From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V11 #327 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Tuesday, November 29 2005 Volume 11 : Number 327 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Today's your birthday, friends... [Mike Matthews ] Re: Myspace etc.. ["Xenu's Sister" ] Re: Ariel review from the Onion ["Mark B" ] "Jane Siberry opens best artist's digital music store EVAR" [Steve VanDev] Sheeba news (?) [ken_d.lists@comcast.net (Ken Descoteaux)] Aerial Featured on NPR ["Patrick M. Kingsley" ] Re: Myspace etc.. [raven@igc.org] Re: Myspace etc.. [Profjava@aol.com] myspace answer reposted with quotations better indicated [Profjava@aol.co] Re: Myspace etc.. [Bernie Mojzes ] Re: Myspace etc.. [Profjava@aol.com] Re: Myspace etc.. [Bernie Mojzes ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:00:04 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Matthews Subject: Today's your birthday, friends... i*i*i*i*i*i i*i*i*i*i*i *************** *****HAPPY********* **************BIRTHDAY********* *************************************************** *************************************************************************** ********************** Ward Kadel (no Email address) ********************** **************** Jesse Hernandez Liwag (jesse@tiaong.com) ***************** *************************************************************************** -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Ward Kadel Tue November 29 1977 Sagittarius Jesse Hernandez Liwag Wed November 29 1972 Water Rat Mirko Bulaja Sat November 30 1974 Block Juha Sorva Thu December 02 1976 Sagittarius Chip Lueck Thu December 05 1968 Sagittarius Lenore December 05 sagi Michele Wellck December 08 Sagittarius Jeremy J. Corry Fri December 11 1970 Sagittarius Renee Canada Tue December 13 1977 Sagittarius Julie C. Kammerzell Sun December 15 1968 Sagittarius/Scorpio combo Gloria Jackson-Nefertiti Sat December 15 1956 queen_nefertiti@prodigy.net Laura Clifford Tue December 17 1957 Sagittarius Dirk Kastens Tue December 17 1963 Sagittarius Milla Wed December 17 1975 Sagittarius Chris Schernwetter Tue December 17 1974 Sagittarius Sherry Haddock Sat December 17 1960 Sagittarius Tracy Benbrook Tue December 18 1973 Sagittarius Mark Lowry Mon December 22 1969 Capricarius Kay Cleaves Wed December 22 1976 Prancing Pony Uli Grepel Wed December 25 1968 Steinbock Joseph Wasicek Sat December 25 1976 Brown Eagle - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:39:49 -0800 (PST) From: "Xenu's Sister" Subject: Re: Myspace etc.. *WAVES* to Brad! Good to see you. I started this the other day then had to leave it. It's a bit moot now. Profjava@aol.com passed along: >>>>By posting any Content to the public areas of the Website, you hereby grant to MySpace.com the non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, publicly perform and display such Content on the Website. This license will terminate at the time you remove such Content from the Website. You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on the Website or otherwise have the right to grant the license set forth in this section, and (ii) your Content does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyright rights, or other intellectual property rights of any person. You agree to pay for all royalties and fees owing any person by reason of any Content you post on the Website.<<< Is it better? It still sounds to me as if they can do whatever they want with the music as long as it's on MySpace's computers. What else does "use, publicly perform and display" mean? I realize I probably did overreact, and don't think I'm not kicking myself over it either, since she almost certainly lost a lot of listeners whose ears might have perked up when the music started playing automatically, but who couldn't be bothered to click through to a 2nd page with the actual music. They won't come back again. It's not the first time I've screwed up, and it certainly won't be the last (could Happy have picked a *worse* representative uber-fan if she'd had a choice in the matter? Huh) but my heart was in the right place, protecting Happy's music, and everything worked out in the end. There are two updates since I started this post. First, I found a player to go on the page. The player I had on the click-through page couldn't be embedded into the main page (MySpace installed some weird filters), which is why I didn't do that, but this new player can be embedded. It's much better than the flaky MySpace player. It holds 20 songs instead of 4, and it seems stable. I hasn't been down once in the several times I've checked it since I installed it. And, Happy gave her permission to put the songs back up on MySpace's servers. I'm not sure I will. Nothing to do with the TOS, just that I like this player much better. John wrote: > You must be a MySpace *member* to go beyond > anything on the front page... I expect that > is unlikely to happen for many people. What does it cost to sign up? Nothing. You (general whoever you) can use a throwaway e-mail address to sign up. I'd think that just basking in the glow of what people are saying about Happy, besides the fun of perusing the Friends pictures, would be worth the little extra effort of signing up. I don't know how long it's going to be around. I don't know how much Murdoch is going to screw it up (btw, Murdoch buying MySpace was in the recent Wired article about MS). I'm having a blast while it lasts. I'm only sorry it took me so long to get Happy on there. RavFlight@aol.com wrote a very good post: > I run a newly forming National organization called > "The Culture_Shock Project", which is about bridging > gaps between people from multiple backgrounds. Your organization is fascinating. I can see how MySpace is helping you. I'm curious though, why are you on MySpace Music? Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: > I don't visit MySpace, Why not, when there's so much good music there? > but I did check out a couple of leads Vickie > posted earlier (thanks!), and promptly ordered > Jenny Owen Youngs' CD and her EP of demos. > it's been spinning in my Discman since, and > I can't get her songs out of my head. I even > wear her cute little button on my jacket. Yay, thanks for telling me. She freaks me out, scares the hell out of me, but I think she's great. You're welcome! Anything for you Kjetil. Scott Andrew wrote: > Yeah, I intentionally left out the band itself > because in the end I was more interested in the > numbers than genre. They're certainly not crap; > they play good alt-country pop, like the Gin > Blossoms in the 90s. Hi. I didn't mean to say that they *were* crap. Not knowing who they were made me say that perhaps they didn't sell because they were crap, just as a possibility. > But really, I don't think it matters either way; > I've seen crappy bands sell tons of albums and > great bands sell very little. Isn't that the way it is far too often. It's a shame. > I've been thinking about this for a few days, and > I think at the end of the day, adding/being added > as a MySpace friend is really not much of a commitment > to anything. Of course it isn't. Why should it be? Few people know each other and it's not like a mailing list or fan club. It's just hanging out. I hope that the reaction to Happy has shown how valuable (not monetarily, but in goodwill) one slice of the MySpace experience has been and continues to be. For people to scorn going to Happy's page and reading the Comments because of some unknown reason that has nothing to do with Happy or the people who have discovered her there seems, well it just seems odd. Or maybe it just shows how much emotion I have invested into Happy, that any indication at all that others enjoy her and are touched by her music in some way, thrills me, chills me, makes me happy. (You should see the silly grins I get on my face when I read my Guestbook entries. They're even better.) I'm waiting to hear back from Happy to see if she's sold any CDs since she's been on MySpace. She's moving now though so it might be a few days. Speaking of Happy, why we're all here in the first place, I think I forgot to tell you all that Happy and Bob did not, in fact, get married. Damned hurricane. They did go on a honeymood however. :) They're rescheduling in the spring, safely out of hurrican season. Christopher, thanks for answering Country Mouse's question about Mrs. Bartolozzi. I kept forgetting. Your answer was interesting. I hadn't thought about her sitting on top of the machine. To me she was sitting on a chair in front of it, because she sees the blouse wrapped around his trousers. I agree the song is very erotic, and I still think the husband is dead. I haven't heard anything to think he was murdered though. > It's not about the joys (or sorrows) of cleaning any > more than "Then I'd taken the kiss of seedcake back > from his mouth, Going deep South, go down...." (TSW) > was about heading to Brighton to go to her favorite > pastry shop. Ha, perfect! Don Keller (hi! another old-timer) thanks for the heads-up about the Dresden Dolls DVD. They're so cool. Jessica, is the SF print edition of the Onion the same as what's online? Is it ok if I upload scans of the Diner photos? I don't know when I'd get around to taking them to a photo shop and getting copies of prints made. If that's ok, do you mind if I give the URLs here so others can see them? Vickie (going away for a bit, visiting relatives) - -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Music, all I hear is music, guaranteed to please... Happy's MySpace profile: http://www.myspace.com/happyrhodes Happy Rhodes song samples and rarities: http://wretchawry.com - -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:33:10 -0500 From: "Mark B" Subject: Re: Ariel review from the Onion I have to be honest. You should join the Onion and ask them to send you the "weekly dispatch" to your e-mail address. They have the "AV Club" which reviews good obscure music, movies, DVDs, Books and video games. Oh and the articles are a hoot. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:59:11 -0800 From: Steve VanDevender Subject: "Jane Siberry opens best artist's digital music store EVAR" I don't think I've seen mention of this on Ecto yet: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/28/jane_siberry_opens_b.html "Canadian chanteuse Jane Siberry has created an online music store that's a model of how artists can capitalize on the goodwill of their fans to line their pocketbooks and disseminate their music. Her store sells non-DRMed MP3s and encourages fans to spread the word." