The intro video makes it sound multiple times like he wants creatives to use the music with absolutely no strings or restrictions, but the most basic uses like a Youtube video or indie film would require manually applying for a license where half the revenue goes to Mobygratis let alone the restrictions based on Moby’s political and dietary preferences.
He’s certainly free to license his music however he wants but he’s really overselling how permissive it is.
I’m not sure about the rev share aspect, but I’m a bit disappointed that, despite his message of “go ahead and do your thing, worry about edge cases later” (paraphrasing), the legalese further introduces the concept of commercial and non-commercial nature of different tracks.
I genuinely hoped for a MIT/BSD-like license that would allow people to express themselves freely with his content. However, I am now less inclined to do so.
Update: All said, still grateful to him for doing something. That’s already way more than most artists to do give back.
The articulated restrictions could be defined as a creative commons license too. With cc-by-nc-nd (attribition-noncommercial-noderivative), people would be free to use the songs for any non-commercial purpose and would have to aquire a license for everything beyond. The fact that moby is rolling out (and enforcing?) his own thing makes it untrustworthy.
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.
Commercial Use License
If you wish to use a track from the mobygratis platform for commercial purposes, you must apply for a commercial license prior to such use. You may do so by sending an email to: mobygratis@moby.com and include your full name, the name of the Track, and your desired use of the Track, including all the commercial uses you anticipate, and the desired duration of the commercial license.
If one or more artists create an initial Collaboration and they are granted a commercial license, their revenue share would be, in the sole discretion of mobygratis, at most, 49% (forty-nine percent) of the gross income earned, received or credited from the permitted use and exploitation of that Collaboration. If a Collaboration is subsequently used by another artist or artists to create a new (or sub-) Collaboration—the new collaborating artist(s) will receive their share of any revenue exclusively from the initial collaborator(s); the mobygratis revenue share of any collaboration, regardless of how many layers of collaboration have occurred, shall always be greater than 50% (fifty percent). However, the specifics are subject to change in the sole and absolute discretion of mobygratis and would be covered on a case-by-case in the commercial license.
If you add > * text * it's more clear what is happening:
> Commercial Use License If you wish to use a track from the mobygratis platform for commercial purposes, you must apply for a commercial license prior to such use. You may do so by sending an email to: mobygratis@moby.com and include your full name, the name of the Track, and your desired use of the Track, including all the commercial uses you anticipate, and the desired duration of the commercial license.
> If one or more artists create an initial Collaboration and they are granted a commercial license, their revenue share would be, in the sole discretion of mobygratis, at most, 49% (forty-nine percent) of the gross income earned, received or credited from the permitted use and exploitation of that Collaboration. If a Collaboration is subsequently used by another artist or artists to create a new (or sub-) Collaboration—the new collaborating artist(s) will receive their share of any revenue exclusively from the initial collaborator(s); the mobygratis revenue share of any collaboration, regardless of how many layers of collaboration have occurred, shall always be greater than 50% (fifty percent). However, the specifics are subject to change in the sole and absolute discretion of mobygratis and would be covered on a case-by-case in the commercial license.
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.
The collection is great. It's like a much more polished and professional version of my ideas folder (I rarely get beyond the initial loop/riff stage). Will now download a random piece, pop it into my DAW and see if it can inspire me to create something new.
I think for media/assets, CC-BY is the equivalent of MIT/BSD for source, and CC-BY-SA similar to a GPL. Anything more restrictive than that (e.g., "NC") wouldn't really qualify as "free". The licensing in this case seems to have too many strings attached.
Moby licensed every song from "Play" for commercial use. The exposure made "Play" a huge hit for him. This is just a variation of that.
This is an attempt to grab a slice of the pie before AI-generated music kills the market for session musicians. His terms of use are odd, but that's his choice.
With all the charity work Moby does, I get the impression he's pretty comfortable cash-wise.
Personally, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying that his intentions are earnest here; he really does want to put free music in the hands of creators. Maybe if he'd launched a $MOBY memecoin alongside it I'd be skeptical, but my gut says this isn't a venture he expects to make real money from.
I guess that's why I'm even more disappointed in the complicated commercial licensing. If you don't need the money, just let people use it no strings attached (or, with just the political strings attached--more okay with that than the money, honestly)
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."
