a lot of compositions in various keys and styles and put them out there for use, you might never hear anything again. Or, you might have a deposit for a few hundred dollars show up one day and you have to check to find out that it was used in (TV series episode XX) as a few seconds of background music when two characters were listening to the radio in a car. However, you also may not ever know where it's been used and how if this escapes your notice, so your material may end up on a show that you severely disagree with, but you've signed over the rights so it's not your song anymore. And for most of us, it's the equivalent of clip art and we don't care what happens to it so if a check comes in every so often, so much the better.
Posting for a friend of course.
>Nobody has clearly defined what hate speech actually means.
Canada's done a pretty good job - "don't intentionally incite violence based on prejudice and falsehoods", more or less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace."
" an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada."
This. Before too long Levi's or whoever will be getting arsey because someone did one of these things in their jeans.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Some of the open-source software I wrote caries a modified BSD-license. There is a separate item banning any and all usage by persons owning a Che Guevara T-shirt or any other paraphernalia praising or otherwise glorifying the Communist mass-murderer.
As long as no one is forced to sign away their rights, there is nothing to see here.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.