ascap vs sabam

What stops a person outside of the US (I am in fact) from joining ASCAP or BMI
and not their local CS? If they can, what are the implications?

It’s not a problem for an artist to join ASCAP outside the US. All foreign artists have to do is fill in a US tax form and send it in with their application. They are not able to join online as they don’t have a social security number. Might be implications when applying for cultural funding in some countries if the artist was to join ASCAP. Yet i doubt that an artist could be openly refused funding for this.

Prior to the Buma/Stemra project this project started. http://www.icommons.org/nodes/project-dac .After the Buma project got started this project stopped. Is this project going to start again?

Buma look at everything that in the past that has collected a royalty as being a commercial use, and i can’t see how this could change. My experience from touring the Netherlands is that Buma/stemra is the same as SABAM.

corputation of songs by producers with publishers- evil or fair?

Its fair that producers= co-creators of a song be payed via the rights organizations the same amount of money that someone would be payed through the rights organizations for producing a cover of the songwriters song. It seems fair that the artist can pay what is owed to the producer for their work on the artists song “house” as it makes an income through the publishing system. To the point where the production work is payed for. Yet what rights organization is going to put that system in place and would producers abuse the system ultimately anyway?

Producers that work outside these guidelines need to create co- write agreements with artists prior to starting work (for the future). Yet what self publishing artist is going to give co-write share and pay a producer. How many artists with managers labels and publishers end up with publishing rights on albums with producers they went into the studio to make their songs sound better? The producer wants to make it and get rich with the artist, yet the artist wants to get the songs out and about. With a publishers name on a small back-room of the house, what to do, when the art is free as no publisher cares for it anyway?

Its not fair for artists to travel with their songs being owned by producers who did three hours work on their song, for 70 years after the songwriters death. Producers that understand a system working with artists that have no experience in the system can’t use their magic to extort ownership of a song. Especially in this changing environment.

A songs a song, let the producer publish the song with-out the artists song in it, yet don’t stop the artist publishing what the artist created when paying a professional producer with a publisher. Its hard for a songwriter with not much of a resource to tell a producer how to produce songs. Thats my experience, even when you have the dollars they still want do what the artists wants and then its art. Yet did’nt the songwriter not pay the producer as professional production artists anyway? or was the studio built for fun?

Take the music out of the song, yet don’t take the song from the song. Especially when the artist wants to make it free.

I think a lot of artists get caught up in these twists, yet the person that wrote the song wrote the song. The producer produced the song and the produced the song and should be payed fairly for their work when the artist can pay. Rights organizations could lend a hand here, yet then it would make it harder for the self published artist to be exploited and publishing rights would have to be incorporated in writer rights, like in the US. Rights organizations serve the interests of publishers and those working with them. It does seem that either way that things work, they don’t work so great for the self publishing artist.

The points system worked well for artists with record labels/publishers, as the artists can give up points for ownership of the recording. Yet most of that income was payed through the mechanical use and sale of the recording. For art that is self published without label or publisher, what does the production do to be in the groove if the music makes it?

I’m happy to own the songs i wrote without a publisher and to have payed for the master recording. Sure i wish i could have payed the producers more income for their work on my album. If i make a lot of dollars i’m going to give any dollars i owe to a “friend” that put some of his time into helping me build the back room of my house.

The crazy world of intellectual property. How dare you make it free.

Thoughts on ASCAp

what ASCAP say about creative commons

10. No “Authentication” When a Work Is Submitted – Even if a creator doesn’t want to submit his or her work to a CC license, someone else can. How? Because there is no “authentication” as to whether the true owner of a piece of creative content is the one applying for the CC license. Any person can go to the Creative Commons website with a digital song file or photograph, follow the instructions online and claim it as his or her own and release your work, without your consent, to the “commons.”

CC licenses are always going to be about the community having possibilities with art outside a regulated system. Its not about money, so why is ASCAP so worried? Media need much tighter licenses to use content. So they are not going to have the CC license listed with the content after they create a tighter license unless they have a contract with the media and the space that plays the content. I think that most of the guilds would not allow content to be aired without a royalty being payed. So i’m not sure how the rights organizations plan to work out the impossible. The current system means that royalties can not be waivered anyway. Youtube and myspace don’t pay for use of content.

7. The Issue of Co-Creators – CC licenses can cause complications for works created by more than one individual. Under the U.S. Copyright Act, unless they have a written agreement otherwise, each “co-creator” has the right to license the work on a non-exclusive basis without the consent of their co-creator. Each co-creator’s responsibility is to ensure that the other co-creator receives a share of profits. But what happens when a co-creator places a work under a CC license? If a license eliminates the possibility for payment on that work, and extends both globally and forever, the other co-creator is essentially out of luck.