That's an understatement. Restricting content based on political activism I can sympathize, if not agree with. Restriction based on war and geopolitics, ok.
But based on promoting veganism? Come on dude, pick your battles. Any business that deals in any way with animal products (virtually every restaurant, grocery store, hospital, school, entertainment venue, etc) could get accused of promoting cruelty and violating the license; this is a nonstarter.
>there are only 2 things you can't do with the music here; use it to advertise right wing politics or causes, or use it to promote meat, dairy, or other animal products. click here to view the full terms.
I'm very liberal, but this is bizarre. Apart of a society is doing business with people who don't 100% agree with you.
And Bob's Burritos can't run an ad with it because they aren't a vegan restaurant ?
I'm lumped in with the Republicans because I like burgers and pizza? Is that where the culture war is at?
It's been a pretty common practice for years that musicians will refuse their music being used to promote things they disagree with. E.g., some politician will use a track by a band, the band doesn't like the politician, so they'll tell the politician to stop using the track.
And, I don't think that the agreement here is meant to equate eating meat with being right wing. Moby is famously against animal products, so he's decided he doesn't want the music used to support those products.
> Apart of a society is doing business with people who don't 100% agree with you.
There's a vast chasm between "not 100%" agreeing with someone (Moby in this case), and being a Nazi. Bob's Burritos is a TV show so I don't think they'd be considered promoting meat, though the legalese is probably too questionable, as is restricting use for "right wing politics".
Moby is however of the opinion that animal abuse is unacceptable, regardless of whether people think it tastes good. I'm generally of the opinion that people should be free to establish hard boundaries for the use of their content.
My bad, I was just listening to a podcast with someone talking about being on Bob's Burgers.
But no, I don't think it makes it unusable for media which shows people eating meat. If I make my music available for anyone to use in projects which aren't promoting homophobia, I'm not going to have a problem with someone using it in a TV show where a character is homophobic. The salient thing is whether the show itself is promoting homophobia (and if I wanted to sue someone for such a use, I'd need a pretty strong case that the TV show was actually promoting homophobia)
> Right wing cause is also a bucket of worms. Someone like Joe Rogan is now considered Right Wing though he supported Bernie Sanders in the past.
Yes, I agree with this 100%, it's pretty much meaningless. I'm not sure if this makes it unusable or usable for anything. My suspicion is that the wording of the license would make it very difficult for Moby to sue you for use for anything but a clear violation, but he can revoke your license (which he would gain nothing from, and would erode faith in his mobygratis project). So I think it would be best avoided by people who aren't reasonably using his music for projects that he wouldn't approve of. Obviously "right-wing" is subjective, but if you're using it to promote Trump's campaign, trans-denialism, or the new Arby's chicken burger, obviously you can expect the license to be revoked.
If you're a "liberal" talk show host I think the license would be best avoided; liberal in the U.S. is considered right-of-center by many
If you're a socialist (or even social democratic) talk show host who occasionally brings on centrist or right-wing personalities, I think you'd be fine.
> Personally I don’t like the idea of releasing content with a “use it if I like you “ clause. He’s free to keep it for his own personal use.
And he's free to release it under whatever license he wants also. I don't like it as much as a free license either, but it's not my music, and IMO it's better than not granting use; there are of course many cases where people will feel comfortable using it (and in fact it has been used by many people already who have applied common sense to their usage of his work, and I don't believe he has sued anyone or revoked the license in the 18 years he's made it available under similar terms).
I also release my code MIT or GPL even though I find it tempting to use less permissive licenses like the "Don't be evil" license of JSON[1] or JSLint[2]
I would feel comfortable using Moby's music for lots of purposes personally.
I feel like you are overthinking this, I don't think it's about what you believe in, it's about what you think Moby would approve of. If you wanted to release a video promoting veganism, you could obviously use his music (even if you're a democrat). If you wanted to release a video promoting the Democratic party, there's some chance he'd revoke the license (but almost no chance he could successfully sue you). Even if you were a far-right activist using his music for a video supporting an abortion ban, he wouldn't be able to sue you (because banning abortion isn't exclusively a right-wing position), but I expect he would revoke your license if he became aware of the use and didn't believe in banning abortion.
