Billy Bragg has removed his music from social networking site MySpace for fears that it could be used without his permission.
"Someone who we work with was bright enough to read the small print of the MySpace terms and conditions and found that once an artist posts up any content (including songs), it then belongs to My Space (AKA Rupert Murdoch) and they can do what they want with it, throughout the world without payng the artist." The singer said in a statement on his MySpace blog.
The clause in the terms and conditions that raises concerns states artists "grant to Myspace.com a non-exclusive, fully-paid and royalty-free, worldwide licence (with the rights to sublicense through unlimited levels of sub licensees) to use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, publicly display, store, reproduce, transmit and distribute such content on and through the services".
A MySpace spokesman told the BBC in response to the claim that "the copyright remains with the musician at all times and the clause is there only to allow the music to be used on the site in the way the artist intended."
This is interesting. The point of the musicians putting music on myspace is to get people to hear and listen to it. They will make their money when they release an album. The artists only put a few songs on myspace for members to listen to. I wish these singers would calm down and understand that no one will buy an album of someone they never heard.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
That is a good point. But you have to look at it from their side as well. No one wants to unconsciously sign over the rights to thewir music. Even if it is only a song or 2.
Well yes I agree they should have known about it before.
Get out of the short-term money-grubbing mentalilty of the 1980s.
Google doesn't charge you to use any of its services, but has become one of the most successful businesses by giving stuff away. Ditto Skype.
Artists should make their money playing live.
Give the 'demo' away.
The world is changing. Move with the times.
I agree. The singers have enough money, they can still make it on tours and with cds. People cant like you if they never hear you.
All of those aspects of the fineprint merely cover myspace's (rupert murdoch's) ass because they use a media player. Because of the media player, the music may be played in part rather than in full, hence "modify" and "adapt." "Use, copy" "translate, publicly perform, and publicly display" just means that they can have your content on their site. I don't see what the big deal is.
--Mike
It also means that they use the music in advertising, can sell media with the song on it (in whole or in part), can rewrite, remix, and resell without royalties to the artist. If MySpace wanted to have a "Best of MySpace Music" with artist content, the clause in there states that they don't have to pay the artist jack.
Its not an issue when MySpace isn't making money off the artists, but it becomes seriously off-tangent when the legal clauses are ambiguous and can result in legal profit in favor of MySpace, unknowingly to the artist, who isn't getting royalties.
I have my music on there, and have no problems... and there's a way you can disable downloading of your music if you so wish. As for myspace, I dont think they'd use people's music without letting the artist know about it, and I'd be psyched if they used mine! That would be ridiculous exposure!
unfortunately, most people don't buy albums anymore, they download them off the internet; so its understandable the artists want to keep their music rights as much as possible. I would hate to sign off any of my music, even a single song - especially if they took the time and money to get it recorded...