Although rights are wavered- media is only not paying for use of content when the creator of that media displays the CC license. Why would media display the license if they have to create a license with the artist to use the content? Even with the license displayed, unless the blanket license system has a mechanism in place to give a reduction for use to where the media is played, the creator by law might have a claim to that royalty even with a wavier in place and license.

The problem is more that the rights organizations contracts outside the US don’t link up with the ASCAP contract. So long as all parties agree that its ok to use the license, what is the problem? All my producers where aware that i had chosen to give my content away and make it as free as possible. They did not care what i did with what i payed them to create as their was no income from the creation anyway.

Both these statements show the lack of vision and conservative attitude of the ASCAP, ASCAP is run mostly by publishers. Publishers don’t publish self publishers. the community like to mix songs with videos that they make. Surely the free world has a right to exist and its not just about professional artists, obviously professional and non-profesional artists are able to benefit from the use of CC licenses.

prisoner of the system

the digital medium is slightly strange in itself in that, every digital transaction that someone has, however useless it is to the person that creates the transaction, the potential exists for all transactions to be compiled and then a profile built. what if a super computer existed 10 years prior to when the net was built and was 10 times faster than any computer available to the consumer now and was not built in the US. who would be the prisoner of the house if this were true? good science fiction. today i’m in Hamberg, i got here one day earlier for the show tomorrow. very summer here.

open business idea

I contributed this idea to the open business website

When a film uses content licensed with CC, is it fair that attribution happen when the film has finished? how can the artist be considered to be attributed if the art is not placed with the attribution?

Consider: Could a different kind of attribution license exist/be adapted, that might work this way? If the film maker did not want to attribute as the art is being performed and wanted to put the credits at the end or the beginning of the film, the film maker could goto a central website and pay to have the rights cleared. Until the film maker could pay, the film maker would have to attribute the artists art when the film was being performed. Could be an interesting idea for the CC+ protocols.
a lot of artists might go for this license, rather than just giving the art to film makers via a traditional form of attribution for free.

goto the Creative commons website and look at the new CC+ protocols.

consider also: A problems with rights organizations (from the self publishers point of view) is that the rights organizations give the venue/radio/club the right to use content as they choose (at a cost), the user of content is under no obligation to attribute the artist.

If good attribution conditions were attached to a creative commons license, self publishing artists that are not commercial- might be more inclined to use a creative commons license.

Also: If an artist is not a member of a rights organization- then the cafe/bar/radio station/non-profit organization has no platform to use a song.

A lot of songwriters would like attribution attached to a song that included -a website link/ tittle of the track/ performer and writer of songs name, maybe even producers. Attribution can be a sensitive issue. Could attribution conditions be built into the license, if the artist would choose? Could a couple of different defaults exist? Is a default possible with so many variables?

It looks like attribution conditions have changed with the creative commons license. http://www.creativecommons.org

this is another text that might also.
Consider that DJ’s are able to use tunes without attribution as rights organizations provide a platform for that use. Very rarely is a commercial DJ going to play a tune that is not published by a publisher. DJ’s that are going to most likely use content licensed with a creative commons license are DJ’s that want to run events that are out of reach of the rights organizations. Doesn’t it make sense that free-culture DJ’s innovate to make sure the artists that give that content freely are attributed?

I thought part of the deal with creative commons was, i don’t get paid when the content gets a use, I get attributed.

Consider that music artists in the US are able to use a creative commons license and be a member of a rights organization. Artists outside the US are able to join ASCAP with little difficulty, to join ASCAP costs 25 dollars.

Letter to the arts council in Australia.

I noticed that APRA in conjunction with the hotel association have
created a concept called the live revolution, i wondered how the idea
bellow would translate into the system from the arts councils point
of view and how the arts council would look a concept like this?
http://www.apra.com.au/revolution/

live revolution:

Would it be possible to work with post codes.

example: if an artist that lives in area code 2009 and sings all
original content when they perform. could the venue be given a
performance rebate when the artist played a 100 percent original set
of music, no covers. the artist could still be payed through the
performance rights organizations, only the arts council might
subsidize the rebate. The more original live music that was used, the
less the venue would pay for use of content each year.

artists right to distribute

to get active visit http://www.myspace.com/optoutofapra

attribution- what does it mean in context of free-culture?

If a listener can’t place the art with the attribution, how can the art be considered to have been attributed?

