Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link: http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/185401/2
Page: 1 2 3
Jody Hughes - Posted - 08/23/2010: 08:37:15
Once again, failed to address the issues of
1)No Notification was given
2)Credit given for the work
Either the action is appropriate or not. Which is what the thread is really about. I'm not really interested in "quantifying" my losses. I'm simply asking for the action to be corrected. In addition, I think it's wrong for people to tell me that I don't have the right to not want my work to be used without my permission for someone elses personal gain.
I do really question how NOTIFICATION couldn't be given, yet I get mass emails in my inbox from the BHO about drawings, member union dues, etc. If no intent to notify or make people aware of this action, then I question the motifs behind said action.
As far as posting it in the public. Well, this is because it IS a public issue. How many members of the BHO do you think are still unaware that their music is being used for something that they didn't originally intend??
Furthermore, there are members that haven't logged in for a long time and I bet some of there music is on there. It doesn't involve just me. I'm sure many involved won't even read this thread and will still be uninformed.
I think the correct actions would be
1)Make sure there are terms when people upload their soundfiles that let them know there music will be redistributed
2)Inform all members involved via email, so all will know and can either choose to make there music unavailable OR they can make appropriate changes so they receive credit for their work.
So, to answer your rebuttal, NO my legitimate concerns were not resolved or answered.
Please visit this thread
banjohangout.org/topic/184417
It appears I'm not the only one unhappy about BHO soundfiles being distributed without credit.
Lastly, Eric earlier said:
"I'm the one footing the bill for the downloads and PRO licenses, for what is probably a negligable business benefit."
He is footing the bill, which makes it a tax write-off, aka an advertising expense. He is basically using member soundfiles to promote his website and then writing it off on his taxes. Therefore, it could be argued he is actually using peoples material for a business profit without their permission. I think people should have the right to be aware of this decision? No, it's not the same as a person posting on this website and that in turn drawing people to the website, because of the simple fact that they are AWARE of it.
Laurence Diehl - Posted - 08/23/2010: 08:57:08
I always assume that when I post content in the public domain it is going to get used in ways I might not anticipate. That is just the way it is. I can accept it, or just not post any content.
Laurence
Jody Hughes - Posted - 08/23/2010: 08:59:36
quote:
Originally posted by dlc
LOVE that internet! It's the greatest access to FREE ADVERTISING the world has ever seen.
I upload my music to as many sites as I can. Same with short stories and some poetry. I found that one of my short stories had been read more than 2000 times before a particular literary website went offline. TWO THOUSAND TIMES! That means there are a couple thousand - give or take a few re-readers - out there who are potential buyers when they see my name on a novel. And all it cost me was letting them read that ONE (or more) short story for free - and there is an endless supply of short stories and novels I still have to write!
Same with my music. If someone likes my free uploads, they're more likely to BUY my music when it's available for sale. If they like my free songs, there are PLENTY MORE songs for sale where the free ones came from. And if you band members want to learn some of my tunes, GO FOR IT! You certainly have my blessing.
I've been all over this in the BMI/ASCAP threads. If someone likes my music, COOL! I hope they enjoy the free uploads! And if they're interested in more, I'll let them know where they can buy it.
I don't know about the amateurs, and I can't speak for any of the pros except myself, but to me it's NOT like we're talking about a finite amount of intellectual property here. Like I said, there's plenty more where that came from.
And like Tom Elder said, I can either let it go or take it to the grave with me - and I prefer to let it go (especially when letting a little of it go can make me some $$$ on the rest!).
But I certainly understand that not everyone will share that view.
Hello,
Why I appreciate your comments and agree with them. This issue is a little different simply due to the fact that people were UNAWARE that this was going on. They had no choice in the matter.
I've got FREE stuff uploaded all over the internet, I had some on my homepage, on youtube, facebook, etc.
As you say, people hear this type of material that is given away for free and will attend a concert, buy a CD, etc. Also, doing this sort of thing allows many to hear your music that originally wouldn't.
I really don't have a problem with posting stuff for free on the internet, as I have done that many times and will continue to do so. I do have a problem with people not respecting others work and redistributing it for business and personal gain wherever they want without permission.
schlange - Posted - 08/23/2010: 09:05:05
Jody--are you even reading my posts? I've already addressed these issues multiple times in this thread, so unless you're willing to explain why my reasoning isn't good enough, I consider this issue resolved.
quote:
Originally posted by Banjocoltrane
He is footing the bill, which makes it a tax write-off, aka an advertising expense. He is basically using member soundfiles to promote his website and then writing it off on his taxes. Therefore, it could be argued he is actually using peoples material for a business profit without their permission....
Are you really saying that I'm turning an expense into profit? Don't I wish that were possible! Tax write-offs don't typically "net" you money. Example: if I paid, say, $100 in extra hosting charges because of iTunes traffic, and I wrote off that expense, that would lower my tax bill by, say, $30. I'm still spending $70 on iTunes traffic. Or am I missing something here?
frailin - Posted - 08/23/2010: 09:09:01
quote:
I do have a problem with people not respecting others work and redistributing it for business and personal gain wherever they want without permission.
