Really interesting to think about what would constitute commercial use in this day and age. If someone makes the track and puts it on YouTube and there happens to be ads… apparently 51% has to go to Moby. it is cool that anyone could just download and go. But I wonder if a lot of bedroom producers are just going to accept the terms without actually reading them, and not realize, based on the introductory video, that they have to do a profit share if they monetize in anyway. I do think he should've mentioned the profit share in his video.
I wish they could have used standard creative commons licenses. It took me some time to find that the tracks can't be used commercially without per-track licensing conversations.
The licensing is "interesting". Using a standard and well understood license would be helpful. Reading the license Moby Collaboration, Inc. reserves the unchecked, unilateral right to revoke the permission “at any time for any reason or no reason.” - this is unlikely to hold up in court and is a signal for anyone to not touch the content with a ten-foot pole. It makes me think that Moby forgot to check the license with a lawyer, and maybe with reality, first.
All I wanted to do was play a sample of one randomly selected track.
Clicking the play button doesn't do that, it brings up a somewhat eccentric 2-line license agreement.
Clicking the checkmark to agree then prompts for your email address and to create an account.
These are dark UI patterns, and it's a shame a website purporting to be about generously sharing free content uses them. A button should do what it advertises.
Here's a snippet from the full license text if anyone's curious:
Moby does not permit his Tracks to be used to advertise right-wing politics or causes, or to be used to promote meat, dairy, or other animal products. People may disagree about when these lines have been crossed—which is why Moby retains the right to terminate the license to any Track completely at his sole and absolute discretion, at any time.
Also note you're contracting with a corporation, and the agreement includes a clause about you indemnifying them.
Not just eccentric, it is vague and arbitrary. "Right wing" is very vague, and "animal products" is not much better.
That snippet implicitly acknowledges this and Moby the person gets to arbitrate between you and Moby Collaboration, Inc.
Also this:
"Mobygratis retains the right in its sole and absolute discretion to determine whether any use of a Track (or Collaboration or Master Recording derived therefrom) is commercial."
Really interesting to think about what would constitute commercial use in this day and age. If someone makes the track and puts it on YouTube and there happens to be ads… apparently 51% has to go to Moby. it is cool that anyone could just download and go. But I wonder if a lot of bedroom producers are just going to accept the terms without actually reading them, and not realize, based on the introductory video, that they have to do a profit share if they monetize in anyway. I do think he should've mentioned the profit share in his video.
Too much politics involved for my taste.
It seems that I can't use it to promote Slavic content, because Slavic as a tradition can be right-wing in Moby's world.
If you're a content creator, I don't think going into this rabbit hole is worth it.
I wish they could have used standard creative commons licenses. It took me some time to find that the tracks can't be used commercially without per-track licensing conversations.
The licensing is "interesting". Using a standard and well understood license would be helpful. Reading the license Moby Collaboration, Inc. reserves the unchecked, unilateral right to revoke the permission “at any time for any reason or no reason.” - this is unlikely to hold up in court and is a signal for anyone to not touch the content with a ten-foot pole. It makes me think that Moby forgot to check the license with a lawyer, and maybe with reality, first.
Cool idea of a great artist to stay relevant in the era of AI generated muzak!
All I wanted to do was play a sample of one randomly selected track.
Clicking the play button doesn't do that, it brings up a somewhat eccentric 2-line license agreement.
Clicking the checkmark to agree then prompts for your email address and to create an account.
These are dark UI patterns, and it's a shame a website purporting to be about generously sharing free content uses them. A button should do what it advertises.
Here's a snippet from the full license text if anyone's curious:
Moby does not permit his Tracks to be used to advertise right-wing politics or causes, or to be used to promote meat, dairy, or other animal products. People may disagree about when these lines have been crossed—which is why Moby retains the right to terminate the license to any Track completely at his sole and absolute discretion, at any time.
Also note you're contracting with a corporation, and the agreement includes a clause about you indemnifying them.
Not just eccentric, it is vague and arbitrary. "Right wing" is very vague, and "animal products" is not much better.
That snippet implicitly acknowledges this and Moby the person gets to arbitrate between you and Moby Collaboration, Inc.
Also this:
"Mobygratis retains the right in its sole and absolute discretion to determine whether any use of a Track (or Collaboration or Master Recording derived therefrom) is commercial."
Just a quick note: pressing the ‘Browse Anonymously’ button located just above the email field will allow you to do exactly that.
Thanks, I missed that extra step.
I found it simple enough. There’s a “browse anonymously” button after the eccentric terms.
Yeah it's the Stalinistic version of freedom.