26 Sep
2013
26 Sep
'13
9:45 p.m.
Of course, the ultimate question with regarding to calling a CC BY-NC dance
at a paid event: is it in fact noncommercial use? What would describe
'commercial use' of a contra sequence, other than republishing it? (It is
my understanding the rich tradition of collecting dances from performers
and caller friends would fall under SA, but i'd require legal verification
of that before i chose to advocate adding specific protections to
choreography.) (p.s. while copyright/left exists to provide an incentive
for creatives to create, i highly doubt that the people who write
contradances require that incentivization for dance composition, or that
there is significant economic gain to be had in the publication of contra
dances...)
also REALLY sorry i couldn't delete the quoted text, trackpad button isn't
working to cut & paste atm
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:00 PM, <callers-request(a)sharedweight.net> wrote:
Send Callers mailing list submissions to
callers(a)sharedweight.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
callers-owner(a)sharedweight.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Callers digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Orange You Glad We Met? (Aahz Maruch)
2. Re: Orange You Glad We Met? (Aahz Maruch)
3. Re: Orange You Glad We Met? (Bill Olson)
4. Re: Scheduling/programmer Question (Aahz Maruch)
5. Re: See Saw (was Re: Code's Compiling) (Aahz Maruch)
6. Re: Norms/Ethics of Dance Choreography Sharing (Aahz Maruch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:57:47 -0700
From: Aahz Maruch <aahz(a)pobox.com>
To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
Subject: [Callers] Orange You Glad We Met?
Message-ID: <20130925205747.GA28591(a)panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In light of the earlier discussion about both double-progression and
dances with neighbor swing that don't have circle left 3/4, I wrote the
following. I'd first like to double-check that this doesn't already
exist under some other name, nor does the name exist for some other
dance; I'd also like feedback on the choreography.
Orange You Glad We Met?
Becket
A1
Men L allemande 1/2 (4)
Neighbor B&S (12)
A2
L star 1/2 to prev neighbor (6)
R star full to current neighbor (10)
B1
Pass thru current neighbor to new neighbor (4)
PROGRESSION
End in wave
Balance wave (4)
Square thru 3.5 (8)
B2
Partner B&S (16)
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We have a full tank of gas, a half-pack of
cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Hit it."
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:09:02 -0700
From: Aahz Maruch <aahz(a)pobox.com>
To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
Subject: Re: [Callers] Orange You Glad We Met?
Message-ID: <20130925210902.GA21016(a)panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Ignore this, I hate when I hit "send" and immediately realize there's a
major choreography boo-boo...
(The square thru doesn't work.)
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013, Aahz wrote:
http://rule6.info/
In light of the earlier discussion about both double-progression and
dances with neighbor swing that don't have circle left 3/4, I wrote the
following. I'd first like to double-check that this doesn't already
exist under some other name, nor does the name exist for some other
dance; I'd also like feedback on the choreography.
Orange You Glad We Met?
Becket
A1
Men L allemande 1/2 (4)
Neighbor B&S (12)
A2
L star 1/2 to prev neighbor (6)
R star full to current neighbor (10)
B1
Pass thru current neighbor to new neighbor (4)
PROGRESSION
End in wave
Balance wave (4)
Square thru 3.5 (8)
B2
Partner B&S (16)
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
http://rule6.info/
<*>
<*> <*>
"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We have a full tank of gas, a half-pack of
cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Hit it."
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We have a full tank of gas, a half-pack of
cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Hit it."
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:10:15 +0000
From: Bill Olson <callbill(a)hotmail.com>
To: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Callers] Orange You Glad We Met?
Message-ID: <BAY177-W3731E9DF4F06A5F1A4CE35C62F0(a)phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
well, better here than on the dance floor.. *been there*.. hee hee..
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:09:02 -0700
From: aahz(a)pobox.com
To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
Subject: Re: [Callers] Orange You Glad We Met?
Ignore this, I hate when I hit "send" and immediately realize there's a
major choreography boo-boo...
(The square thru doesn't work.)
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013, Aahz wrote:
>
> In light of the earlier discussion about both double-progression and
> dances with neighbor swing that don't have circle left 3/4, I wrote the
> following. I'd first like to double-check that this doesn't already
> exist under some other name, nor does the name exist for some other
> dance; I'd also like feedback on the choreography.
>
> Orange You Glad We Met?
