The whole issue of APRA and EMI/producers music has errupted again, as i’m a member of ASCAP, i’m able to license the songs I write as I choose. As APRA is a monopoly the artist does not have this right.
APRA claims that their terms are not for-ever, yet as i’m the songwriter and was manipulated into giving co-write up to all my producers prior to being a full member and already previously having tittle to songs in my name, APRA persist through a net of lies/confusion.
Now i’m with ASCAP, APRA want go into dispute as I’m not one of their writers anymore, this has grid locked the song. It is a 10 percent share of the song, yet that 10 percent still hold’s true from APRA’s point of view and controls the other 90 percent. (even with no agrement to tie the threads together), as i don’t have a lawyer with a publisher and the rights organizations do technically work for the publishing industry, its not an easy situation to solve.
I’m a little down on myself, so its hard to protect licenses that don’t function in the old system. The internet is a copy machine and for the artist that wants to be heard the old system does not work, for the artist without a publisher that wants to get paid, i also don’t feel the old system works.
In my instance, the practical thing for me would be to side with EMI and get them to protect my rights and thus, get paid more and more quickly, i would hope. Yet I did write the songs and no co-write was ever created, APRA are supposed to protect rights of the authors not the producers that twist their way into publishing.
As the producers were signed to EMI music and one to mushroom, they should know to get the artist to sign a co-write agreement, yet producers (with publishers) and people already in the publishing business, know how the game goes and know how best to exploit the artist to their means, even if it means wasting years of effort. Bottom line is that getting a share of the song, is a big deal for the producer with a publisher. Artists with no manager, label, publisher on their first album are going to always be taken for a ride, yet if the producers don’t have their legal dice together, then why would/should the artist be cursed.
The system is not made for the innovator, yet what system ever is, at the end of all this, the song is what suffers, EMI or the producers put no effort into publishing the recording and the artist ends up taking it around the world on not ecomically viable terms. Then when i leave the rights organization to use creative commons licenses, i’m told i have all my rights back and the issue of co-write has nothing to do with APRA, when a major film company comes along and uses the song, sudenly EMI music wants to get in with the song.
I realize how these people that work in these rights organizations are extreamly protective of the territory that they lay claim over.
I sometimes want to direct license the songs i play and write direct to venues, so its imperative that the song belongs 100 percent to me, as it does, cause i wrote it and paid for the whole production.
to finish: The reason why this has all come up is that i created a license that gave 2000 dollars for the use of the song “How Far”, that i paid to a chairity project called unculutred, APRA agread that i could do this, i checked with them prior to license going out.
to finish this::: Sure their are problems with creative commons licenses, as they are a broad license and music and publishing industry is very specific about what it wants. Yet how to create something in the middle?
One big problem with the creative commons license is that 90 percent of works go out under a non-commercial license, yet almost everything can be considered a commercial use, as the law makes no destinction between what a non-commercial/ commercial. The NC license looks good to the public, yet its kind of wierd for the artist, as most artists don’t get to consider the freedoms from copyrights point of view, and even understand what a fully free license is, different laws rules, rights, and regulations are in place in all countries for copyright, some of this is very cultural.
Who can know what the solution is, yet i’m feeling very steam rolled and stressed, and this is for sure very taxing on my own personal life.
post on CC forum & new idea
October 20, 2008 by jamyoung
link to post
The NC license looks to be a better license for software developers and artists that don’t want their songs, code or graphic being used in a commercial way. It seems strange for me that Buma/stemra, coda & APRA have gone for these licenses within their system. Artists that join these organizations give exclusive permissions for the use of their copyright to these organizations. This means the NC license is not able to flex or move at all. In the US the CC license can flex as artists with ASCAP and BMI have not signed exclusive contracts. Most artists that sign with a rights organization outside the US probably don’t know that the contract they have with their rights organization is exclusive, most artists in the US probably don’t know that the contract they sign is non-exclusive. As the contract is non-exclusive in the US, artists can join ASCAP via the net. As what difference is it if the artists is a member or not, they still have their exclusive right.
It seems clear from recent mails with rights organization AKM, that the non-exclusive right of an artist that has issued the right for their media to be used via ASCAP/bmi, is unable to translate outside the US on any level. This in turn means that the commons license as far as audio works licensed by artists that are members of ASCAP or BMI are only able to go as far as the boarders of the US, from the information i have so far.