Banjocoltrane
This is beyond the BHO issue... which has been repeatedly - and patiently - explained and answered. So that now makes this comment at best harassment. At worst, either slander or a personal attack, none of which are acceptable behavior here.
Can this stop please?
Edited by - frailin on 08/23/2010 09:15:36
Mike Greylak - Posted - 08/23/2010: 11:18:31
I wish Banjocoltrane the best, but why doesn't he support the website by joining the players union? Eric: Send him a dollar from my yearly donation -- PS I am filing a lawsuit 'cause my avatar wasn't in the "Earl" picture!!
tomberghan - Posted - 08/23/2010: 11:43:41
READ THIS
People, People, People . . . take a deep breath.
All you have to do is go into your MP3 description and put your name in as the first thing in your description. Now that makes no sense from a BHO perspective . . . but since iTunes is choosing to show the title of the tune and description, then, that is the solution for you.
And besides, since most BHO members have names like "Night_Owl_Funky_Banjo_Dude" no one would know who that is anyway.
So if you have a description that now reads something like:
"I learned this tune from my old Uncle Elmer who had gout but could really play the banjo . . . "
Change it to read like this:
"John Doe (i.e. your name). I learned this tune from my old Uncle Elmer . . . "
Then in the description it will show your real name and you will be proud and happy! It will show the name of the tune and your name (it will not show the description you wrote about your Uncle Elmer unless the viewer clicks on the description)
Problem . . . Problem Solved! 
Edited by - tomberghan on 08/23/2010 12:26:02
Viper - Posted - 08/23/2010: 11:54:36
My prediction as to the response from the original poster:
quote:
Originally posted by Banjocoltrane
Once again, failed to address the issues of
1)No Notification was given
2)Credit given for the work
I always thought it was pretty clear from the upload page that I could choose to have my music distributed elsewhere or not. And the issue of credit is up to the person uploading the tune.
Bayou Talker - Posted - 08/23/2010: 13:24:33
YUP, looks like there are 2 of you upset but Banjov apparantly deleted his files so it won't happen again. You do have the same option. Perhaps you should do the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Banjocoltrane
Please visit this thread
banjohangout.org/topic/184417
It appears I'm not the only one unhappy about BHO soundfiles being distributed without credit.
BryanWB - Posted - 08/23/2010: 14:59:16
What a bunch of "me me me's" - more enjoyment in an argument than producing music for pleasure!
If you don't want your music public, just lock yourselves in the cellar, and don't post anything.
Not difficult, is it?
tom elder - Posted - 08/23/2010: 15:29:28
I can come out of the earphone jack and down load anything,You all better watch out,I might even listen to it a time or 2 if you strike me as a nice person.
Jody Hughes - Posted - 08/23/2010: 19:09:08
quote:
Originally posted by schlange
Jody--are you even reading my posts? I've already addressed these issues multiple times in this thread, so unless you're willing to explain why my reasoning isn't good enough, I consider this issue resolved.
quote:
Originally posted by Banjocoltrane
He is footing the bill, which makes it a tax write-off, aka an advertising expense. He is basically using member soundfiles to promote his website and then writing it off on his taxes. Therefore, it could be argued he is actually using peoples material for a business profit without their permission....
Are you really saying that I'm turning an expense into profit? Don't I wish that were possible! Tax write-offs don't typically "net" you money. Example: if I paid, say, $100 in extra hosting charges because of iTunes traffic, and I wrote off that expense, that would lower my tax bill by, say, $30. I'm still spending $70 on iTunes traffic. Or am I missing something here?
You posted the files onto Itunes, so that when someone puts in say "Temperance Reel" and a member has recorded it...it comes up on Itunes as BHO podcast. Then that person will wonder, "what is this banjohangout,", then they come to this website which can turn into revenue in many ways. They can join the BHO union, etc. It was all done to promote the website.
Write-offs DO net you money. When I post an ad in the newspaper and get FIVE students out of it. While the ad may have cost $100.00, those five new students will net me thousands of dollars over months, years times. I will then write off the $100.00 on my tax bill. The NET gain will be much more than the cost, not to mention that write-off lowers my tax burden.
If this wasn't the case then why did you earlier have to say, "the business benefit is probably negligible."
Of course, your intention was to draw people to this website...which is fair. However, what's not fair is not notifying the people of the intent, and having "i recorded this on my ole banjo" by 4stringwarrior come up in the description under Itunes. People do not "foot the bill" on promotional tools like I tunes so they can lose lots of money....and if they do, they stop doing it.
Essentially peoples material was taken without permission, posted on Itunes to promote this website, with intention to increase revenue with little respect to the original author. I really don't care if 99.9% of this website comes down on me for this, the fact remains, no notification or credit was given.
