MySpace's Oinkalicious Fine Print

[JSngry]

Received via layers of forwarded (I know who Billy Bragg is, but can honestly say that I've never knowingly heard his work) e-mail:

MySpace retains right to any art or music displayed on site

"Someone who we work with was bright enough to read the small print

of the MySpace terms and conditions and found that 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. Because of this

we've had to take all of Billy's songs down. I'm working on getting

small clips put up instead, but in the meantime please visit

www.billybragg.com to listen to and download songs.

Below is the offending clause. We are hoping to start a small

revolution (in true Bragg style) to try and put a stop to this. You

can do your bit by posting out a bulletin to all your friends, esp

artists, and badgering Tom with e-mails letting him know how unfair

this clause is (not least because you can't hear Billy on here

anymore!).

Thanks for your help and support. The amazing thing about My Space

is how fast we can all communicate so if we all do our bit we

should be able to change this.

Take Care

Sarah, Bragg Office xx

TERMS: (as of 17th March 2006)

Quote:

"By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content, messages,

text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, profiles, works of

authorship, or any other materials (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. Notwithstanding

the foregoing, a back-up or residual copy of the Content posted by

you may remain on the MySpace.com servers after you have removed

the Content from the Services, and MySpace.com retains the rights

to those copies."

[Joe G]

:rsly: Hmmmm.....

[Sundog]

TheirSpace

[Adam]

Actually, I think Billy Bragg doth protest too much. First, it's a non-exclusive license, and second, it just gives My Space permission to show it on their services - meaning My Space.

Basically this is a clause written by lawyers to prevent this potential event: a songwriter posts a song, and then sues My Space for having the song on My Space without a license. Absurd but certainly possible. It is saying that by posting the song you are giving My Space permission to have the song played from My Space.

Without this clause, My Space theoretically would have to license and pay for every song that gets posted on their site - even if you are the creator and are posting it on your own site.

[JSngry]

Actually, I think Billy Bragg doth protest too much. First, it's a non-exclusive license, and second, it just gives My Space permission to show it on their services - meaning My Space.

Basically this is a clause written by lawyers to prevent this potential event: a songwriter posts a song, and then sues My Space for having the song on My Space without a license. Absurd but certainly possible. It is saying that by posting the song you are giving My Space permission to have the song played from My Space.

Without this clause, My Space theoretically would have to license and pay for every song that gets posted on their site - even if you are the creator and are posting it on your own site.

That sounds plausible, reasonable, and fair.

But the wording seems to leave open some potentially unsavory loopholes, no?

Edited June 7, 2006 by JSngry

[Chuck Nessa]

But the wording seems to leave open some potentially unsavory loopholes, no?

But the loopholes are their loopholes.

[Adam]

Actually, I think Billy Bragg doth protest too much. First, it's a non-exclusive license, and second, it just gives My Space permission to show it on their services - meaning My Space.

Basically this is a clause written by lawyers to prevent this potential event: a songwriter posts a song, and then sues My Space for having the song on My Space without a license. Absurd but certainly possible. It is saying that by posting the song you are giving My Space permission to have the song played from My Space.

Without this clause, My Space theoretically would have to license and pay for every song that gets posted on their site - even if you are the creator and are posting it on your own site.

That sounds plausible, reasonable, and fair.

But the wording seems to leave open some potentially unsavory loopholes, no?

I'm sure it does, but it depends also on how clearly they define 'Services" elsewhere in the agreement, and whether trhat is truly limited to the My Space site.

And of course one can still sue, no matter what agreement has been signed or clause has been agreed to.

[Dan Gould]

Actually, I think Billy Bragg doth protest too much. First, it's a non-exclusive license, and second, it just gives My Space permission to show it on their services - meaning My Space.

Basically this is a clause written by lawyers to prevent this potential event: a songwriter posts a song, and then sues My Space for having the song on My Space without a license. Absurd but certainly possible. It is saying that by posting the song you are giving My Space permission to have the song played from My Space.