I say that using it for Democratic party propaganda would be unwise because Moby himself is a socialist, or something in that direction. If you were AOC or Bernie and wanted to use his music for your own platform, you could probably get away with it; Whatever Moby's views on social democrats (or democratic socialists depending on who you ask), I think it's incredibly unlikely he'd revoke the license.
So you don't need to worry about "getting sued" unless you're using his music for clear violations of the license (e.g. "significant" commercial usage , or literal republican party promotional materials). If you're not clearly, unambiguously violating the license which itself contains much ambiguity, you don't need to worry about anything other than the license being revoked. And for determining if it might be revoked, consider why Moby made his music available for causes he cares about in the first place.
For many uses of the music, it can be replaced with something else fairly easily anyway
Here’s a controversial view point I hold. It’s not a good idea to have loser friends ( unemployed, unable to support themselves), even if it’s not strictly their fault.
These people have a tendency to pull you down and will laugh about it .
The fact that you call these people who are unemployed losers is pretty wild to me. And what if your "non-loser" friends become unemployed? Do you put your friendship on hold?
I do love when people show their true colors like the person you're replying to. I feel pretty safe saying they would in fact find themselves on moby's bad side.
Hmm, generating royalty-free music on Suno, or getting involved with some pompous dude who strokes out at the sight of someone eating a burger and demands 51% for his "no strings attached" stuff that's 20 years old? Tough choice.
> "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."
It’s all relative. Last week I found out that building housing was considered a right wing idea. Apparently supply side progressivism is right wing in some circles.
Since the French Revolution, "right wing" by and large means a politics that defends or expands the established ruling order.
In so far as the established ruling order is so-called free market capitalism, as is the case in the US, I have to agree that your political interests are right-wing aligned.
That said, Americans have somehow redefined and reduced all political vocabulary to absolute nonsense, so I can see why you wouldn't understand this.
Is this a joke? No one is going to use this. This "music" was content slop ai music before content slop ai music- so people will just use real content slop ai music.
The intro video makes it sound multiple times like he wants creatives to use the music with absolutely no strings or restrictions, but the most basic uses like a Youtube video or indie film would require manually applying for a license where half the revenue goes to Mobygratis let alone the restrictions based on Moby’s political and dietary preferences.
He’s certainly free to license his music however he wants but he’s really overselling how permissive it is.
I’m not sure about the rev share aspect, but I’m a bit disappointed that, despite his message of “go ahead and do your thing, worry about edge cases later” (paraphrasing), the legalese further introduces the concept of commercial and non-commercial nature of different tracks.
I genuinely hoped for a MIT/BSD-like license that would allow people to express themselves freely with his content. However, I am now less inclined to do so.
Update: All said, still grateful to him for doing something. That’s already way more than most artists to do give back.
The articulated restrictions could be defined as a creative commons license too. With cc-by-nc-nd (attribition-noncommercial-noderivative), people would be free to use the songs for any non-commercial purpose and would have to aquire a license for everything beyond. The fact that moby is rolling out (and enforcing?) his own thing makes it untrustworthy.
It's very possible he doesn't know about cc-by-nc-ld not everyone hangs out on techie websites and consumes open source.
But you'd think whoever he hired that understands media licensing would. Cc-BY is pretty common in stock footage licensing for example
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.
Commercial Use License If you wish to use a track from the mobygratis platform for commercial purposes, you must apply for a commercial license prior to such use. You may do so by sending an email to: mobygratis@moby.com and include your full name, the name of the Track, and your desired use of the Track, including all the commercial uses you anticipate, and the desired duration of the commercial license.
If one or more artists create an initial Collaboration and they are granted a commercial license, their revenue share would be, in the sole discretion of mobygratis, at most, 49% (forty-nine percent) of the gross income earned, received or credited from the permitted use and exploitation of that Collaboration. If a Collaboration is subsequently used by another artist or artists to create a new (or sub-) Collaboration—the new collaborating artist(s) will receive their share of any revenue exclusively from the initial collaborator(s); the mobygratis revenue share of any collaboration, regardless of how many layers of collaboration have occurred, shall always be greater than 50% (fifty percent). However, the specifics are subject to change in the sole and absolute discretion of mobygratis and would be covered on a case-by-case in the commercial license.