Consider that DJ’s are able to use tunes without attribution as rights organizations provide a platform for that use. Very rarely is a commercial DJ going to play a tune that is not published by a publisher. DJ’s that are going to most likely use content licensed with a creative commons license are DJ’s that want to run events that are out of reach of the rights organizations. Doesn’t it make sense that free-culture DJ’s innovate to make sure the artists that give that content freely are attributed?

I thought part of the deal with creative commons was, i don’t get paid when the content gets a use, I get attributed. Consider that music artists in the US are able to use a creative commons license and be a member of a rights organization. Artists outside the US are able to join ASCAP with little difficulty, to join ASCAP costs 25 dollars.

are these apples and carrots?

I have been looking at the non-commercial commercial use issue for a bit with creative commons, for me its a fault within the license. the non commercial license stands to benefit the larger corporations that only pay the majors when content is used. the way i see a non-commercial license is different to someone who works in software. people that make software often want to generate more income for themselves by the way they license what they create. people that make art for the most (from my view) just want people to experience that art. a lot of people that make art, don’t want that art surrounded by google banners. a similar way to look at it might be, some people don’t want to sit on a park bench next to river where the bench is sponsored by a corporation.

Its easier when things are made that fit in with a corrupt system, its hard to build anything that does not fit in with the engine already constructed. For me its going to be interesting if creative commons supports the solar energy space vessel, or the regular fuel motor. At this point it looks like creative commons are going with the slightly more efficient regular fuel motor.

Even if the world has not caught upto the machine, it does not mean that the machine can’t be built. If you build something else that cancels the possibility of that machine, how is the future going to judge that machine, if conditions get worse because of that machine.

i have been watching DR who lately.

Both these uses bellow (*-) currently look to be non-commercial uses through the view of the CC license (often). I notice a lot of video clips have used creative commons non-commercial licensed content within the clip, where they have not created the music content and uploaded that content to sites that have google banners. Two clips that have used my tunes under the creative commons BY license, yet both clips contain other tunes licensed with non-commercial licensed content. Clip A Clip B

The problem for me is that few artists use the BY creative commons license, yet it seems Non-Commercial works of all kind are being used in BY conditions. I’m not sure if this is because of bad information or this is the intention of the license.

read CC non-commercial guidelines here

*-Songwriter makes song and puts that song on their website with a non-commercial creative commons licenses. Video maker finds the song and makes a video using the songwriters song. Video maker puts the video onto a web service that generates its income through advertising revenue. In the terms and conditions that the video maker agrees to when they upload that video to that web service. The video maker agrees that no royalty shall be paid to the video maker when the web service uses the video makers video in conjunction with advertising.

*-Songwriter makes song and uploads the song to a web service that splits proceeds from the advertising revenue received 50/50 between the song and the web service. Songwriter licenses the song using a non-commercial creative commons license on that website. A performer hears the song and records their version of that song, the performer then uploads that version of the song to the same site under the same license. Revenues are split 50/50 with the performer and the web-service.

Are these uses non-commercial?

I sent the above questions out to the creative commons community mailing list

I received this comment when i posted the question to the CC mailing list from Lloyd.

“You can use this so long as in doing so *you* aren’t trying to make money from it”

This response via the same mailing list from Nic.

“Clearly not non-commercial”

“Not non-commercial, in breach of the licence”

spinach apples and carrots gone mad

76.00 NOK	=	15.8920 AUD
Norway Kroner		Australia Dollars

i bought a bag of spinach and 2 apples =76 Norway crowns. the apples were eaten away inside, i noticed at the check out this and also noticed the spinach was a little sloppy in the bag. the deal is in this supermarket, anything that does not look ok, the customer gets a refund. plus the amount of the product in credit. so I get the product free after I have paid for it. interesting idea for the tax system. i got home and the carrot were not any good also ( i juiced and drank, yet the taste was not so sweet) yet they were in a bag, so could not see they were slightly slimed at the check-out.

as i could be considered to be on Norwegian poverty line (from the income i have), i ‘m thinking i should make it a daily task to search the super markets, rat it out for products that are bellow ok.

a bag of spinach and 2 apples is probably about the same cost as half a months wage for some people in a very poor undeveloped country.

most people in Norway seem to busy to identify any food fault, this could be a way to eat mainly veggies for free. is this a form of free culture, a crack in the system. in the last week i have got almost 50 dollars worth of free food.

flickr pics

press pics link

review of music in norway

i just got a review of the CD “shifting sands if a blue car” in Norway, even though i have not sent a CD for review for 2-3 years. It looks to be a not so great review of the cd though. Its now 8 years since some of the vocal tracks were put down on that CD, its interesting though that the CD can still get a review -even if it is a 4 out of 10.