The only answer I have received to this is, hey you uploaded it in the public so it's your fault, you should have known better, since you allowed the public to download it on your own HOMEPAGE, then we can do whatever we want to with it.
Never mind that the BHO "jukebox" isn't the same as Itunes or anywhere else it's posted...nevermind that I'm the one that made the decision to upload it in a very specific place and was aware of it. If your username is unclebillybobs banjo and not your real name that is your fault as well, you should have known that Eric would post it everywhere and you wouldn't get credit for it.
Let's not forget the worst one, this website is FREE and you use it for promotional purposes, so therefore, we ought to be able to do whatever we want to with your work....and if you don't like it leave.
If this is your idea of resolution and answer then yeah Frailin you are right :P
I also got an answer that since these members soundfiles are still on there homepages that nothing has been taken and "redistributed" without there permission?? Meanwhile, I could COPY/plagiarize anything and the original would still exist, but that wouldn't make "redistributing" it anymore Right.
As far as that little mural goes, you all seem to be forgetting this response
"I did a little research into making it into a cool poster, but with printing and shipping costs I would end up paying $7-$10/poster--and I don't think enough people would be willing to pay enough to make it worthwhile. Maybe when we hit 100,000!"
Lastly, I've gotten over a dozen emails in my inbox from people saying they support everything I've said. Unfortunately, this is a trend of the BHO, LOTS of people tell me how much they agree with me but are afraid to say anything publically. However, I WILL say something when it not only wrongs me but other members/musicians as well, regardless of how unpopular it is.
Edited by - Jody Hughes on 08/23/2010 19:14:17
Jody Hughes - Posted - 08/23/2010: 19:21:43
quote:
Originally posted by BryanWB
What a bunch of "me me me's" - more enjoyment in an argument than producing music for pleasure!
If you don't want your music public, just lock yourselves in the cellar, and don't post anything.
Not difficult, is it?
I don't recall saying I didn't want my music public. If that was the case it wouldn't be all over the net. I wouldn't have uploaded soundfiles on here to start with :P...and I wouldn't play concerts.
I've made my point clear enough about what the problem is. No, it's not difficult
Edited by - Jody Hughes on 08/23/2010 19:23:17
Jody Hughes - Posted - 08/23/2010: 19:25:54
quote:
Originally posted by Bayou Talker
YUP, looks like there are 2 of you upset but Banjov apparantly deleted his files so it won't happen again. You do have the same option. Perhaps you should do the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Banjocoltrane
Please visit this thread
banjohangout.org/topic/184417
It appears I'm not the only one unhappy about BHO soundfiles being distributed without credit.
Actually I already deleted them...yesterday I believe...Perhaps you should post some? Would love to hear your picking
Tommy5 - Posted - 08/23/2010: 19:47:42
What we have here is failure to communicate,the mp3 aren,t on itunes it is more like a link another portal leading to the same thing.It is like the students in my classroom , some know they can,t access certain websites so they go to goggle to get to the forbidden site and then say they weren,t on that site they were on goggle.
KRbanjo - Posted - 08/23/2010: 19:55:43
FWIW, I think Jody is right, notification and credit should be given. I am definitely NOT accusing Eric doing anything wrong but I was never aware that anything I posted would or could be used elsewhere (not that anyone would want to).
I did enjoy hearing my 41sec song on I tunes but I still can't figure out how to see my name there, maybe someone can tell me.
Before Eric got the deal with BMI and Ascap there were many posts and topics by members here about not using copyrighted material, not doing anyone elses version of a song, etc. without their permission. I don't really care about my little version of "Sourwood Mountain" but I can certainly see where Jody is coming from and how other musicians could be upset about it.
Kevin
schlange - Posted - 08/23/2010: 20:03:02
Well, it sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree, Jody. I still maintain that:
1) I've always given members credit, from day 1, for everything they post. See my previous posts for explanations on that.
2) No "third party service" notifications are necessary to people uploading MP3s -- if you post your MP3 on a public site like the Banjo Hangout, you can expect it to be downloaded by anyone and everyone. It's been this way since day 1 as well--and the iTunes feeds have been up all that time.
3) I often take actions and invest money into this site for reasons other than "the bottom line," despite what you say.
I'm sorry you don't agree--that's certainly your right. I'm not going to keep arguing with you here, because frankly I'm tired of it. You're a smart guy, and about as stubborn as me... so I'm not sure either of us will be changing our minds on this anytime soon.
My recommendation is that we continue this conversation in a more focused and positive way. If you want to move out of 'attack mode' and voice some specific constructive ideas for positive improvements, I would invite you to post them to the Improvements and Suggestion forum.
dustinTN - Posted - 08/23/2010: 20:20:28
When one starts a conversation, argument, or debate by questioning the integrity and ethics of another person, it makes it damn near impossible to find a resolution. If the "accused" admits an error or oversight then he fears that he is implicitly "admitting" that he lacks integrity or ethics. That's the problem with this entire thread - a lack of restraint, respect, and civility right out of the gate. This puts everyone on defense and on edge and is no way to sway an audience to your argument (or your banjo lessons, speaking for at least one BHO member currently contemplating much-needed lessons.)
