MySpace owns YOUR content?

[bouche]

If this is true, it's probably NOT a good idea for bands to put their music up.

From MySpace Terms

Proprietary Rights in Content on MySpace.com.

By displaying or publishing (”posting”) any Content, messages, text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, profiles, works of authorship, or any other materials (collectively, “Content”) on or through the Services, you hereby grant to MySpace.com, a non-exclusive, fully-paid and royalty-free, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense through unlimited levels of sublicensees) to use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, publicly display, store, reproduce, transmit, and distribute such Content on and through the Services. This license will terminate at the time you remove such Content from the Services. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a back-up or residual copy of the Content posted by you may remain on the MySpace.com servers after you have removed the Content from the Services, and MySpace.com retains the rights to those copies. You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the Services or otherwise have the right to grant the license set forth in this section, and (ii) the posting of your Content on or through the Services does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights or any other rights of any person. You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owing any person by reason of any Content posted by you to or through the Services.

Lawyers? Any thoughts?

[Phunk_Nugget]

Yeah, really....I'd like to know what the deal is with that. I've had my stuff up there for over a year now, and if this is actually the case....I'm out like trout.

Stn Mtn - Perhaps you can shed some light on this....being that you are THE unfrozen caveman Lawyer

[Lazlo]

If he can't I bet Harvey Birdman can.

[StoneMtn]

There is an important part of this contract missing from the post. Apparently the term "The Services" is a defined term in the contract, and it presumably refers to the services offered by MySpace, which would include providing a webpage for users, but presumably other services too.

It states specifically in the agreement:

...you hereby grant to MySpace.com, a non-exclusive, fully-paid and royalty-free, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense through unlimited levels of sublicensees) to use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, publicly display, store, reproduce, transmit, and distribute such Content on and through the Services.

To me, this would mean that you're giving them the right to do whatever they have to do with your content for the purpose of using your content in the process of providing whatever services are defined as "The Services". Unless one of the services is "to manufacture copies of CDs for resale of your content" or something else you wouldn't want them to do, then I don't really see a problem here. That said, I can't give legal advice on which you can rely outside of BC as I'm not licensed elsewhere (Phunk Nugget's in the right jurisdiction, but most of you aren't) and I don't have all the facts here, so this is not legal advice, but if my presumptions are correct about "The Services", then in all likelihood MySpace isn't granted a license to do whatever it wants with your stuff.

(BTW: There is also a doctrine called the doctrine of contra proferentum which means that in instances that a contract is ambiguous, the ambiguity is resolved in favour of the party that DID NOT draft the contract, which can give you further reassurance that if things are unclear as far as "The Services", then matters would more likely than not be resolved in favour of whichever user of MySpace complained about some use of their content; because MySpace is the drafter of the contract, not the user who merely agreed to it.)

So, there ya go. Pure speculation; [color:red]NOT LEGAL ADVICE, based on the scant facts I have here.

[Phunk_Nugget]

Thanks budday. I knew you'd be able to sort it out. But I will admit, it is still a little too "lawyer speak" for me.

[StoneMtn]

Me too.

[bouche]

I noticed the term 'services', but assumed that it was there to throw off the reader of the terms. IF that is there to define how the rights are utilized, then this all makes sense.

[StoneMtn]

Well, presumably earlier in the contract there's a description of the services offered by MySpace, and then it goes on to say something like (hereinafter called the "Services"). That way every time they write "The Services", capitalized, it is understood that it refers to the services that are mentioned above.

Make sense?

[bradm]

Isn't the key phrase "non-exclusive"? It's not that they "own" the content, it's that you let them use it for whatever they want, for free. If you uploaded a song to your band's MySpace page, you could still release the song on your own CD, and collect the royalties on it (even while MySpace releases a compilation CD of tracks from bands who have MySpace pages, without paying the bands anything).

At least, that's what I think is (or could be) going on.

Aloha,

Brad

[payce-ley]

from the Digg comments section on the topic:

MySpace's rights are revoked as soon as you take the content off your MySpace page as indicated here:

"...This license will terminate at the time you remove such Content from the Services."

which would seem to solve the problem... if MySpace used something someone doesn't want them to, take your song off MySpace and they couldn't use it on a compilation CD

they can hold onto a copy of whatever you had on there but once its removed couldn't use it

in other Digg news apperently Sony is cheating musicians who sell music on iTunes... only pay them 4.5 cents for each song sold instead of the 30 cents they thought they'd earn:

Musicians Claim Label Cheating Them Out Of Royalties

and (unrelated, but noticed on Digg):

common sense wins in Mexico

Edited April 29, 2006 by Guest
yes

[StoneMtn]

Yes. Both of those are other safeguards built in to give comfort to users of MySpace.

I don't think the agreement is too troubling.

[karatespacetiger]

Myspace has amended its terms and conditions. Billy Bragg is claiming credit, and I have no idea if that credit is due or not but he claims to have pointed out the ambiguity in their former terms to the Myspace higher-ups; apparently they were agreeable to amendment right away and the former clause was merely a result of poor drafting.

The relevant portion of Myspace's terms and conditions now reads as follows:

"Proprietary Rights in Content on MySpace.com.

MySpace.com does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post to the MySpace Services. After posting your Content to the MySpace Services, you continue to retain all ownership rights in such Content, and you continue to have the right to use your Content in any way you choose. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the MySpace Services, you hereby grant to MySpace.com a limited license to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Content solely on and through the MySpace Services.

Without this license, MySpace.com would be unable to provide the MySpace Services. For example, without the right to modify Member Content, MySpace.com would not be able to digitally compress music files that Members submit or otherwise format Content to satisfy technical requirements, and without the right to publicly perform Member Content, MySpace.com could not allow Users to listen to music posted by Members. The license you grant to MySpace.com is non-exclusive (meaning you are free to license your Content to anyone else in addition to MySpace.com), fully-paid and royalty-free (meaning that MySpace.com is not required to pay you for the use on the MySpace Services of the Content that you post), sublicensable (so that MySpace.com is able to use its affiliates and subcontractors such as Internet content delivery networks to provide the MySpace Services), and worldwide (because the Internet and the MySpace Services are global in reach). This license will terminate at the time you remove your Content from the MySpace Services. The license does not grant MySpace.com the right to sell your Content, nor does the license grant MySpace.com the right to distribute your Content outside of the MySpace Services."

[StoneMtn]

Hey, Bouche:

How does someone post here anonymously? Is that normally allowed? Is MySpace more powerful than the Skank? Did they just override everything and post this?

What's up? (Just curious.)

[YearsAlongTheSea]

That anonymous post seems to make much more sense in that, a company the size of MySpace.com would have serious trouble trying to get away with something like stealing or maipulating anyone's content especially the plethora of large bands that are on MySpace.com and the associated record labels in general. The music industry would crush them. Period.

[cANDYmAN]

I'm also curious about the anonymous post... I want to post anoymously too!

[bouche]

i don't know what happened. the only way that an anonymous post would show is if an account is deleted...but the post is retained as anonymous.

[StoneMtn]

MySpace is Big Brother. The real meaning of the anonymous message is, "We now have Bouche in our control. We own the Skank. Be afraid."

[AD]

All your Bouche are belong to us.