A bad review is a good review to a point, i would have made more production recordings- if i could have paid for the last one. It does hurt a bit when people say your tunes are not great, although if i can make a CD that can be reviewed on a commercial website, 4 years after release in Australia, that reviews mostly major product- without even asking for a review, thats ok.link to old reviews.

why no music business

i came across this quote through a mailing list via rob

“People didn’t stop buying albums because they were philosophically opposed to how the rock business operated, andthey didn’t stop buying albums because the Internet is changing the relationship between capitalism and art. People stopped buying albums because they wanted the fucking money. It’s complicated, but it’s not.”

what i reckon-

as the business gets to be more about production and less about the song or the essence of the art, things change. i reckon people care less about paying for something, as the art value is more a production element. also, people spend money on different entertainment that was not around when the industry was getting huge revenue. i still reckon if publishers were able to publish in a less centralized way, more would respect the laws. sure people who can’t afford to go to the movies are going to download and some people always don’t want to spend money on something they can get for free. the shape of media has changed, yet the laws are the same.

Letter to minister of arts in Australia

Hi Mr Garrett,

I noticed on APRA’s home page that your ok with the APRA song summit. Are you less aware of rights reforms and more with green policies? Artists have to pay APRA to listen to their music to goto a song summit, even though APRA link these artists anyway (entry to the summit was via a sonic bids press kit). APRA appears to be about linking art to corporations not the community, how can the minister of arts be ok with this?

Some things worth considering:
What is the point of APRA’s opt-outs unless media can integrate content at a different rate to the system in place. APRA’s opt-outs to my mind appear to be the equivalent of digging a hole in the ground next to a swimming pool, making it harder for people to swim at the local pool and confusing “artist” members and public.

I notice that APRA have set up a myspace.

All live venues in Australia have to pay APRA for use the of content, however Myspace does not pay APRA, why? Live venues do not have soap commercials going above the artists head as they play music. APRA are happy to take venues that don’t comply to APRA policy to court, what about myspace Australia. Could the future live scene at best be a karaoke bar with google banners?

APRA’s past routed in fascism worth reading

Technology has changed and we are not in the 80’s anymore, APRA policy has not changed much since 1926, live original self published music from my view looks as if its being outlawed under a policy that provides content at one price, venues can hardly pay for recorded music.

New technology has created the means for the artist to distribute from home via the net.

Is it fair that the APRA’s board of directors should influence how a song should be (in a shrinking industry)? The children of tomorrow make the media, we grew up being subjected to media. Media reform starts with reform of the rights organizations. People have the right to provide media for free to local pub’s, cafe, net TV, all media. Its upto publishers to find the best content they can in this new technology, why let an outdated system lock people into a past culture.

Why let big media use content for free and in the same breath always make the self publishing community pay? Midnight oil made its life out of a healthy live scene, maybe as minister for the art you owe it to the community to reform APRA.

best,

opt-out

Please forward this letter

understanding publishing

the only way i have managed to understand publishing is to be in a situation where i really have something to publish. something that had no value suddenly has a value, yet why should the value of that that the market has value change what value means for me of that song. should the song mean more now to me. its still the same song. its all kind of wacky how publishing works. in the US to collect your publishing you have to have a publishing company set up or be with a publishing company to get publishing.

most people probably think when a song is used in a film, the film pays for it and thats that. yet thats not it, the amount of times that that film is played and where its played- is what determines the value of that song. if you sync your music to a track and the film is played a lot- the artist gets more from the publishing/writer rights 50/50 than from what the artist gets when the film is synced.

If your not a member of a rights organization then your not able to collect any of the writer royalties. if your not with a publisher then your not able to pick up the publisher share of the royalty. they are both part of the jigsaw and work together. If the artist does not claim revenues within 9 months, those revenues are distributed to the pool of artists.

its a crazy system, set up for the publishers not the artists. I just wonder how much longer the system is going to work this way. obviously if i/you collect or don’t collect, this has no impact on the system. you can give up your rights to a publisher or you can create a publishing company yourself.

anyway: this is the way the system works in the US. when everyone has the tools to create distribute and get access to everything, how important is this system still. surely things have to change somehow with all this technology.

streamline monopoly of APRA

A problem I see with APRA (and the rest of the rights network) seems partly simple to me, what is not free is dependent on what is free, to maintain a healthy creative environment, free things need to be shared to make things that are great. This is why creative commons is part of the solution.