It's why our political "leaders" can't get anything accomplished; because every issue is self-righteously framed in terms of moral absolutes where each party (small "p" party) demonizes the ideas of the opposing party. It is toxic in Washington, the BHO, or anywhere else.
Tuneager - Posted - 08/23/2010: 20:37:26
quote:
Originally posted by schlange
Wow--a lot of accusations flying around here. Glad I was alerted to this thread by the mods.
You can mark your MP3s as non-downloadable, which will make it so iTunes folks can't download it.
Overall, I would say this: If you don't want your songs played on the Internet, don't post them on the Internet! I submitted the podcasts to iTunes, because I wanted to get the music out beyond our little community. I'm the one footing the bill for the downloads and PRO licenses, for what is probably a negligable business benefit. But getting good banjo tunes out to the iTunes world--that's a beautiful thing.
As for the avatar graphic--that was just a fun little thing that I threw together that a LOT of people enjoyed (see the thread on that). Lighten up and live a little, I say.
These aren't issues of privacy
Actually the option of marking your MP3's as non-downloadable wasn't an option until sometime in the recent past, which caused me to pull everything I had posted at one point, because music is personal, most of us won't make it to Bela Fleck marketing centerfold status, so it doesn't really matter anyway, it's just banjo for Christ's sake, BUT the music is still personal, and I didn't mind people listening to my tunes, but didn't exactly relish them being downloaded without my permission.
I think Jody makes very valuable points, but alas, this is the unfortunate nature of the internet these days, give people an inch and they will take a mile, whereby you wouldn't catch me on FaceBook in a million years considering the total lack of privacy and their terms which make anything you post under their ownership to do with what they please, seems a similar thing may be going on here. MySpace has been around for years and despite their problems, they at least gave you the option of allowing your tunes to be downloadable or not. So kudos to Eric for FINALLY making it option as to whether you wanted your songs downloaded or not.
As to the privacy aspect, I think the Patriot Act virtually wiped out any individuals expectation of privacy, so get used to it, and unfortunately it's allowed websites to feel that they can do anything they want these days without fear of violating the privacy of others.
Obviously Eric can do whatever he wants with these websites, from locking forums or accounts that become too contentious for some members biases, to moving posts to obscure locations because someone doesn't like what is said, to changing the rating system from 5 stars, because some members egos felt they weren't being massaged enough, to actually encouraging a certain amount of xenophopia by constraining the content on other hangout sites to satisfy a small cult of musicians that only want their "type" of music heard, (hint, hint FPHO), where there is a strong implicit constriction from limited forum posting topics that create an atmosphere of your either "with us or against us" when it comes to the idolatry of the narrow-minded cult surrounding the rehasing of the same flatpicked fiddle tunes that we've all heard on guitar over and over a thousand times. If you think BHO has it's problems, it's a world of diversity in comparison.
The egos in music, especially surrounding these sites Eric has created, becomes downright hilarious. Face it, not many here are going to benefit one way or another competing on ITunes with the likes of Britney Spears and the other garbage that people are actually paying money to. Who can blame someone wanting to expose all these banjo players who are destined to give such huge competition to the wonderful state of Top 40 Corporate Radio MTV Fashion Crap. It's rather implausible to say the least, but not giving credit where credit is due is endemic in banjo and it's been going on since the beginning. “Scruggs Style,” “Reno Style” and “Keith Style.” Personality linked technique is somehow revealing because nobody really has a market on common string technique, and all of those egocentric descriptions simply denigrated into mindsets of either ripping off other people at times and/or not giving credit to people who were developmental on those personalities in the first place, I've seen it a thousand times. The best musicians musicians never truly get their due and if somehow ITunes makes someone on here famous I just can't wait to hear about it on CNN one day soon. BUT not giving credit where credit is due, well that seems to be part of the current musical lexicon.
I know many people who got fed up with these sites for many of these same reasons and if you notice most of the major players do not have pages on these sites. It's a lot of big fish in little ponds, God forbid a great player came on here and tried to pass on tidbits of information, they'd be thrashed to pieces.
That said I have found some phenomenal musicians on these sites Eric created and I generally like the way the forums are put together, but YES there should be a certain amount of respect for people's privacy, prior notification of major changes, and more personal options of preferences that one could opt in/out of. A little more inclusiveness on other sites wouldn't hurt either. For the most part it's still tolerable, not quite as bad, it's not the FaceBook of Banjo yet, but never say never. I'm not quite sure that Constitutional Rights exist in this country anymore so what do you expect?
Bayou Talker - Posted - 08/24/2010: 05:31:40
I know you mean that in a sarcastic way but you really DON'T want to hear my picking. If I ever progress to a reasonable level I would be happy to post something.