Without this clause, My Space theoretically would have to license and pay for every song that gets posted on their site - even if you are the creator and are posting it on your own site.

It does seem reasonable but I have a problem with these two sentences:

This license will terminate at the

time you remove such Content from the Services. Notwithstanding

the foregoing, a back-up or residual copy of the Content posted by

you may remain on the MySpace.com servers after you have removed

the Content from the Services, and MySpace.com retains the rights

to those copies."

Its one thing to say that back-up copies may remain on the servers, but why should MySpace.com retain the rights? Does this mean the rights delineated above are retained? Then what is the point in saying that the license will terminate when the content is removed?

[Adam]

Actually, I think Billy Bragg doth protest too much. First, it's a non-exclusive license, and second, it just gives My Space permission to show it on their services - meaning My Space.

Basically this is a clause written by lawyers to prevent this potential event: a songwriter posts a song, and then sues My Space for having the song on My Space without a license. Absurd but certainly possible. It is saying that by posting the song you are giving My Space permission to have the song played from My Space.

Without this clause, My Space theoretically would have to license and pay for every song that gets posted on their site - even if you are the creator and are posting it on your own site.

It does seem reasonable but I have a problem with these two sentences:

This license will terminate at the

time you remove such Content from the Services. Notwithstanding

the foregoing, a back-up or residual copy of the Content posted by

you may remain on the MySpace.com servers after you have removed

the Content from the Services, and MySpace.com retains the rights

to those copies."

Its one thing to say that back-up copies may remain on the servers, but why should MySpace.com retain the rights? Does this mean the rights delineated above are retained? Then what is the point in saying that the license will terminate when the content is removed?

Hmm, yeah, that is a bit more worrisome. I think it largely is there for the same reason. if some back-up exists somewhere, they don't want you suing them after you've removed it from their site. that seems straightforward. I'm sure My Space like other sites does regular back-ups of everything, and those back-ups might include information that has since been deleted. Who knows where those back-ups live? But I am sure My Space is doing it to cover their asses. I still don't see how it allows them to start selling or licensing your music or images to other people.

[Dan Gould]

Actually, I think Billy Bragg doth protest too much. First, it's a non-exclusive license, and second, it just gives My Space permission to show it on their services - meaning My Space.

Basically this is a clause written by lawyers to prevent this potential event: a songwriter posts a song, and then sues My Space for having the song on My Space without a license. Absurd but certainly possible. It is saying that by posting the song you are giving My Space permission to have the song played from My Space.

Without this clause, My Space theoretically would have to license and pay for every song that gets posted on their site - even if you are the creator and are posting it on your own site.

It does seem reasonable but I have a problem with these two sentences:

This license will terminate at the

time you remove such Content from the Services. Notwithstanding

the foregoing, a back-up or residual copy of the Content posted by

you may remain on the MySpace.com servers after you have removed

the Content from the Services, and MySpace.com retains the rights

to those copies."

Its one thing to say that back-up copies may remain on the servers, but why should MySpace.com retain the rights? Does this mean the rights delineated above are retained? Then what is the point in saying that the license will terminate when the content is removed?

Hmm, yeah, that is a bit more worrisome. I think it largely is there for the same reason. if some back-up exists somewhere, they don't want you suing them after you've removed it from their site. that seems straightforward. I'm sure My Space like other sites does regular back-ups of everything, and those back-ups might include information that has since been deleted. Who knows where those back-ups live? But I am sure My Space is doing it to cover their asses. I still don't see how it allows them to start selling or licensing your music or images to other people.

Agreed ... but I think that the agreement should state something like "My Space may retain copies of deleted Content on back-up copies which it maintains, but the license and rights delineated above shall only apply to Content which is currently uploaded by the user."

Otherwise, there does seem to be a potential loophole in their retention of backup copies. Kind of also brings up the question of what happens if something crashes and an earlier back-up is used? My Space might re-establish a license to material that a user had already removed.