>
> Becket
>
> A1
> Men L allemande 1/2 (4)
> Neighbor B&S (12)
>
> A2
> L star 1/2 to prev neighbor (6)
> R star full to current neighbor (10)
>
> B1
> Pass thru current neighbor to new neighbor (4)
> PROGRESSION
> End in wave
> Balance wave (4)
> Square thru 3.5 (8)
>
> B2
> Partner B&S (16)
> --
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We have a full tank of gas, a half-pack of
cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Hit it."
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*>
<*> <*>
"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We have a full tank of gas, a half-pack of
cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Hit it."
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:39:24 -0700
From: Aahz Maruch <aahz(a)pobox.com>
To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
Subject: Re: [Callers] Scheduling/programmer Question
Message-ID: <20130926143923.GA6566(a)panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013, Colin Hume wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:57:04 -0400, Linda Leslie
wrote:
How do y'all bring in new talent?
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:06:35 -0700
From: Aahz Maruch <aahz(a)pobox.com>
To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
Subject: Re: [Callers] See Saw (was Re: Code's Compiling)
Message-ID: <20130926150635.GA17999(a)panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013, James Saxe wrote:
A few dances, such as the Concord MA Scout House, follow the
quarterly rule (with exceptions for traveling callers/bands from
far away). But others seem to schedule up to a year (or more!) in
advance.
Groups in England book bands and callers much further ahead. I have
12 bookings for 2014 (it would often be more by this time of the year)
and 3 for 2015.
So it appears from the above that CALLERLAB has officially deprecated
use of "See Saw" to mean a left shoulder Dosado for ten years (as of
tomorrow). I don't have a copy of the CALLERLAB Basic/Mainstream
definitions from just before that time, but it seems clear that the
prescribed for "See Saw" would have been (left) gypsy-like in some
cases and (left) dosado-like in others.
Ten years may seem like a long time to younger members of this list,
and to people who first took MWSD lessons within the last ten years,
it may seem like the definitions they learned describe the way things
were from time immemorial. But by 2003 MWSD had already substantially
diverged from "traditional" SD for forty years or so.
Well, I certainly appreciate the history lesson. Memory is unreliable,
of course, but I don't remember ever doing See Saw in MWSD as a left
dosado, starting in 1986 at UCDavis nor the Stanford Quads a year later
(just to nail down the timing and locations more precisely). From what
I can tell, Callerlab seems to be more in the descriptivist camp than
prescriptivist, so almost certainly the definitional changes you describe
followed majority practice that started earlier.
If anyone's curious, I can do more digging into people's memories on the
MWSD side.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:31:49 -0700
From: Aahz Maruch <aahz(a)pobox.com>
To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
Subject: Re: [Callers] Norms/Ethics of Dance Choreography Sharing
Message-ID: <20130926153149.GA12176(a)panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
[late again]
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013, Don Veino wrote:
I freely offer that some of the distinctions may or may not make sense to
others, but feels right to me in this environment. The grey area one
above
would probably be stifling to several of the
choreography review and
criticism threads which are otherwise very helpful were it made "not OK."
I'd love to hear what others think!
Not sure what I think yet, but because of this and Sam's thread, I've
stuck "CC BY-NC-SA" on the dances I'm writing -- can't hurt.
I prefer that over Sam's CC BY-NC because the SA requires a pass-along
license: if there's ever a situation where copyright is relevant, I want
to force the copyleft.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
End of Callers Digest, Vol 109, Issue 47
****************************************
27 Sep
27 Sep
8:11 a.m.
New subject: norms/ethics of choreography sharing
Tavi wrote:
regarding to calling a CC BY-NC dance at a paid
event: is it in fact noncommercial use?
Sounds commercial to me. The text from the license is:
"You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3
above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward
commercial advantage or private monetary compensation." --
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode
I think the relevant right would be to "Publicly Perform the Work".
You're getting paid to call, so "directed toward private monetary
compensation" sounds applicable.
Jeff
4:09 p.m.
New subject: norms/ethics of choreography sharing
Hi all, I've been reading the mail here for a while, time to speak up I guess. I'm
not sure I get what the problem is.. I admit I haven't read all the posts completely,
but I guess I want to ask if there has actually been a problem..
i.e.:
Has a choreographer had his or her work used in a way he/she deems inappropriate?
Has anyone been sued or has legal action been discussed in reference to any of this?