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:12:05 +0000 From: ken_d.lists@comcast.net (Ken Descoteaux) Subject: Sheeba news (?) I'm sorry if this is a dupe, but Jane has jumped in with both feet... http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/28/jane_siberry_opens_b.html The Sheeba webstore is open, offering MP3s & videos for download.... You may pay the suggested retail price, pay your own price now.... or later, or pay nothing at all. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:58:46 -0500 From: "Patrick M. Kingsley" Subject: Aerial Featured on NPR Hey, Kate Bush is also get some exposure on All Songs Considered on the NPR Website: http://www.npr.org/programs/asc/archives/asc96/ You probably have to scroll down the page a bit .... Patrick M. Kingsley Computer Systems Engineer II IT Office, School of Engineering and Applied Science University of Virginia Tel: (434) 924-3705 Fax: (434) 924-3032 "To talk goodness is not good, only to do it is." -Chinese proverb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:24:10 -0800 From: raven@igc.org Subject: Re: Myspace etc.. At 12:39 AM 11/29/2005, Xenu's Sister wrote: > >John wrote: > > > You must be a MySpace *member* to go beyond > > anything on the front page... I expect that > > is unlikely to happen for many people. > >What does it cost to sign up? Nothing. Personally I agree completely, but there seems to be some people with strong feelings against MySpace, for whatever reason. I should mention that some browsers cause major problems there, I've heard from many Safari/Firefox users that can't sign-up at MySpace, only browse the front pages. And while Netscape work for most functions, only IE seems to work 100% of the time, MySpace uses some IE-only features on their website that are not W3C Standards compliant. - -- John ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:53:51 EST From: Profjava@aol.com Subject: Re: Myspace etc.. In a message dated 11/29/2005 3:45:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, xenussister@yahoo.com writes: >>>>By posting any Content to the public areas of the Website, you hereby grant to MySpace.com the non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, publicly perform and display such Content on the Website. This license will terminate at the time you remove such Content from the Website. You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on the Website or otherwise have the right to grant the license set forth in this section, and (ii) your Content does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyright rights, or other intellectual property rights of any person. You agree to pay for all royalties and fees owing any person by reason of any Content you post on the Website.<<< Is it better? It still sounds to me as if they can do whatever they want with the music as long as it's on MySpace's computers. What else does "use, publicly perform and display" mean? I had been thinking it means you are not going to sue them for having your content performed on their site in your space -- that you are giving them the right to display it and they want to make sure that you don't put up stuff you don't have the copyright on. But maybe you're right. I didn't study it that hard. I just looked at it and realized it didn't seem like it was saying what that other person said it said. But it may have said that last year when she originally posted it. The things she originally said it said were a little strange, to be sure. Maybe there is good reason to review the TOS carefully. I realize I probably did overreact, and don't think I'm not kicking myself over it either, since she almost certainly lost a lot of listeners whose ears might have perked up when the music started playing automatically, but who couldn't be bothered to click through to a 2nd page with the actual music. They won't come back again. It's not the first time I've screwed up, and it certainly won't be the last (could Happy have picked a *worse* representative uber-fan if she'd had a choice in the matter? Huh) but my heart was in the right place, protecting Happy's music, and everything worked out in the end. I don't think playing music automatically is a good idea. I think using either method is fine, and not playing it automatically is preferable. I have even read a profile of a user who said that she can't comment in some myspace pages because they have music automatically playing and it causes her browser to automatically crash every time she goes to a page playing a file (she explained to me privately that she thinks it's because her computer is old and she's going to replace it soon). I got rid of files automatically playing at my own (individual) page for that reason. A band page I help do has never automatically played it. I think the listener should always have control over whether to play a file. There is nothing wrong with doing it the way you are doing it or else having the