<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Creative Commons &#187; Drowned In Sound</title>
	<atom:link href="http://creativecommons.org/tag/drowned-in-sound/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://creativecommons.org</link>
	<description>Share, reuse, and remix — legally.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:58:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Music Blogs, Sharing, and CC&#160;Licenses</title>
		<link>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/10464</link>
		<comments>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/10464#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:54:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cameron Parkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Weblog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Berkeley Place]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drowned In Sound]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://creativecommons.org/?p=10464</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent post on music blogs and MP3 distribution at UK webzine Drowned In Sound raised some interesting questions about the legality of sharing online and caught our attention as a result. The posting focused on the case of blog Berkeley Place Indie (now Berkeley Place) that, like many music blogs, posted free MP3s of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A <a href="http://drownedinsound.com/news/4135551">recent post</a> on music blogs and MP3 distribution at UK webzine <a href="http://drownedinsound.com/">Drowned In Sound</a> raised some interesting questions about the legality of sharing online and caught our attention as a result. The posting focused on the case of blog <a href="http://www.berkeleyplaceblog.com/">Berkeley Place Indie</a> (now <em>Berkeley Place</em>) that, like many music blogs, posted free MP3s of artists and songs that they liked. Beyond the legal questions involved in this practice, BPI&#8217;s owner claims that it was done under <a href="http://www.berkeleyplaceblog.com/2008/10/28/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-fish/">the assumption</a> that they had both artist and record label blessing to do so. </p>
<p>When BPI found that a number of their posts had been either removed or made private by their hosts, a messy and complex ownership battle <a href="http://www.berkeleyplaceblog.com/2008/10/28/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-fish/">emerged</a>. DiS summed up the details nicely, and provided some <a href="http://drownedinsound.com/news/4135551">unique insight as well</a><span class="lol"></span>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Rumblings suggest that this blogger is not alone, and that a whole host of posts are being taken down.</p>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>It&#8217;s all quite crazy and confusing, like most copyright laws in this highly globalised, anything-goes-until-a-precedent-is-set mad world in which we live. Unless there are sensible solutions, such as bandwidth taxes for data transfer or for owning an internet connection and/or a computer, this confusion will continue, embracing technology that can do things will be a minefield and technological creativity will be stifled or more likely forced further underground. It&#8217;s such a muddle, even people doing legitimate things will be thrown in with every album leaker.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>The CC answer to this problem is relatively simple &#8211; even our most restrictive license (<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a>) allows for the <strong>sharing of content</strong>. Record labels and artists can indicate, in advance, which songs they wish blogs to distribute &#8211; not just in a passing manner, but with a legally sound license that works to protect all parties involved. Music blogs, in turn, gain the insurance that these sort of takedowns won&#8217;t take place &#8211; legally speaking, our licenses are irrevocable, making a commitment to sharing legally and technically binding.</p>
<p>The issue is of course isn&#8217;t as simple as it sounds. From a legal perspective, international copyright law remains a point of confusion (as it was with BPI), a haze we are adding clarity to by offering <a href="http://creativecommons.org/international/">jurisdiction specificity</a> for our licenses. A similar complication arises in from the murky question of what commercial use is and what it isn&#8217;t &#8211; another issue we are attempting to tackle through our <a href="http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/9554">noncommercial use study</a>. </p>
<p>Regardless of these questions, for artists and record labels looking to distribute songs to music blogs under terms that allow sharing, CC licenses are a great option for all parties. They are legally tested, easy to understand, and free.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/10464/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