AKM write:::
your “case” has been discussed thoroughly. Our position is that in reference to the reciprocal representation agreement AKM has concluded with ASCAP we have the right to license the right of public performance of your musical works. No evidence is shown in the IPI-database that your membership agreement with ASCAP excludes live-performances. Given the fact that the membership agreement between ASCAP and its members is on a non-exclusive basis you too have the right to license the right of public performance of your musical works.
Our contracting partner is ASCAP. As long as we do not have a written information from ASCAP that we shall no longer license live-performances or public performances as a whole of your musical works we will proceed as before. So, please contact your contracting partner ASCAP:::
If all rights organization (outside the US) stand on the same ground as AKM its hard to know (yet if its upto a board run via corporations, its probably yes), what does that tell the artist that puts a creative commons license on their songs, be it non-commercial or commercial?
The other consideration that the audio creator might want to take into view is that no law exists (that i know of), that defines commercial or non-commercial. The rights organization have the ability to decide what a non-commercial or commercial use is, yet as the rights organizations voting system, is built in such a way that the more an artist or publisher gets the more power the artist or publisher has, this ultimately means that a definition of non-commercial or commercial is going to be created in favor of the corporation affiliated NGO’s or the artists, that get the most revenues.
This in turn means that creative commons has to bend to the wills of the corporations and governmental institutions rather than the artists. No artists or regular publisher is on the board of creative commons or icommons and i do feel that creative commons has understood the situation as i do now for some time.
The artist who is signed with ASCAP does have the right to defend her or his right to issue a license in the court of law, if they have signed a non-exclusive contract with a rights organization. Consider though, as non-commercial is not defined and share alike easily mis-understood, this means that a license that allows commercial use with attribution is probably the better choice for the artist that wants to stay self publishing.
From this view it seems joining ASCAP and defending the space/media that the artist issues the license 2, is a smart way to go. http://www.setlist.CC
I’m not a lawyer, so maybe i have it a little mixed up. Yet getting things mixed up might open up some other ways, that don’t just help the corporations, government and NGO’s.
A pleasure to be a part of your project. This film use was great news for me as i’m self publishing my art. Part of the problem is that the large charity organizations all want to deal with the big stars like u2, yet there is heaps of art that sounds great that can be used in so many ways and create such a great result for the organization. I started a project a long time ago called hungry artists feed hungry people on myspace http://www.myspace.com/hafhp i started to gradually understand the reality of many of the charity organizations. They are interested in the rock gods. Yet the reality to my mind is that these media stars are a big part of the problem and part of the reason for poverty. When people are hearing the song “one love” “one world” written via the likes of U2, some might think that problems are being solved. Yet part of the reality is that a publisher is collecting something. Creative commons is part of the solution and its great that i inspired you to use the licenses. I bumped into the CC licenses through the hafhp project. I hope that more artists go with the hafhp idea. I just wanted to be true to my word,
its great work your doing shawn, keep going. thanks a lot.
One thing i should add, is that i only gave up the funds that fox gave me for the use of the song, i did not give up the Author rights that would be paid for the use of the song’s public performance, my view is that self publishing artists giving revenues to charities is a good way to promote the sound recording of the song. Many business models could evolve out of a similar situation, yet the charity organizations have to want to work with these types of business models.
Its kind of weird, i started to send out information to artists in Australia about the ASCAP bill of rights and you know what i can’t send messages on myspace anymore. What does that say about the rights of artists within the US and the rights of artists in Australia. The freedoms that pertain to musicains in US simply are not and want be allowed to exist outside the US. This works well for US media and also means that the governments outside the US are able to blaim the US media and use tax payers money to fund the media that is often from the US outside the US. maybe its just some pipe dream in my head, yet as of now i can’t send this message out to artists in Australia. Does that mean i should return to Australia and tell them all in persons? or is it all a wasted breath in the manufactured market of music in Australia. Go on take their pay-off sign on the dotted line, not that anyone every paid me anything. I paid everyone for my songs to be contoled by EMI music publishing in Australia, strange idea is it not? you reckon EMI would have to have a contract to do that in place, yet apparently not. The ACCC and the copyright council, say this is all normal business practise in Australia. Should i lock myself in a concrete wall and throw myself into Sydney harbour! Copyright law combined with the internet, APRA and a dinasore. The funny thing is that all the people that preech the praises of rights organizations like APRA are musicians. Imagine that they are able to convince musicians to work in these places. Crazy stuff ay, do i get off on being to much of a crazy guy?
the show must go on.
Some interesting info for you, if your music is with APRA.
ASCAP is the rights organization in the US. Their bill of rights state.