myspace player up and simply not having it autoplay. I wasn't criticizing you or saying she needed a better representative; I don't think she could have a better, more thoughtful, or nicer representative.. I was just correcting myself because I had told other people not on this list before I read the TOS myself. Then I started to think I was warning them about something that wasn't the case. This had nothing to do with saying anything bad about you or accusing you of screwing up. I was more worrying that I had been saying the sky was falling to others. In fact one person wrote me a nasty, hateful email right after he read the emails from me telling him of the problem and then correcting myself. So I'm sorry but I didn't want to be announcing people should be suspicious of myspace's motives when I hadn't examined the TOS myself and so after I did examine it I felt I should correct myself. Nothing to do with you, more to do with fear of myself screwing up. Especially after receiving a hiding this past week from a hothead over having told him about that. There are two updates since I started this post. First, I found a player to go on the page. The player I had on the click-through page couldn't be embedded into the main page (MySpace installed some weird filters), which is why I didn't do that, but this new player can be embedded. It's much better than the flaky MySpace player. It holds 20 songs instead of 4, and it seems stable. I hasn't been down once in the several times I've checked it since I installed it. And, Happy gave her permission to put the songs back up on MySpace's servers. I'm not sure I will. Nothing to do with the TOS, just that I like this player much better. I think you should just do the way you feel safest for her rights. I'm not sure what the language means either, now that you bring it back up so I can review it. Look at the TOS in its entirety sometime (not just that snippet) and see if you don't think they are mainly trying to just not be sued for someone uploading an MP3 on their server and not having the right to upload it. I don't think they are trying to take our content and pass it around and distribute it themselves but to say we are giving them the right to host it for us when we upload it. That doesn't mean I have read it correctly. I think I will look at your MP3 player very soon. I agree that the Myspace player is flaky. I tried to upload three m4a's for a nice musician friend the other day on a page I just started for him and myspace wouldn't play it. I told him to send me mp3s instead. I wonder if the one that you have discovered will play m4a's (not that I really understand what an m4a is). Anyway, I did have trouble with the myspace mp3 player accepting uploads on a new music page I started yesterday for a person who is not very used to the internet. I like how myspace will stream files and let you decide whether to let them be downloaded but I'm sure it's not the best thing necessarily over all. As for the Rupert Murdoch thing, that guy that runs Myspace claims there are rumors all the time of different things, but you are sure of this one? Was it an online article or print? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:59:31 EST From: Profjava@aol.com Subject: myspace answer reposted with quotations better indicated this aol browser unfortunately uses "blue lines" for quoting which don't format in ecto, so I am reposting my answer with brackets to indicate quotations. In a message dated 11/29/2005 3:45:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, xenussister@yahoo.com writes: >>>>By posting any Content to the public areas of the Website, you hereby grant to MySpace.com the non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, publicly perform and display such Content on the Website. This license will terminate at the time you remove such Content from the Website. You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on the Website or otherwise have the right to grant the license set forth in this section, and (ii) your Content does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyright rights, or other intellectual property rights of any person. You agree to pay for all royalties and fees owing any person by reason of any Content you post on the Website.<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>Is it better? It still sounds to me as if they can do whatever they want with the music as long as it's on MySpace's computers. What else does "use, publicly perform and display" mean?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I had been thinking it means you are not going to sue them for having your content performed on their site in your space -- that you are giving them the right to display it and they want to make sure that you don't put up stuff you don't have the copyright on. But maybe you're right. I didn't study it that hard. I just looked at it and realized it didn't seem like it was saying what that other person said it said. But it may have said that last year when she originally posted it. The things she originally said it said were a little strange, to be sure. Maybe there is good reason to review the TOS carefully. >>>>>>>>>>I realize I probably did overreact, and don't think I'm not kicking myself over it either, since she almost certainly lost a lot of listeners whose ears might have perked up when the music started playing automatically, but who couldn't be bothered to click through to a 2nd page with the actual music. They won't come back again. It's not the first time I've screwed up, and it certainly won't be the last (could Happy have picked a *worse* representative uber-fan if she'd had a choice in the matter? Huh) but my heart was in the right place, protecting Happy's music, and everything worked out in the end.