Just to clarify, your comment is a quote of https://mobygratis.com/license-agreement#:~:text=Commercial%...
If you add > * text * it's more clear what is happening:
> Commercial Use License If you wish to use a track from the mobygratis platform for commercial purposes, you must apply for a commercial license prior to such use. You may do so by sending an email to: mobygratis@moby.com and include your full name, the name of the Track, and your desired use of the Track, including all the commercial uses you anticipate, and the desired duration of the commercial license.
> If one or more artists create an initial Collaboration and they are granted a commercial license, their revenue share would be, in the sole discretion of mobygratis, at most, 49% (forty-nine percent) of the gross income earned, received or credited from the permitted use and exploitation of that Collaboration. If a Collaboration is subsequently used by another artist or artists to create a new (or sub-) Collaboration—the new collaborating artist(s) will receive their share of any revenue exclusively from the initial collaborator(s); the mobygratis revenue share of any collaboration, regardless of how many layers of collaboration have occurred, shall always be greater than 50% (fifty percent). However, the specifics are subject to change in the sole and absolute discretion of mobygratis and would be covered on a case-by-case in the commercial license.
51% of gross revenue is absurd. You make a video with a bit of this music in the background, now your project is probably losing you money.
I think like 99% of people in comments are missing the fact that Moby first launched this project 20 years ago when not even Youtube was a thing.
https://mobygratis.com/about
Wouldn't surprise me if most of the restrictions may well have been added to address specific issues that have come up over that time.
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.
Given his track record, I doubt he will pursue irrational lawsuits.
And whose definition of “irrational” will he be using?
I don't care that the license is non-commercial.
The collection is great. It's like a much more polished and professional version of my ideas folder (I rarely get beyond the initial loop/riff stage). Will now download a random piece, pop it into my DAW and see if it can inspire me to create something new.
Crazy and over-complicated license, better have a look at it: https://freemusicarchive.org/home
I think for media/assets, CC-BY is the equivalent of MIT/BSD for source, and CC-BY-SA similar to a GPL. Anything more restrictive than that (e.g., "NC") wouldn't really qualify as "free". The licensing in this case seems to have too many strings attached.
Cool idea of a great artist to stay relevant in the era of AI generated muzak!
Moby licensed every song from "Play" for commercial use. The exposure made "Play" a huge hit for him. This is just a variation of that.
This is an attempt to grab a slice of the pie before AI-generated music kills the market for session musicians. His terms of use are odd, but that's his choice.
With all the charity work Moby does, I get the impression he's pretty comfortable cash-wise.
Personally, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying that his intentions are earnest here; he really does want to put free music in the hands of creators. Maybe if he'd launched a $MOBY memecoin alongside it I'd be skeptical, but my gut says this isn't a venture he expects to make real money from.
I guess that's why I'm even more disappointed in the complicated commercial licensing. If you don't need the money, just let people use it no strings attached (or, with just the political strings attached--more okay with that than the money, honestly)
Moby launched this site TWENTY YEARS AGO, before YouTube even existed.
It's not tho, Moby. And this "music" is human 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.
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.
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."
I found it simple enough. There’s a “browse anonymously” button after the eccentric terms.
> somewhat eccentric 2-line license agreement
That's an understatement. Restricting content based on political activism I can sympathize, if not agree with. Restriction based on war and geopolitics, ok.
But based on promoting veganism? Come on dude, pick your battles. Any business that deals in any way with animal products (virtually every restaurant, grocery store, hospital, school, entertainment venue, etc) could get accused of promoting cruelty and violating the license; this is a nonstarter.
Yeah it's the Stalinistic version of freedom.
More like the libertarian version of freedom, but not much more.
>there are only 2 things you can't do with the music here; use it to advertise right wing politics or causes, or use it to promote meat, dairy, or other animal products. click here to view the full terms.
I'm very liberal, but this is bizarre. Apart of a society is doing business with people who don't 100% agree with you.
And Bob's Burritos can't run an ad with it because they aren't a vegan restaurant ?
I'm lumped in with the Republicans because I like burgers and pizza? Is that where the culture war is at?