-We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.
-We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.
Contact APRA and ask them why these freedoms that are available to artists in the US are not available to artists in Australia.
Do you want a real business of music that is able compete with the system in the US? Do you want your content to allways be priced at the same price as large bands like the red hot chilly pepars? Why do you have no choice? is the union of APRA positive for your music when every home has an internet connection and the internet is a copy machine? Did you write your songs to be heard or to get a royalty? Don’t you need the right to make your work free when the publishers reject it? Why do US composers and songwriters demand these rights?
Australian artists can join and transfer to ASCAP. You just have to send in a paper application form, rather than join online. My thoughts are that you would be able to do more with tunes, with these rights within your community than the ones you have with APRA.
http://www.ascap.com/rights/
anyway, now the myspace it is working again, it must have been a server issue, nice story though… although this myspace ID works on firefox, yet on mac browser… its not worth worring about, yet its always good to invent a theory… where would art be if we all took pills that prevented being us from being paranoid?
if you visit this link, you can see some info about the use of the song in x-files film. i wrote this response bellow.
hello, its interesting to see all this here. i want to make the point about the use of my song and ASCAP.
“Licensor will not collect, whether individually or via a performance rights society, royalties for Your communication to the public, broadcast, public performance or public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work.”
What’s good about the CC BY license 2.5 is that it allows commercial use of content for “you” or “your” work. Keep in mind for a blanket to keep someone warm that blanket does not have holes in it. Publishers are in the ones that maintain the temperatures of those blankets. The CC BY license from my veiw is great sync licenses for artists, it also means if a venue/webservice uses all content under the CC BY license that the venue does not have to pay a bill to rights organizations for the use of that content.
These are good conditions for the self-publisher. Yet possibly upsetting for an established publishing industry.
Both Youtube and myspace might be considered commercial uses, from some points of view. Most artists want their content remixed and put with these services.
My thoughts are for now that artists that are not with a commercial publisher are best to put a creative commons license on their work that allows commercial use and join ASCAP. Its not the job of rights organizations to police attribution, it also seems logical that for someone to use a creative commons license they need to be sure that an artist is a member of ASCAP, as most of the rights organizations outside the US don’t list who their members are. So how can the user of CC content be sure that a new name has not been created for the band or artist. And who knows the future of technology with music and the web.
What i don’t agree with about both Jamendo and Beatpick is that they are based in Europe/UK, its not possible for content of artists with rights organization outside the US to be with these services. It seems only possible for artists to be with ASCAP and use a creative commons license. Both Beatoick, Jamendo or Magnitune don’t list this on their sites. Why not? Why is creative commons not letting artists that find out about the license know about this?
The ASCAP bill of rights states.
“We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.”
“We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.”
No other rights organization that i know of allows member artists to do this.
http://www.jamoon.org blog
http://www.jamyoung.net download the tunes free
this is a machine that delivers content to many cafes and venue spaces around the Netherlands. What makes this system more evil than the regular content that comes via Buma/stemra is that if i go into the space that has this system, they are not able to play my cd. Although they have cd player the player only plays content that is coded for that system. The reality of this system seems that the venue pays a lower license fee to play content only out of this streaming network. The system is linked to a central provider.
This system is a loose loose system for Europe. On one hand the large publishers and labels are not getting revenues that previously was available when more recordings and cd’s and dvd’s were pressed. The result is that prices for use of content for public performance has increased. A good example form Australia is a local bondi gym. The gym used to pay a license fee of 1500 dollars per year. APRA the rights organization in Australia put the price of content upto 5 dollars per member per year. This represented an increase in cost of 35000 dollars. So what does this all this mean. Well as the price of content goes up for use of all content, spaces are going to turn to these black boxs that shall pay 100 percent popular content. Imagine that if an artist brings a cd into this venue that venue is not able to play it as it does not have a license to do so. Scary future.
James King from Sunshine concert talks about SABAM, SABAM basically put a block on culture and artists being able to work on any reasonable terms without a publisher. European/Australian culture is being decimated as a result of the inequality of the media system in Europe and media system in the US.
In the US the entertainment industry is driven by efficient market condtions. In Europe the rights organizations make sure everyone is paid equally, as a result all the Belgium culture is controlled by the government, and the commercial media dominated by the US/california. Europe has no market for the use of media. Myspace don’t pay for the use of content, yet small venues and up and coming web services providers have to always pay.