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I don't think playing music automatically is a good idea. I think using either method is fine, and not playing it automatically is preferable. I have even read a profile of a user who said that she can't comment in some myspace pages because they have music automatically playing and it causes her browser to automatically crash every time she goes to a page playing a file (she explained to me privately that she thinks it's because her computer is old and she's going to replace it soon). I got rid of files automatically playing at my own (individual) page for that reason. A band page I help do has never automatically played it. I think the listener should always have control over whether to play a file. There is nothing wrong with doing it the way you are doing it or else having the myspace player up and simply not having it autoplay. I wasn't criticizing you or saying she needed a better representative; I don't think she could have a better, more thoughtful, or nicer representative.. I was just correcting myself because I had told other people not on this list before I read the TOS myself. Then I started to think I was warning them about something that wasn't the case. This had nothing to do with saying anything bad about you or accusing you of screwing up. I was more worrying that I had been saying the sky was falling to others. In fact one person wrote me a nasty, hateful email right after he read the emails from me telling him of the problem and then correcting myself. So I'm sorry but I didn't want to be announcing people should be suspicious of myspace's motives when I hadn't examined the TOS myself and so after I did examine it I felt I should correct myself. Nothing to do with you, more to do with fear of myself screwing up. Especially after receiving a hiding this past week from a hothead over having told him about that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>There are two updates since I started this post. First, I found a player to go on the page. The player I had on the click-through page couldn't be embedded into the main page (MySpace installed some weird filters), which is why I didn't do that, but this new player can be embedded. It's much better than the flaky MySpace player. It holds 20 songs instead of 4, and it seems stable. I hasn't been down once in the several times I've checked it since I installed it. And, Happy gave her permission to put the songs back up on MySpace's servers. I'm not sure I will. Nothing to do with the TOS, just that I like this player much better.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:02:19 -0500 (EST) From: Bernie Mojzes Subject: Re: Myspace etc.. Any such sites are considered either "publishers" (like book, magazine, or album producers) or "broadcasters" (like TV/radio) - depending on whose lobbyists have deeper pockets when any given law is drafted - and require consent of the owners of the content in order to serve the content. Essentially all TOS documents will have such a provision. Livejournal.com states things a little differently, but to the same effect: :3. LiveJournal.com claims no ownership or control over any Content posted :by its users. The author retains all patent, trademark, and copyright to :all Content posted within available fields, and is responsible for :protecting those rights, but is not entitled to the help of the :LiveJournal.com staff in protecting such Content. The user posting any :Content represents that the poster has all rights necessary to post such :Content (and for LiveJournal to serve such Content) without violation of :any intellectual property or other rights or any laws or regulations; : :4. LiveJournal.com reserves the right, without limitation except by law, :to serve any user Content on the web, through the downloadable clients :and otherwise. LiveJournal.com also reserves the right, without :limitation, to resell any portion of a user's LiveJournal back to that :individual; I'd guess that MySpace wants the right to use anything that is hosted on their service as a potential advertisement - look at the cool stuff on our service, don't you wanna be cool too? However, you *should* always read the TOS, even of "reputable" companies. There have been a number of cases where the company has laid claim to all intellectual property expressed on their services (i believe that microsquish and apple both did this when they rolled out their network type services - and suffered the PR consequences - and others - hosting services, free email services, and the like - have tried this. brni while extremely confused, you said: > In a message dated 11/29/2005 3:45:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, > xenussister@yahoo.com writes: > >>>>By posting any Content to the public areas of the Website, > you hereby grant to MySpace.com the non-exclusive, fully paid, > worldwide license to use, publicly perform and display such > Content on the Website. This license will terminate at the time > you remove such Content from the Website. You represent and > warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on the > Website or otherwise have the right to grant the license set > forth in this section, and (ii) your Content does not violate > the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyright rights, or other > intellectual property rights of any person. You agree to pay for > all royalties and fees owing any person by reason of any Content > you post on the Website.<<< > > > Is it better? It still sounds to me as if they can do > whatever they want with the music as long as it's on > MySpace's computers. What else does "use, publicly > perform and display" mean? > > > > I had been thinking it means you are not going to sue them for having your > content performed on their site in your space -- that you are giving them the > right to display it and they want to make sure that you don't put up stuff you > don't have the copyright on. But maybe you're right. I didn't study it that > hard. I just looked at it and realized it didn't seem like it was saying what > that other person said it said. But it may have said that last year when she > originally posted it. The things she originally said it said were a little > strange, to be sure. Maybe there is good reason to review the TOS carefully. > > I realize I probably did overreact, and don't think > I'm not kicking myself over it either, since she > almost certainly lost a lot of listeners whose > ears might have perked up when the music started > playing automatically, but who couldn't be bothered > to click through to a 2nd page with the actual > music. They won't come back again. It's not the > first time I've screwed up, and it certainly won't > be the last (could Happy have picked a *worse* > representative uber-fan if she'd had a choice > in the matter? Huh) but my heart was in the right > place, protecting Happy's music, and everything > worked out in the end. > > I don't think playing music automatically is a good idea. I think using > either method is fine, and not playing it automatically is preferable. I have even > read a profile of a user who said that she can't comment in some myspace pages > because they have music automatically playing and it causes her browser to > automatically crash every time she goes to a page playing a file (she explained > to me privately that she thinks it's because her computer is old and she's > going to replace it soon). I got rid of files automatically playing at my own > (individual) page for that reason. A band page I help do has never automatically > played it. I think the listener should always have control over whether to > play a file. There is nothing wrong with doing it the way you are doing it or > else having the myspace player up and simply not having it autoplay. > > I wasn't criticizing you or saying she needed a better representative; I > don't think she could have a better, more thoughtful, or nicer representative.. I > was just correcting myself because I had told other people not on this list > before I read the TOS myself. Then I started to think I was warning them about > something that wasn't the case. This had nothing to do with saying anything bad > about you or accusing you of screwing up. I was more worrying that I had been > saying the sky was falling to others. In fact one person wrote me a nasty, > hateful email right after he read the emails from me telling him of the problem > and then correcting myself. So I'm sorry but I didn't want to be announcing > people should be suspicious of myspace's motives when I hadn't examined the TOS > myself and so after I did examine it I felt I should correct myself. Nothing > to do with you, more to do with fear of myself screwing up. Especially after > receiving a hiding this past week from a hothead over having told him about that. > > > There are two updates since I started this post. > First, I found a player to go on the page. The > player I had on the click-through page couldn't > be embedded into the main page (MySpace installed > some weird filters), which is why I didn't do that, > but this new player can be embedded. It's much > better than the flaky MySpace player. It holds > 20 songs instead of 4, and it seems stable. > I hasn't been down once in the several times > I've checked it since I installed it. > > And, Happy gave her permission to put the songs > back up on MySpace's servers. I'm not sure I will. > Nothing to do with the TOS, just that I like this > player much better. > I think you should just do the way you feel safest for her rights. I'm not > sure what the language means either, now that you bring it back up so I can > review it. Look at the TOS in its entirety sometime (not just