It's been a pretty common practice for years that musicians will refuse their music being used to promote things they disagree with. E.g., some politician will use a track by a band, the band doesn't like the politician, so they'll tell the politician to stop using the track.
And, I don't think that the agreement here is meant to equate eating meat with being right wing. Moby is famously against animal products, so he's decided he doesn't want the music used to support those products.
> Apart of a society is doing business with people who don't 100% agree with you.
There's a vast chasm between "not 100%" agreeing with someone (Moby in this case), and being a Nazi. Bob's Burritos is a TV show so I don't think they'd be considered promoting meat, though the legalese is probably too questionable, as is restricting use for "right wing politics".
Moby is however of the opinion that animal abuse is unacceptable, regardless of whether people think it tastes good. I'm generally of the opinion that people should be free to establish hard boundaries for the use of their content.
You're thinking of Bob's Burgers, but even then it's a cartoon where the characters eat meat.
If you take this to its logical conclusion it can't be used with any media that displays the consumption of food that's not 100% vegan.
Right wing cause is also a bucket of worms. Someone like Joe Rogan is now considered Right Wing though he supported Bernie Sanders in the past.
If a liberal podcast host uses this as their theme music, then has a right wing guest on violate this?
If I mention I start my day with some yogurt, did I violate it ?
Feels like a "I'll sue you if I want" clause.
My bad, I was just listening to a podcast with someone talking about being on Bob's Burgers.
But no, I don't think it makes it unusable for media which shows people eating meat. If I make my music available for anyone to use in projects which aren't promoting homophobia, I'm not going to have a problem with someone using it in a TV show where a character is homophobic. The salient thing is whether the show itself is promoting homophobia (and if I wanted to sue someone for such a use, I'd need a pretty strong case that the TV show was actually promoting homophobia)
> Right wing cause is also a bucket of worms. Someone like Joe Rogan is now considered Right Wing though he supported Bernie Sanders in the past.
Yes, I agree with this 100%, it's pretty much meaningless. I'm not sure if this makes it unusable or usable for anything. My suspicion is that the wording of the license would make it very difficult for Moby to sue you for use for anything but a clear violation, but he can revoke your license (which he would gain nothing from, and would erode faith in his mobygratis project). So I think it would be best avoided by people who aren't reasonably using his music for projects that he wouldn't approve of. Obviously "right-wing" is subjective, but if you're using it to promote Trump's campaign, trans-denialism, or the new Arby's chicken burger, obviously you can expect the license to be revoked.
If you're a "liberal" talk show host I think the license would be best avoided; liberal in the U.S. is considered right-of-center by many
If you're a socialist (or even social democratic) talk show host who occasionally brings on centrist or right-wing personalities, I think you'd be fine.
Right wing is whatever Moby decides it is.
Again, I’m liberal, I check the box for the Dems in every election. Just straight blue.
But if Moby wakes up tomorrow and says the Dems are right wing and I say most people should just vote for Dems he can sue me.
Personally I don’t like the idea of releasing content with a “use it if I like you “ clause. He’s free to keep it for his own personal use.
I know I release my code MIT. I don’t release it along with a list of my personal beliefs.
> Personally I don’t like the idea of releasing content with a “use it if I like you “ clause. He’s free to keep it for his own personal use.
And he's free to release it under whatever license he wants also. I don't like it as much as a free license either, but it's not my music, and IMO it's better than not granting use; there are of course many cases where people will feel comfortable using it (and in fact it has been used by many people already who have applied common sense to their usage of his work, and I don't believe he has sued anyone or revoked the license in the 18 years he's made it available under similar terms).
I also release my code MIT or GPL even though I find it tempting to use less permissive licenses like the "Don't be evil" license of JSON[1] or JSLint[2]
I would feel comfortable using Moby's music for lots of purposes personally.
I feel like you are overthinking this, I don't think it's about what you believe in, it's about what you think Moby would approve of. If you wanted to release a video promoting veganism, you could obviously use his music (even if you're a democrat). If you wanted to release a video promoting the Democratic party, there's some chance he'd revoke the license (but almost no chance he could successfully sue you). Even if you were a far-right activist using his music for a video supporting an abortion ban, he wouldn't be able to sue you (because banning abortion isn't exclusively a right-wing position), but I expect he would revoke your license if he became aware of the use and didn't believe in banning abortion.