In the US Cdbaby does not have to pay for the right to stream music from artists with rights organizations outside the US (even though the rights organizations could do a take down by law). In Europe every person that has to sell music, has to play for even a 10 second sound clip of an artists music that is with a rights organizations. A belgium server that tries to create a contract like myspace has, they are going to be sued in a flash.
Big music services like IODA, The Orcahrd, i-tunes, all based in the US are getting a free ride for the cost of content, or US bands are getting exposure outside the US, because they can give sound clips away for free use.
The US media has no competition from anywhere else, unless the government can fund it, make a movie in Europe, que up for a cultural fund. with the cost for use of content going up outside the US because artists like Madonna are not able to collect through selling cds anymore and her empire needs to be fed, the media is more more easily dominated via the US. Global distribution points have been bought up by the major players. If these rights organizations are not deregulated, what happens next?
Its not the big corporations fault, their job is to make the most amount they can for their shareholders. With no sub-culture in the arts industry combined with torrents creating a free situation for use of what is created. What is the future of entertainment? 1984.
The answer is not to stop piracy, from my view its in the deregulation of the rights organizations outside the US like SABAM. The media needs fresh competition. Members of ASCAP and BMI can use a creative commons license, artists that are members of rights organizations not within the US can’t use a creative commons license.
Here’s some stuff to love about the new bill, C-61::
-$500 per downloaded song
-No Fair Use rights for remix culture
-$20,000 for uploading content (youtube anyone?)
wow what does c-61 mean? dealing in music is going to be like dealing in illegal drugs in Canada and i spose APRA ( Australian rights organization) is going to follow on par with this, well at least be throwing stones laced with dollars at something to make this happen.
imagine this, people could be pulled over, with the music going. “excuse me, do you have a license to play that music?” . travel to the future.
…a new machine is able to detect if the music that you listen to at home has been bought or not (like a random breath test for alcohol).
what the past did not understand, you see was this. when you digest music that has not been bought and fully paid for, your brain gives off a different signal, due to the way the hairs on your body dance. music laced with different incorporated rhythms made peoples body hairs do different things and science noticed this and found a way to capitalize on it.
people said that this machine was impossible to invent. they were wrong though, it was possible. music science people were able to train these small body hairs to move in different ways when exposed to tunes radiated at different frequencies. hipnotic unbreakable ear injected unconscious hair dance code. the whole thing came out of no-where, no-one expected it and when it arrived most of the world was put in prison.
All music that evolved out of the prisons of the future was said to be of the same source and therefor owned by that source via the crime committed, as people could not afford to listen to quality music, most went straight back to prison when released, as prison was the only place people could listen to and make music. many were put straight into prison for humming that fab song at a party without having a license to do so. free culture was outlawed, 90 percent of the worlds population was shipped off to space colonies that had not been found for braking copyright law.
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.
*-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”
Talking to Indra from a family based in Antwerp that run events in the lounge room for local artists. Although the doors are open to the public they do not do any advertising through any off line channels. The result is that they get a great bunch of people to listen to artists from the community. Although the event is free and most of the artists that play music are not with any form of publishing, SABAM have the right (by law) to fine AMPER elders for use of music. SABAM view all use of music content as commercial. The events have become so popular that well known artists within the Belgium arts scene that are with cultural/commercial publishers see this as an event that they want to perform at. The over regulation of the scene by organizations like SABAM not only effect artists at a grass routes level. They effect artists that are at higher up the food chain. The reality is that the board of the SABAM wants to see more karaoke/cultural music than anything else, as they represent shareholders of corporations or cultural funds. SO what about PUNK culture? The only way that this can change is through these monopoly organizations being forced into deregulation by the authorities run by the government. The Belgium government is quite aware of the corruption within the system, however they want force change. Partly because so many non-profits are funded. Why are the funded? because of the over regulation. What to do? This same or similar situation exists in all of the developed world except in the US, in the US artists are able to work out agreements as they choose and remain with BMI ASCAP rights organizations. One solution would be to change the way that the common law is structured. Yet i’m still trying to get my head around that.
David run’s a venue called vamoose in Bergen. The venue is popular and is doing ok. Being a fan of live music Vamoose puts on a live act when it can. The reality is that the venue often looses money even when the band is playing for free. Stage space use and sound of artists means a night of live music can mean less money. Tono regulates the use of content in this venue even though much of the music comes through unpublished sources. David says that most bands would rather collect anything he pays to Tono direct from him. Myspace don’t pay for use of content, yet Vamoose does. Vamoose does not have soap commercial running over the artists head when they are playing their tunes to the public. What to do?