In the mean time, you have made your point and your continuing rants repeating the same thing is really not doing you any favors. You are not presenting yourself in a good light. I know if I was looking for a teacher this kind of activity would make me look elsewhere. Making your complaint was justifiable in the beginning but it is time to let it go or take it offline to Eric.
quote:
Originally posted by Banjocoltrane
Would love to hear your picking
biznork - Posted - 08/24/2010: 07:50:30
Bottom line here. If you have issues, quit posting tunes on the internet. Being rude to someone who is providing a forum for people to chat about the banjo and calling him unethical and accusing him of profiteering off of your music probably turns more people off to you and your music.
biznork - Posted - 08/24/2010: 07:52:49
quote:
Originally posted by Banjocoltrane
quote:
Originally posted by Bayou Talker
YUP, looks like there are 2 of you upset but Banjov apparantly deleted his files so it won't happen again. You do have the same option. Perhaps you should do the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Banjocoltrane
Please visit this thread
banjohangout.org/topic/184417
It appears I'm not the only one unhappy about BHO soundfiles being distributed without credit.
Actually I already deleted them...yesterday I believe...Perhaps you should post some? Would love to hear your picking
Again with the being rude and showing your ego.
daveh - Posted - 08/24/2010: 07:58:27
If I had all those hit singles I guess I would get upset too. Didn't Jody write all of those songs for Lady Gaga??
Goldstarman - Posted - 08/24/2010: 08:34:39
quote:
Originally posted by daveh
If I had all those hit singles I guess I would get upset too. Didn't Jody write all of those songs for Lady Gaga??
I have no idea who is right and who is wrong and at this point I really dont care. I dont know either guy personally but little jabs like the one you made (daveh, no matter if someone else makes them or not) just adds fuel to the fire...
Edited by - Goldstarman on 08/24/2010 15:23:24
daveh - Posted - 08/24/2010: 08:55:33
You are right. I should't have done it. Sorry Tim
Edited by - daveh on 08/24/2010 09:05:55
Thor - Posted - 08/24/2010: 09:56:55
Until this thread, I had no idea my BHO uploads were being fed to the iTunes Store.
quote:
1) I've always given members credit, from day 1, for everything they post. See my previous posts for explanations on that.
Well... sorta.
As you said.. the member's *USERNAME* is included in the feed. That may or may not be real as far as crediting an original piece of music. And the only place that username shows up in iTunes is in the iTunes song status window-- and only if someone clicks "Play" on a tune. There is no way to get to a user's BHO page from iTunes, so that info is useless in the feed.
The only way a member can appropriately credit their tunes is if they include their information (real name, copyright info, etc) in the
description. This is certainly NOT obvious. Why not explain this on the mp3 upload page? Perhaps where the copyright text is? Put a paragraph there that explains that your mp3s will be featured in BHO iTunes podcasts.
I've never bothered too much with the descriptions for my uploads, so this is all you see in iTunes for one of my tunes:
No credit, no additional info at all.
Now I'm going back and updating the description fields for my uploads...
GShannon - Posted - 08/24/2010: 10:14:11
I guess I feel like the 'ethics' of this whole thing demand that anyone using any material they did NOT create for any reason WHATSOEVER is obligated by the Karma God to give credit where credit is due. As a writer myself, this is not negotiable. Ever..! I give credit on stage, on recordings, and in workshops if I know who wrote it and where it comes from, and I make it clear when I don't and ask if anyone does know. I expect and demand the same in return. If I feel my material is being offered without giving proper credits to the piece, I'll be compelled to remove it and myself from the offending source. This whole conversation casts doubt on the non-negotiable credit aspect of original material being on this site, and makes me very nervous that is needs to be discussed at all. As musicians and artists, we should know better.
Tuneager - Posted - 08/24/2010: 10:43:49
quote:
Originally posted by Thor
Until this thread, I had no idea my BHO uploads were being fed to the iTunes Store.
quote:
1) I've always given members credit, from day 1, for everything they post. See my previous posts for explanations on that.
Well... sorta.
As you said.. the member's *USERNAME* is included in the feed. That may or may not be real as far as crediting an original piece of music. And the only place that username shows up in iTunes is in the iTunes song status window-- and only if someone clicks "Play" on a tune. There is no way to get to a user's BHO page from iTunes, so that info is useless in the feed.
The only way a member can appropriately credit their tunes is if they include their information (real name, copyright info, etc) in the description. This is certainly NOT obvious. Why not explain this on the mp3 upload page? Perhaps where the copyright text is? Put a paragraph there that explains that your mp3s will be featured in BHO iTunes podcasts.
I've never bothered too much with the descriptions for my uploads, so this is all you see in iTunes for one of my tunes:
No credit, no additional info at all.
Now I'm going back and updating the description fields for my uploads...
I love screenshots. In this case a picture really is worth a thousand words.
