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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
> "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.
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.
>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.
He’s certainly free to license his music however he wants but he’s really overselling how permissive it is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
-- literally every generation
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.