is is legal to share FREE releases?

[frozen dream]

is 'it' legal to share FREE releases?

 

let's say like, stuff you download over from ektoplazm.com, can you share it on soulseek or something or just give it out to a friend or does this depend on the license specifics? if so, which license specifics indicate this?

 

share-a-like can be commercial and non-commercial right? does share-a-like include p2p?

 

thanks for answering!

[Imba]

Free releases you can share legal, but cant use it commercial if is licenced

[Rotwang]

I think you can share it via P2P as long as you correctly attribute it and include the licence terms. See here.

[psystereo]

Creative Commons licenses are not an alternative to copyright.

 

You need to check individually each download for the permissions given,

 

Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

 

 

Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

 

 

No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

 

If so, in this case you may post it wherever you want.

 

But there's no point in share Legal stuff on p2p network, nor on illegal websites!

PS: Torrent doesn't mean illegal! It is only illegal if the data is copyrighted.

[RTP]

But there's no point in share Legal stuff on p2p network, nor on illegal websites!

 

I wouldn't say that. First it saves bandwith for the direct downloads in the net, second you might make the stuff accessible for more people.

 

I agree on the rest though ... however, I'd always include release notes and refer to the correct artist of the work ... and of course no altering.

If you go this way, I doubt it big time if anybody will sue or be angry at you, after all it's promotion what you're doing and it's free works anyway...

[Elysium]

It's basically legal but with the restrictions mentioned above.

 

One thing that really pisses me off is when the pirate groups grab a legal free to download release and re-pack it with their own crappy conversion and useless notes and rename the track titles. I never understood why!

[djzen]

One thing that really pisses me off is when the pirate groups grab a legal free to download release and re-pack it with their own crappy conversion and useless notes and rename the track titles. I never understood why!

 

Kristian, it's a matter of schizophrenia

Btw, kudos for your free "live" versions release, I liked it and will be played this summer at outdoor parties

[Basilisk]

Yes, it is legal to share free releases made under the Creative Commons on P2P. The standard licence generally requires:

 

1) Attribution; give credit where credit is due. When you share a release in its original form on a P2P network the attribution is already embedded in file names and ID3 tags so you don't have to worry. Of course, pirate groups violate this all the time by claiming ownership of a release, removing links back to the source (often my site), and other funny business.

 

2) Non-commercial usage. You aren't allowed to make money by sharing the release. Probably not an issue for regular P2P usage but there are some pirate sites that use "link for cash" affiliate schemes (i.e. users must click on a link and watch an ad or something before they can download). This case would violate the terms of the licence.

 

3) No derivatives. You can't remix the music without permission. Also not an issue for regular P2P sharing.

 

I think it's fine if you are sharing whole, unaltered releases without obscuring the source of the material or the nature of the licence.

[iTranscendence]

Bas and psystero pretty much covered it there. It comes down to the CCL label itself, and how they've drawn up their licensing. You can have a CCL where the music is open to be edited. However you are not going to find that on a majority of CCL sites, just sharing of the files with correct attribution. I can tell you Chillbasement is the same licensing type as Ektoplazm/omnitropic.

[Mike A]

Since Ektoplazm is spreading 99999.99999% of the free psytrance releases today, it's ok since everything over there is Creative Commons.

 

But I still think it's a bit stupid - it's already free to download on Ektoplazm and usually on the label's or artist's website. But hey, if we're not making any money for the EP anyway then at least the recognition and possible booking will do the trick.

[iTranscendence]

It's a two edged sword, it increases exposure for the release while it decreases traffic to your site for the release but in the long run could bring more traffic overall. It also screws up your download statistics.

[Basilisk]

I monitor a lot of different pirate sites to get a sense of how much traffic is flowing through their systems. Usually it isn't a lot. Private torrent sites with ratios tend to account for a few dozen downloads at most. Some of the big forum-based trading sites that load everything on to Rapidshare account for several hundred at most. There are some big psytrance piracy blogs that might transfer much more than that (according to one Brazilian site some of their posts have tens of thousands of downloads--but that's all for Astrix and Infected Mushroom). I have no way of monitoring P2P sharing on SLSK and other such systems but I don't imagine it is as significant as direct downloads from the source.

 

Mostly my mind just boggles at the effort some pirates put into repackaging and reuploading everything. I have been in conflict with some sites over the fact that my releases aren't hosted on Rapidshare for instance--and it is a site-wide rule that all releases must be hosted on Rapidshare. Actually, my impression of the pirate community over the years is that they tend to be very strict and rules-based despite their open disregard for intellectual property laws.

 

In the end some traffic comes back to the site through piracy so it's no big deal. I just like the pirates to keep the info and packaging intact instead of claiming it as their own work. I mean, it's really foolish to take credit for downloading and reuploading a release by saying it was "ripped by" (insert elite hax0r alias here). Still, I try not to take it too seriously it's all sort of absurd... and just another way in which the world sometimes has no real idea what to do with free music.

[Twisted D*U*O]

As a production artist, I can tell you that yes - it is technically illegal to share any licensed and copyrighted material without the originating author's consent.

 

Although it may have been distributed for free by the label or even the artist themselves, they are doing so with permission by the artist to do so. Will your DIY artist/label seek litigation? Most likely not. But keep in mind that by asking permission, you're giving your producer/dj feedback on not only who has the track but how you like it.

 

If something is being distributed for free (via download, per say); just pass on the link to your friends and let them download it. This way the label/artist is in the know. If the link is no longer available, then have them contact the artist. Most artists welcome personal contact and feedback. And who knows, you may even get more like it that hasn't been released yet.

[Veracohr]

As a production artist, I can tell you that yes - it is technically illegal to share any licensed and copyrighted material without the originating author's consent.

This is true.

 

Price is a commercial issue, distribution is a copyright issue, and the two don't go hand in hand.