I think Jody (banjocoltrane) brings up very valid points especially considering the unique niche
whereby I've never known of anyone who played banjo like John Coltrane, hallowed ground, definitely worthy of concern.
In that case you would certainly want credit to be given where credit is due.
In the infinity of cosmic evolution of the current state of banjo being relegated to the
“miscellaneous” category of musical instruments, that is no doubt a problem for those breaking new ground.
I just certainly hope that this new ITunes trend doesn't bankrupt any of these highly paid professionals.
And you wonder why it is that most of the major banjo players don't have pages on BHO and/or don't post their tunes?
I think most of them understand the 'ol saying, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me".
As I said before, not giving credit where credit is due is endemic in banjo and it's been going on since the beginning.
If you don't like it, I'm sure this thread and/or some of the accounts will be locked, and BHO will retain sole ownership nonetheless.
You couldn't delete your account from this site even if you wanted to.
It seems FaceBook may have set a trend with their privacy policy:
You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.
lazyarcher - Posted - 08/24/2010: 10:53:27
quote:
Originally posted by schlange
Jody: I suppose the point of disagreement is over whether proper credit and notification were given.
I believe I've properly credited people for their work (see previous posts--credit has always been given, so please stop saying it hasn't been). And I don't think any "notification" is necessary given that it's obvious from using the site that music is available for the public to listen to via the jukebox, that people can download the files (unless you've turned that option off), and that people can subscribe to playlists via RSS (which is all that iTunes is doing). That's all been on the site from when we first started doing allowing MP3 uploads.
I suppose I could spell that out for people when they upload an MP3. Is that what you're wanting?
Although Jody and the rest have may disagree with the process of HOW it happened, Erics post here is what makes sense. The BHO is a privately owned public access site. When you post your music to a homepage, you know its accessable for downloading....so dont be upset when it is. Take responsability for control of your music if you dont want it downloaded without your permission and dont put it on public sites.
biznork - Posted - 08/24/2010: 11:06:06
quote:
Originally posted by lazyarcher
quote:
Originally posted by schlange
Jody: I suppose the point of disagreement is over whether proper credit and notification were given.
I believe I've properly credited people for their work (see previous posts--credit has always been given, so please stop saying it hasn't been). And I don't think any "notification" is necessary given that it's obvious from using the site that music is available for the public to listen to via the jukebox, that people can download the files (unless you've turned that option off), and that people can subscribe to playlists via RSS (which is all that iTunes is doing). That's all been on the site from when we first started doing allowing MP3 uploads.
I suppose I could spell that out for people when they upload an MP3. Is that what you're wanting?
Although Jody and the rest have may disagree with the process of HOW it happened, Erics post here is what makes sense. The BHO is a privately owned public access site. When you post your music to a homepage, you know its accessable for downloading....so dont be upset when it is. Take responsability for control of your music if you dont want it downloaded without your permission and dont put it on public sites.
Exactly!
schlange - Posted - 08/24/2010: 11:39:22
Thor--you can also right-click a song and select "Get Info" to view the name of the poster. I've always passed the name of the poster, as well as a URL to their music homepage, in the feed (see banjohangout.org/rss/Top.xml). Again, this is just a standard podcast RSS feed--whether iTunes changes things so the author is credited it a more obvious way or not isn't something I can control. The only thing I COULD do is insert the poster's name into the description field--but that still won't get you a link to their homepage from iTunes, and it's a "hack" that they would frown upon. Better to follow the podcast standard.
Again, if you want to suggest improvements to how things are done, please do so in the Improvements and Suggestions forum. Thanks!
frailin - Posted - 08/24/2010: 12:11:45
quote:
I guess I feel like the 'ethics' of this whole thing demand that anyone using any material they did NOT create for any reason WHATSOEVER is obligated by the Karma God to give credit where credit is due. As a writer myself, this is not negotiable. Ever..
GShannon
Ok, Geoff. I'll make sure and tell folks YOU wrote "The Persistent Chicken" when the 'Pouts play it. Ok?
But "Chigger in the Butt Crack?" I dunno. You appear too serious to have composed such a number.
Goldstarman - Posted - 08/24/2010: 15:24:23
Dave no need to appologize, i know where your coming from
KRbanjo - Posted - 08/24/2010: 16:02:26
Eric,
I have gone on i Tunes, found my song, right clicked, left clicked, every kind on click I can think of and can't find my name anywhere, tell me what I am doing wrong or at least how to find it. I can search i Tunes using my name and nothing comes up, search using my hangout name and the song comes up 3 times, but I still don't see anything that says it is recorded by me.
Any suggestions? Anyone?
Kevin
schlange - Posted - 08/24/2010: 17:02:42
KRBanjo--if I search in the iTunes store for "Sourwood Mountain" then click the play button next to yours, it shows your name underneath the song name at the top of iTunes.
That's the easiest way to see it, but most people don't listen to podcasts this way--they actually subscribe to the podcast, then listen to the "episodes" (which in our case are indivdual songs). That's the only way to see more "details" about each song--otherwise the preview iTunes gives you is pretty limited.