that snippet) and > see if you don't think they are mainly trying to just not be sued for someone > uploading an MP3 on their server and not having the right to upload it. I don't > think they are trying to take our content and pass it around and distribute it > themselves but to say we are giving them the right to host it for us when we > upload it. That doesn't mean I have read it correctly. > > I think I will look at your MP3 player very soon. I agree that the Myspace > player is flaky. I tried to upload three m4a's for a nice musician friend the > other day on a page I just started for him and myspace wouldn't play it. I told > him to send me mp3s instead. I wonder if the one that you have discovered will > play m4a's (not that I really understand what an m4a is). Anyway, I did have > trouble with the myspace mp3 player accepting uploads on a new music page I > started yesterday for a person who is not very used to the internet. I like how > myspace will stream files and let you decide whether to let them be downloaded > but I'm sure it's not the best thing necessarily over all. > > As for the Rupert Murdoch thing, that guy that runs Myspace claims there are > rumors all the time of different things, but you are sure of this one? Was it > an online article or print? > - -- brni i don't want the world, i just want your half. www.livejournal.com/~brni ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:00:22 EST From: Profjava@aol.com Subject: Re: Myspace etc.. Using the phrase "while extremely confused" about me, brni@kappamaki.com writes: >>>>>>>>I'd guess that MySpace wants the right to use anything that is hosted on their service as a potential advertisement - look at the cool stuff on our service, don't you wanna be cool too? However, you *should* always read the TOS, even of "reputable" companies. There have been a number of cases where the company has laid claim to all intellectual property expressed on their services (i believe that microsquish and apple both did this when they rolled out their network type services - and suffered the PR consequences - and others - hosting services, free email services, and the like - have tried this.<<<<<< I don't think they made it clear at all they want the right to post anything someone puts on their site as an advertisement. If that is what they want, then it should be written in plain English. I might remove all content from myspace if I thought it was saying that. The original blog comment that Vickie read said in 2004 something to the effect that myspace seemed to be trying to get right to the content but the actual current TOS didn't seem to say that, I didn't think. You quote live journal but I think I'd like to take us back to myspace TOS. http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/misc/terms.html?z=1&Mytoken=20040917113647 See term 5. Content Posted on the Site. a. You understand and agree that MySpace.com may review and delete any content, messages, MySpace.com Messenger messages, photos or profiles (collectively, "Content") that in the sole judgment of MySpace.com violate this Agreement or which may be offensive, illegal or violate the rights, harm, or threaten the safety of any Member. b. You are solely responsible for the Content that you publish or display (hereinafter, "post") on the Service or any material or information that you transmit to other Members. c. By posting any Content to the public areas of the Website, you hereby grant to MySpace.com the non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, publicly perform and display such Content on the Website. This license will terminate at the time you remove such Content from the Website. You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on the Website or otherwise have the right to grant the license set forth in this section, and (ii) your Content does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyright rights, or other intellectual property rights of any person. You agree to pay for all royalties and fees owing any person by reason of any Content you post on the Website. d. The following is a partial list of the kind of Content that is illegal or prohibited on the Website. MySpace.com reserves the right to investigate and take appropriate legal action in its sole discretion against anyone who violates this provision, including without limitation, removing the offending communication from the Service and terminating the membership of such violators. Prohibited Content includes Content that: [snip list and longer extra verbiage, see page for rest of paragraph]. - --------------- I don't see that they are saying they are keeping a right in your intellectual property. I don't see this as saying they are going to repost your content? They specifically say that as soon as you remove your content from the website, they no longer have a license to show it. So if they were trying to show your content in an advertisement and you removed it from your site, then they would have no license to do so. I don't feel it has to do with advertising or taking your content rights. But I'm not a lawyer so I don't know. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:44:09 -0500 (EST) From: Bernie Mojzes Subject: Re: Myspace etc.. Ok, by "potential advertisement," here's what I mean: I brought up http://www.myspace.com/ in a browser. Right under the banner on the left hand side is a box that says "Cool New People." There's 2 pictures (...jUIcE... and Truppo). Presumably Truppo did not post her picture on the front page of www.myspace.com - the people at myspace.com did, or some algorithm determined it, or whatever. The verbiage in the TOS says they can do that - you put it up, they can use it. It's reasonably standard cover-one's-butt language. What I look for when deciding to use a service is some statement that says "you own your stuff, and you give us non-exclusive right to publish it while you use the service." There *have* been companies that have laid claim to any intellectual property that passes through their gates (one free email provider claimed that they owned intellectual property of anything discussed in any email sent from or to any of their email addresses, which is insane). Regarding the original reading of the myspace.com TOS, I tried looking in the wayback machine ( http://www.archive.org ) to see how it used to read, but unfortunately, myspace.com has blocked archiving. Bernie > Using the phrase "while extremely confused" about me, brni@kappamaki.com > writes: > >>>>>>>>I'd guess that MySpace wants the right to use anything that is hosted > on > their service as a potential advertisement - look at the cool stuff on our > service, don't you wanna be cool too? > > However, you *should* always read the TOS, even of "reputable" companies. > There have been a number of cases where the company has laid claim to all > intellectual property expressed on their services (i believe that > microsquish and apple both did this when they rolled out their network > type services - and suffered the PR consequences - and others - hosting > services, free email services, and the like - have tried this.<<<<<< > > I don't think they made it clear at all they want the right to post anything > someone puts on their site as an advertisement. If that is what they want, > then it should be written in plain English. I might remove all content from > myspace if I thought it was saying that. The original blog comment that Vickie read > said in 2004 something to the effect that myspace seemed to be trying to get > right to the content but the actual current TOS didn't seem to say that, I > didn't think. You quote live journal but I think I'd like to take us back to > myspace TOS. > > > http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/misc/terms.html?z=1&Mytoken=20040917113647 > > See term 5. > > Content Posted on the Site. a. You understand and agree that MySpace.com may > review and delete any content, messages, MySpace.com Messenger messages, > photos or profiles (collectively, "Content") that in the sole judgment of > MySpace.com violate this Agreement or which may be offensive, illegal or violate the > rights, harm, or threaten the safety of any Member. b. You are solely > responsible for the Content that you publish or display (hereinafter, "post") on the > Service or any material or information that you transmit to other Members. c. By > posting any Content to the public areas of the Website, you hereby grant to > MySpace.com the non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, publicly > perform and display such Content on the Website. This license will terminate at > the time you remove such Content from the Website. You represent and warrant > that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on the Website or otherwise have > the right to grant the license set forth in this section, and (ii) your Content > does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyright rights, or > other intellectual property rights of any person. You agree to pay for all > royalties and fees owing any person by reason of any Content you post on the > Website. d. The following is a partial list of the kind of Content that is illegal > or prohibited on the Website. MySpace.com reserves the right to investigate and > take appropriate legal action in its sole discretion against anyone who > violates this provision, including without limitation, removing the offending > communication from the Service and terminating the membership of such violators. > Prohibited Content includes Content that: > [snip list and longer extra verbiage, see page for rest of paragraph]. > > --------------- > > I don't see that they are saying they are keeping a right in your > intellectual property. I don't see this as saying they are going to repost your content? > They specifically say that as soon as you remove your content from the > website, they no longer have a license to show it. So if they were trying to show > your content in an advertisement and you removed it from your site, then they > would have no license to do so. I don't feel it has to do with advertising or > taking your content rights. But I'm not a lawyer so I don't know. > - -- brni i don't want the world, i just want your half. www.livejournal.com/~brni ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V11 #327 ***************************