Soem thoughts: On 9/13/06, David Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As the wealth-generating capacities of social networking become increasingly apparent, all sorts of companies are racing to cash in.
Companies being the key word here. Until Myspace and similar sites offer a portal for musicians to sell their work for money, it will still be the preserve of amateurs and those with record deals elsewhere - the non-commercial ethos of myspace does nothing to threaten the current music industry oligarchy, and in fact supports it by limiting it's own scope to the non-commercial domain. The idea that myspace therefore represents any sort of resolution in participatory or democratic culture is a myth.
But here's the catch: the hosting companies are claiming ownership in the works that we create.
Not strictly true. both Myspace and Youtube claim a license to the work, not an assignment of rights - You give them permission to use your work, rather than giving them the work itself. These are two very different things, and the granting of a license should cause no problems for free culturalists, as the granting of such a license by default to anyone and everyone is implicit in any free culture license (copyleft / sharealike clauses excepted). Cheers, Tim _______________________________________________ fc-uk-discuss mailing list fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