If you actually subscribe to the podcast, then once the song is downloaded, you can right-click it and choose "Get Info"--then under "Info" you'll see your username under "Artist." You'll also see your description and other details about the song.
Podcasts are typically regular "shows" done by the same person or organization on a regular basis, and I think iTunes had designed their interface to work best under those assumed conditions. That's why you don't see the same Artist/Album fields as you would for, say, a typical CD track in your iTunes database.
BanjoDiva - Posted - 08/24/2010: 18:52:46
I got tired of reading the debate back and forth, so I skimmed the last two pages. If the following points have been made, and i missed them in my skimming, I apologize.
I see the term "public" forum showing up in a lot of posts. That term implies that the entire site is wide open, but that realy isn't the case. There is a setting on each member's home page that allows the content to be restricted to "members only." Granted, pretty much anyone can join, but that is still one extra step between the information a member posts and the "public." So, one question I have is this: If someone has their settings to include "members only" then are their respective sound files still included in the RSS feed which is picked up by iTunes? And if that is the case, then doesn't that mean that anyone accessing iTunes, even those not affiliated with the Bho, can access those sound files? If that is the case, then the "members only" setting is disingenious.
Second, there are a lot of instructions being hurled at Jody on how HE can make sure that he gets proper credit by changing a number of things about the sound files. Why should he have to? He isn't the one who put them out there on the RSS feed. He posted them on BHO yes, but obviously without the information that they would be distributed to other internet sites. The responsibility for making sure he receives the credit he is due shouldn't rest on him. And we need to remember that many of the files were posted well before the Bho had evolved to the point of having RSS feeds or many of its other current features. What about the folks who posted files back when the expected uses of them were different then they are now? Many of those people don't participate in the forum anymore...have they been notified that they need to update the fields for their files so that they receive proper credit?
Finally, lots of suggestions being made that Jody is the sole one to benefit from posting his files on this free, public forum. That's bunk. In the early days Eric was delighted to have pickers the quality of Jody participating in this forum. Jody is quite capable of making CDs and restricting access to his art to those who purchase the CDs. He has done most of us a favor, including Eric, by making high quality performance material available to us for free. It would be common courtesy to at least notify him that the files were now being used for a purpose other than what he originally intended, and any effort taken to provide him with proper credit after he posted the files should not fall in his lap.
And one last thing...I"m pretty sure that all those people who are jumping on Jody about how grateful he should be to have his sound files being distributed, probably would be scrambling backwards pretty fast if it was Sonny or J.D. making the same complaint.
Jody, MY advice to you -- you're obviously not happy with the callous way you've been treated, and I can't blame you. Personally, I'd remove every file I had made available and make sure to never post another one. But that's just me.
BanjoDiva - Posted - 08/24/2010: 18:56:10
To Eric: there is a real easy way to solve this problem. Post a disclaimer that appears whenever someone tries to load a sound file informing them of the possibility of the file being distributed beyond the Bho. Send everyone who currently has sound files posted an email with the same info and what they need to do if they a) don't want their files distribued, and b)want to make sure proper credit is given.
That solves both the ethical and practical dilemma.
biznork - Posted - 08/24/2010: 19:07:05
Callous? He insulted Eric.
KRbanjo - Posted - 08/24/2010: 19:21:40
Maybe so, but callous is correct. And Diva is correct, if this happened to Earl, Sonny, or J.D. on this site or any other site, people would be climbing over each other to tell how J.D., Earl or Sonny had been wronged. It's a mob mentality here sometimes, one reason I don't post to much, that and I don't really have much to say, lol.
BanjoDiva - Posted - 08/24/2010: 19:45:11
quote:
Originally posted by biznork
Callous? He insulted Eric.
I was referring to Jody's (understandable IMO) feelings about having his sound files distributed, not the posts by Eric. In other words, Jody apparently feels that it was callous that the files were distributed under the specific circumstances being discussed. (Jody, my apologies for putting words in your mouth.)
Edited by - BanjoDiva on 08/24/2010 19:47:16
dustinTN - Posted - 08/24/2010: 20:22:19
quote:
Originally posted by BanjoDiva
And one last thing...I"m pretty sure that all those people who are jumping on Jody about how grateful he should be to have his sound files being distributed, probably would be scrambling backwards pretty fast if it was Sonny or J.D. making the same complaint.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and presumptions, but I would feel the exact same way if Bill Monroe rose from the dead and began a similar complaint in such a disrespectful manner before giving the accused an opportunity to explain their position. (Of course, Mr. Monroe would probably have expressed himself in a much more heated manner, holding a nasty grudge for decades.)