Is anyone here REALLY WORRIED about this or is this just an intellectual exercise?
I really don't understand the "licensing" of dance compositions.. What is
the purpose of this, and what is it meant to prevent from happening??
I for one am happy for anyone to call dances I have composed.. I do not need you to
contact me ahead of time and I will not sue you if you call these dances without my
permission. If you put them in a book I will not be unhappy and you do not need to get my
permission, though that would be nice and proper credit would be nice too. If you claim
the dance is YOURS and then sell it for LOTS of money, I WILL be unhappy but I STILL will
not sue you.. I doubt that will happen so I am not "preparing for that
eventuality".
Just my view of things, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" I guess..
bill
should I push "send" now???? oh what the heck, here goes..
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:11:30 -0400
From: jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu
To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
Subject: Re: [Callers] norms/ethics of choreography sharing
Tavi wrote:
regarding to calling a CC BY-NC dance at a paid
event: is it in fact noncommercial use?
Sounds commercial to me. The text from the license is:
"You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3
above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward
commercial advantage or private monetary compensation." --
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode
I think the relevant right would be to "Publicly Perform the Work".
You're getting paid to call, so "directed toward private monetary
compensation" sounds applicable.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers 
8:13 p.m.
New subject: norms/ethics of choreography sharing
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013, Bill Olson wrote:
Hi all, I've been reading the mail here for a while, time to speak up
I guess. I'm not sure I get what the problem is.. I admit I haven't
read all the posts completely, but I guess I want to ask if there has
actually been a problem..
There has not been a problem *in* *the* *contra* *community*, but there
have obviously been lots of problems with what is called intellectual
property in our larger societies. How would you feel, for example, if
suddenly the Disney Corp claimed copyright over contra dances and started
sending lawyers to contra dances to extort money from you?
This may sound ridiculous, but it's not really because it's not that
different from events that have already occurred, and I don't blame
people who want to worry about it -- nor do I blame people who want to
ignore the issue, because it is in the end rather unlikely.
After reading Jeff's latest post, I went back and removed the licenses
from my dances again. ;-)
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
7 Oct
7 Oct
4:52 p.m.
New subject: norms/ethics of choreography sharing
Bill, you are reminding me of the groundedness and goodness of the folks
we meet whenever we dance and travel cross country. Thank you for
pointing out that we can still
trust in folks to be honest,
have faith in the folk process,
take pleasure in the creativity that enlivens us all,
and "relieve stress" by not holding on to fear in the first place....
Karin
On 9/27/2013 4:09 PM, Bill Olson wrote:
Hi all, I've been reading the mail here for a
while, time to speak up I guess. I'm not sure I get what the problem is.. I admit I
haven't read all the posts completely, but I guess I want to ask if there has actually
been a problem..
i.e.:
Has a choreographer had his or her work used in a way he/she deems inappropriate?
Has anyone been sued or has legal action been discussed in reference to any of this?
Is anyone here REALLY WORRIED about this or is this just an intellectual exercise?
I really don't understand the "licensing" of dance compositions.. What is
the purpose of this, and what is it meant to prevent from happening??
I for one am happy for anyone to call dances I have composed.. I do not need you to
contact me ahead of time and I will not sue you if you call these dances without my
permission. If you put them in a book I will not be unhappy and you do not need to get my
permission, though that would be nice and proper credit would be nice too. If you claim
the dance is YOURS and then sell it for LOTS of money, I WILL be unhappy but I STILL will
not sue you.. I doubt that will happen so I am not "preparing for that
eventuality".
Just my view of things, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" I guess..
bill
should I push "send" now???? oh what the heck, here goes..
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:11:30 -0400
From: jeff(a)alum.swarthmore.edu
To: callers(a)sharedweight.net
Subject: Re: [Callers] norms/ethics of choreography sharing
Tavi wrote:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers regarding to calling a CC BY-NC dance at a paid
event: is it in fact noncommercial use?
Sounds commercial to me. The text from
the license is:
"You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3
above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward
commercial advantage or private monetary compensation." --
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode
I think the relevant right would be to "Publicly Perform the Work".
You're getting paid to call, so "directed toward private monetary
compensation" sounds applicable.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
4063
days inactive
4073
days old
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Aahz Maruch -
Bill Olson -
Jeff Kaufman -
Karin Neils -
tavi merrill