contract-law music distribution-terms
Do I grant ditto (music distributer) a free license?
<p>I am looking into the <a href="https://ditto.com/terms-of-use/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ditto agreement</a> (a music distribution service that puts my music on spotify) and there is the following section in it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You agree that the licenses you grant are royalty-free, perpetual,
sublicenseable, irrevocable, and worldwide, ... .</p>
</blockquote>
<p>my question is should i read that as</p>
<p>&quot;you grant us royaly-free, sublicenseable, irrevocable and worldwide licences&quot;</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>&quot;your ownership of the songs is royaly-free, sublicenseable, irrevocable and worldwide&quot;</p>

<p>I am fairly sure &quot;the licences&quot; should be read as a sum of these licences, as applicable:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>you hereby grant Ditto a license to translate, modify (for technical purposes, for example making sure your content is viewable on an iPhone as well as a computer) and reproduce and otherwise act with respect to such User Submissions</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>you grant Ditto the licenses above, as well as a license to use, prepare derivative works of, display, perform, and distribute your Public User Submission in any media format and through any media channels (including, without limitation, third party websites) as well as all other rights necessary to use and exercise all rights in that Public User Submission in connection with the Site for any purpose. Also, you grant all other users of the Site a license to access that Public User Submission, and to use and exercise all rights in it, as permitted by the functionality of the Site.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So the former, but applied to these particular rights.</p>