You seem to take the position that the goodwill generated by offering a free public forum for one to interact, promote their music, lessons, workshops, etc. is far inferior to the goodwill of a talented musician offering free advice, examples of their musicianship, etc. I disagree. I still contend this forum is mutually beneficial to the owner and the members, no matter their talent or acclaim. A healthy community offers a give and take situation that deserves mutual respect both directions, even in the face of conflict. There's a civil way to work through conflict, and I don't feel that standard was met here by a long shot.
tomberghan - Posted - 08/24/2010: 22:05:31
I think there is no answer for some of you on this issue . . . but look . . . if you want your name to appear, just do what I did. Look! You can see my name! Please don't hollar at Eric!
Steven M - Posted - 08/25/2010: 00:28:45
Sorry Banjocoltrane, I think you have lost this one game set and match. It seems to me that it is through your own mistakes that your name and credits do not appear. Man up and stop playing the blame game. As for being notified, this is a public forum.
End of story.
P.S. Now that you have deleted your music from the archive, even this limited audience does not get to hear it, who will? It appears that you have shot yourself in the foot. Pity because I heard some of your stuff on the jukebox, I liked it, remarked upon it to myself and made an effort to find out that it was you.
frailin - Posted - 08/25/2010: 06:10:58
This post is not aimed at anyone in particular... nor is it a criticism. But I thought it worthy of a mention.
I teach marketing classes at a technical college here in MN. In preparing my 19-27 YO students for marketing/sales/advertising careers in a competitively brutal and unforgiving work environment, I recommend they read and study this book. It's really just a discussion about human nature. The more people see you as cooperative, helpful, trustworthy and just "easy to work with," the higher your odds of success in business and in life. The fact of the matter is, if you can't get along with people, you won't make it in business... no matter what your skill level.
Through his successful career in dealing with people, Dale Carnegie figured out the importance of:
1 - Being able to clearly and effectively state your case in a non-confrontational manner.
2 - Listening - really hearing an audience's response.
3 - Understanding their feedback.
4 - Debating specific points in an educational manner and
5 - Incorporating the most effective elements of feedback into a plan.
Once this process is mastered, you can talk with most anybody about most anything. And win a friend in the process. 
--------------------------------
Here's the book's write up on Amazon:
Financial success, Carnegie believed, is due 15 percent to professional knowledge and 85 percent to "the ability to express ideas, to assume leadership, and to arouse enthusiasm among people." He teaches these skills through underlying principles of dealing with people so that they feel important and appreciated.
He also emphasizes fundamental techniques for handling people without making them feel manipulated. Carnegie says you can make someone want to do what you want them to by seeing the situation from the other person's point of view and "arousing in the other person an eager want." You learn how to make people like you, win people over to your way of thinking, and change people without causing offense or arousing resentment. For instance, "let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers," and "talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person."
Edited by - frailin on 08/25/2010 06:13:49
minstrelmike - Posted - 08/25/2010: 07:03:40
One company asks a two-part question during the interview process.
1. What is the biggest misperception people have about you?
2. What is the difference between perception and misperception?
schlange - Posted - 08/25/2010: 11:15:29
quote:
Originally posted by BanjoDiva
I see the term "public" forum showing up in a lot of posts. That term implies that the entire site is wide open, but that realy isn't the case. There is a setting on each member's home page that allows the content to be restricted to "members only." Granted, pretty much anyone can join, but that is still one extra step between the information a member posts and the "public." So, one question I have is this: If someone has their settings to include "members only" then are their respective sound files still included in the RSS feed which is picked up by iTunes? And if that is the case, then doesn't that mean that anyone accessing iTunes, even those not affiliated with the Bho, can access those sound files? If that is the case, then the "members only" setting is disingenious.
That's not the case. You can't view a member's profile info if they have that privacy option set. You CAN view their music page, but it doesn't include their profile info. Hope that answers your question.
schlange - Posted - 08/25/2010: 11:37:36
Hi Folks,
I've decided to take a couple actions as a result of this discussion. I realized that during this whole discussion I've been so busy trying to defend accusations against my personal character that I neglected to address the legitimate concerns of the site's users.
To that end, here's what I'm doing:
First, I updated the MP3 upload form. You can see it now by clicking "MP3 Audio" in the "Add Content" menu in the right-hand red bar, then clicking "Upload an MP3". I've added a couple more help (?) buttons, as well as text warning people of the dire consquences of keeping the "Prevent downloading of this MP3" box unchecked.
Second--I'll be emailing everyone this week who currently has one or more songs posted, to let them know about the "Prevent Downloading" option, and how it effects the potential distribution of their MP3 across this site as well as third party sites and applications.
I hope that satisfies everyone who is concerned with this issue. Now go pick your banjo! :-)
tomberghan - Posted - 08/25/2010: 12:09:54
Eric is my hero
schlange - Posted - 08/25/2010: 12:24:52
And you, Tom, are mine.
Viper - Posted - 08/25/2010: 12:25:12
Kudos to you, Eric. The accusations thrown your way were unfair, but I think your actions should resolve this complaint that turned into a mob fight.
Page: 1 2 3