Ideas i have brought forward to the university of Oslo have been knocked back, as i have no proof that the projects i offer have a use in the community. I was not able to talk to students about ideas that relate technology and art. (you visit the projects at this link. Why? it would be un-ethical for me as my opinion is un-qualified. So the artist press kit idea gets shelved, intellectuals advise students what project they should do. The interesting thing is that few people within the intellectual community have much experience in the art world beyond a theory of understanding. Most universities promote types of art that have already been established in the media/publishing.
Every which way you loose, be sure to copyright everything and put it in a freezer and then present it as a paper and get a better salary. If your also able to merge a couple of those corrupt organization with your findings (TONO), better still and more points to you.
Anyway: excuse my cynical way here, meanwhile another person starts to write a song- cause they figured that song was better than the one they heard on the radio. They buy a guitar/amp, software for the computer, eventually an artist press kit, they sign their rights with a rights organization, they create a myspace, they try to tour out of their town, they can’t- no infa structure.
Who is going to build that infa structure. Lets wait and let myspace get around to doing that, rather than using any of that public money. The more advertising space the better, we like it best also when the artist gets none of that money that myspace get for the use of the artists content. That way the artist is sure to never be able to tour beyond the doors of her/his home, or if they do for sure its with an established publisher. We also like it that soon myspace are going to be selling stages to live venues with soap commercials above it. Yes mypsace sponsored by the rights organizations making sure that live music stays within the home for 99.9 percent of content created.
Now with the added bonus of knowing that a possibility to innovate did exist, however the idea did not have a PHD attached to it.
For sure if your good enough one of the major publishers is going to find you. Live performance skills are not needed with all this technology! Make sure you work on your online smile size, respect those building your cyber home. If we are all nice enough the walls of the future may not be all google adds.
Talks about a commercial, non-commercial, creative commons, rights organizations, myspace and youtube.
On last tour to Belgium I was able to meet up with Paul Keller from CC.nl .
Questions sent out to CC mailing list: even if a site is set up as a non-profit is it fair that they run google adds with content licensed under a non-commercial license? I understand that often the non-profit makes very little from the adds, yet how do creators view this use? Are most artists ok about that art being associated with any product that google choose for ever and not participating in any part of that revenue? If a creative commons non-commercial use did not allow any kind of associated advertising, would the license work better? Is there a demand for a non-commercial license that does not allow advertising?
The real change i see is that most consumers have technology to create, yet APRA’s policy of one price for use of content makes it impossible for distribution of art not without a publisher, to both commercial and non-commercial streams that are off line. Yet online myspace and youtube don’t pay for the use of content. The effect of this is that the rights organizations are keeping people online and inside their homes; stopping the flow of culture outside the home. One problem is that APRA don’t show how they create the cost for use of content. how can open content be integrated ?
its interesting that last.fm are now collecting royalties for self published artists not with rights organizations. This really shows where things might be headed. With all the abuse that CC get from the rights organization, i wonder why CC should help them integrate the license. If the rights organizations are forced to adapt the license without CC, then they have to use the legal framework of the license as it is. In Australia APRA is already wanting government radio/schools to be excluded. Thats the kind of pressure that they are putting on CC au. My view is that unless the rights organization adapt the license under terms of a non-commercial use that the CC community agree is a non-commercial use, then CC should not help the rights organizations in any way.
Although i can find many artists to agree to copy and paste on my myspace “i support reforms for APRA” (with very little effort) not one alternative radio station that I am aware of has mentioned issue’s that relate to APRA and Creative Commons. I have contacted many alternative and public radio stations around Australia to raise the issue, with no result. I started to wonder why, the issue of creative commons licenses and rights organizations is quite interesting for artists and public.
PBS is a radio station based in Fitzroy Melbourne that uses mostly alternative music content. PBS are able to stream content globally under the license fee they pay. PBS possibly get much of the revenue to run their organization through subscriptions from abroad. If PBS started to collect content from artists that were not members of APRA, under something similar to the ownterms contract idea at this link, http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/contract-2 (to lower operating costs and introduce new media to their listeners) APRA who have a monopoly would see this as a threat.
APRA are easily able to manipulate market conditions. APRA create conditions that force “self published” artists to join a network of rights organizations so that media can use that content (without the artist being a member of APRA the media is not legally able to use that artists content) APRA supply content at one price. APRA want recognize Creative Commons licenses. Creative Commons licenses provide a legal platform for use of self published content without the rights organization.