If all the culture needs to be paid for yet everyone has the ability to create the same culture at home. Then the old system is obsolete, lawyers can argue all they want about it. Bottom line is that the consumer has become the creator of media.

The reason why the community can’t and don’t seem to respect copyright laws (i feel) is because the media does not provide entertainment of the community to the people. The media provide content owned by publishers. Publishers that provide content of the community need to be funded by the government and often end up publishing content like that of the published content anyway. Crazy system of culture. Until consumers are able to provide their content at a competitive rate to media (=free) organizations like APRA are going to destroy any culture that would manifest itself. APRA is not a practical solution anymore.

Its not APRA’s fault, its the ACCC fault (i reckon) for not placing further regulations on this monopoly and not getting a community perspective on APRA’s impact. The ACCC look towards the business community and established artists for feedback, not the self publishing community. Every consumer is now a self publisher with the internet and new technology. I have spoken to the ACCC and they don’t appear to be able to comprehend this simple idea. They see the way APRA is set up as a legitimate form of exploitation of the consumer.

APRA do not disclose the cost for use of its media to the public and do not allow self publishing artist members to deal with their art directly with any form of media at a competitive rate. Internet radio is not possible in Australia, yet is possible in the US.

The price of well published content like Madonna is the same price as content made at home for fun when played in a cafe, bar, cinema (all public performance places). APRA consider almost all use of music a commercial use (outside personal use) and have no exceptions to this policy. APRA offer no platform for the home creator to publish to media at no cost, in fact if a bar or cafe play your cd and you are not a member of APRA, they have broken copyright law and you could sue them for not having a contract with you.

Was/is the intention of the art you created dollar signs, or did you just want it to be heard. Is it fair that the right to copy should always include a financial transaction when used by media? It seems like some things created were intended to gain financial rewards, yet other art is creative and fun. Surely both free and non-free are dependent on each other. If they are not dependent on each other, where is the need for the publishers to interact with the community?

If a space, place, network does incorporate open licensed content into regular media, how can they be sure that they will be treated equally among their competitors unless the way that content is priced is made clear to all? Consider that the board of directors of APRA is made up by music industry professionals, never has a self publishing independent artist (that has not been published at some point) been on the board of any rights organization that i’m aware of.

Consider also that the authority that advises the consumer on how to deal with copyright the (copyright council) has one board member that is also the Chief executive of APRA. link link

From what i understand, the consumer and self publishing artists in Australia would be better off if APRA was dissolved and commercial rights were administered via ASCAP in the US. Thats the unfortunate reality from my view. ASCAP allow the artist members to license their content as they choose and remain a member.

As stream line as APRA’s collection system is, it still suffocates the art and creativity within the community. The situation can only get worse while APRA exist as they do. Organizations like myspace and you-tube not paying for content, yet the live venues having to pay, this makes the situation more extreme within the community for self publishing of art and effects every consumer. Under these conditions, councils best make graffiti legal.

Brett Cottle responds to paper on creative commons.

Brett Cottle Cheif executive of APRA says
“What can be said, I think is that there is surely nothing inherently undesirable about non-Government IP licensing initiatives, nor indeed anything inconsistent in such developments with a proper legislative role being taken by Government.” quote from this link

Would the rights of “self published” artists be better managed by the government or APRA? Much of the cultural funding of art seems to be associated with APRA, is this how tax dollars are best spent?

global production choose memories child

Yesterday i got an email from beatpick, the guys that sync up my music for commercial use. Although my tunes are under a by creative commons attribution license, corporate films need a better contract to use content than what the license provides. I’m not going to say the name of the film that have chosen the track, yet its great news that my tunes are going to be used in a major film production that has a global release.

As I have quit with my rights organization APRA in australia, i don’t stand to get any income from the use of the content in media. I really do want my content to be used freely though, so i’m really quite ok with this. I’m looking at this as a good opportunity for me to get live gigs.

I just phoned another venue in Norway that told me “we only book bands in our town that are known”. Not sure that having this track used in this film is going to get me known in that town. This is great publicity though, although i’m anti the established media and the monopolization of rights. i’m not anti my music being played all over the place. slightly  brings back my faith in the way things are. thanks for using my tunes in the film.

Jamisson Young

Jamisson Young

Originally uploaded by Lone Black Rider

Depot, i know its strange to put pics of me all over my blog. yet i’m still trying to figure out how to show people what I do. so at least when i look at my blog and see a pic of me i can get a vibe of if i like the pic or not.

Jamisson Young

Jamisson Young

Originally uploaded by Lone Black Rider

From the Depot luven