I say that using it for Democratic party propaganda would be unwise because Moby himself is a socialist, or something in that direction. If you were AOC or Bernie and wanted to use his music for your own platform, you could probably get away with it; Whatever Moby's views on social democrats (or democratic socialists depending on who you ask), I think it's incredibly unlikely he'd revoke the license.
So you don't need to worry about "getting sued" unless you're using his music for clear violations of the license (e.g. "significant" commercial usage , or literal republican party promotional materials). If you're not clearly, unambiguously violating the license which itself contains much ambiguity, you don't need to worry about anything other than the license being revoked. And for determining if it might be revoked, consider why Moby made his music available for causes he cares about in the first place.
For many uses of the music, it can be replaced with something else fairly easily anyway
[1]: https://www.json.org/license.html
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-JoyNuQJs&t=2480s "I give permission to IBM, it's customers, partners, and minions to use JSLint for evil"
I think I’ll just avoid it.
Here’s a controversial view point I hold. It’s not a good idea to have loser friends ( unemployed, unable to support themselves), even if it’s not strictly their fault.
These people have a tendency to pull you down and will laugh about it .
Is that a right wing viewpoint? Left wing ?
No body knows.
The fact that you call these people who are unemployed losers is pretty wild to me. And what if your "non-loser" friends become unemployed? Do you put your friendship on hold?
It's just easier to filter people out this way. The last time I put trust in someone without a stable income he ended up robbing me.
Even if you bag groceries at Vons you have my respect and we can be friends.
If you don't work and expect others to provide for you, I don't want to be around you.
I do love when people show their true colors like the person you're replying to. I feel pretty safe saying they would in fact find themselves on moby's bad side.
You and the Republicans are both free to the use the music for whatever other purposes you want
If I have a modicum of integrity, why would I do business with someone who wants to destroy the parts of society I love and cherish?
The only thing that bothers me about these terms is the blatant misuse of the semicolon. Too much work to hire a copyeditor?
As a non-right winger vegan who likes to play around with a sampler and only sometimes show my music to my friends and family, this is perfect
Hmm, generating royalty-free music on Suno, or getting involved with some pompous dude who strokes out at the sight of someone eating a burger and demands 51% for his "no strings attached" stuff that's 20 years old? Tough choice.
i don't understand how i can accept the license, i disabled uBlock origin and still see no solution
Sounds like he's interested in people listening to the music while creating. Maybe also using it as inspiration for their own music.
He's not supplying it as a stock sounds library.
Eh. Some of his music I like, some, not so much. I'll give it a listen.
I don't listen to music while I code. The only time I listen to music, is my daily exercise in the morning. This may be good for that.
Might use it as background music for some presentations. I don't vlog; which seems to be where a lot of stock music is used.
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.
Plenty of proud left wing Slavs for you to choose to promote
I'm not sure Moby would agree.
What reason do you have for thinking Moby would find all Slavic content right wing, even if it featured left wing figures?
> "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."
It’s all relative. Last week I found out that building housing was considered a right wing idea. Apparently supply side progressivism is right wing in some circles.
Context matters: what housing?
The idea to increase supply to push costs down so that regular people like teachers and waiters and nurses can afford to live in the city.
Of course this will induce demand as well, so it’s nonlinear. But the point is, it’s not a right wing idea.
Since the French Revolution, "right wing" by and large means a politics that defends or expands the established ruling order.
In so far as the established ruling order is so-called free market capitalism, as is the case in the US, I have to agree that your political interests are right-wing aligned.
That said, Americans have somehow redefined and reduced all political vocabulary to absolute nonsense, so I can see why you wouldn't understand this.
Is this a joke? No one is going to use this. This "music" was content slop ai music before content slop ai music- so people will just use real content slop ai music.
"The music these days, it's just noise. Why can't kids listen to real music, like we used to have?"
-- literally every generation
The best songs from any generation will be much better than a random song from today’s top 80. So there’s some selection bias as well.
"You have technicians here making noise. These people are not musicians, because nobody can play the guitar!"