I’m not sure how APRA work out how much users of content pay to be able to stream content, as APRA do not list prices for use of content on their website. Does this create unfair conditions for business? The market is not able to use other content in conjunction with APRA’s content to the users advantage. Its quite simple for content to be tagged and identified as a different media. New technology means that media and creators of media need to be able to innovate. APRA’s blanket license prevents innovation to occur from both the creators and users perspective.
Without all price variables for use of content being listed in an easy and understandable way online, how can users be sure they are being treated on equal terms? How are artists able to judge if they want their content provided at this price? If i had a venue or was running an event i would want the details of how the price for use of content is construction. I would want security that my competitors were paying the same price. Listing the variables used to calculate prices for use of content on APRA’s website (however complex they may be) seems like something the business community would want. A regular audit by the ACCC would ensure consumer comfort. Under the current conditions it appears that APRA are able to create conditions that suit the board.
APRA are able to lock use of non APRA content out of the market and their is clear evidence that they do this. I’m quite sure that I am not the first person to bring these issue’s up with the ACCC, what i want to know is why the ACCC continues to allow APRA to maintain their license in such unfair conditions. Members of the business community are simply not able to go against the rights organization because they stand to loose so much.
In Canada the songs organization want to put a 60 dollar tax on every net connection and allow free file sharing. my response that seemed to have got lost in a huge ocean of response. My response was this.
what about art that people want to give away free. why would people pay for that? seems like a law not fair to artists not with labels and publishers. good law for the bureaucracy. what rights organizations tend to forget is that people are just not buying as much content as they used to. people are making more content at home. technology has changed yet the laws have stayed the same. these rights organizations were created for the publishers not the artists. with the net we don’t need them publishers or labels anymore.
we also don’t need them political people making decisions that make life better for corporations than people. what to do?
When media in Australia uses works licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution licences the media is given no rebate by the rights organisation. My view is that if commercial media did get a reduction when they used open content, that the market would be more efficient. More local self published content would be used and publishers might take their ears out of their pockets.
My understanding is that commercial media in Australia pays for the use of much of their content this way: Media is issued with a blanket licence to use any content they choose and provides details of what they use to the rights organisations. Users pay a fee that is distributed via the rights organisations to the publishers and artists that created that content.
Things are different in the U.S. In the U.S artists are able to deal directly with media and licence content as they choose and remain members of a rights organisation. This means that Creative Commons Attribution licences are able to be incorporated into the media in the U.S with some success. Consider also: In Australia artists are not able to sell a song, in the U.S artists can. Artists members in Australia must maintain 50 percent of what they create. Different moral rights apply to content in different countries. No glove fits all yet the net crosses many boundaries.
These double standards give the U.S media the ability to steam roll its content globally. Big name acts like Madonna take much of the media’s attention? Are feet getting cold as a result of over exposure of these acts? Do they create the best content?
Rights organisations provide content at one price, this creates conditions where both commercial and non-commercial media shall most likely always use content owned by a publisher, rather than that of a self publisher. Even when the self publisher can show that she or he created content to the media. Almost all artists associated with rights organisations are self publishing artists.
Most artists that can create a song and sing that song in a public place join a rights organisation, why? I reckon its because of the live performance royalties received when they perform a song. Some self publishing artists might tell the rights organisations that they are performing content they created, when really they are singing songs owned by a publisher. This can increase the live performance returns of that artist. Rights organisations create conditions where artists are encouraged to create content that is similar to content already published.
Woody Guthrie wrote the following message in the 1930’s:
“This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ours, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”
Imagine that copyright is now maintained for over 50 years after death. Much of Bob Dylan’s work would be public now under the conditions of the 1930’s. Copyright keeps on being extended to serve a minority of created works. Is culture better with this extension of author rights and artists not having to register their works?
Artists are often under the illusion that the rights organisations protect their works from theft. If someone steals your art and calls it theirs, its not their job to protect it. Rights organizations collect when your content is performed.
Consider that much of the content used in Australia comes from the U.S. Consider also this: The person with the most steam in the popular music scene might be the programming director of the alternative national youth radio network JJJ, JJJ is a government funded radio network. If most of the exposure that flows into independent music culture comes through government funding, this creates a difficult arts scene.
The way the voting system works for the board of APRA (apra is the Australian rights organization): For every 500 dollars that an artist or publisher collects the artist or publisher get an extra vote. The board is made up by artists that create works for television, popular artist and the publishers that collect the most. Half of the board is made up of publishers and half are creators of content. Albert music who publish ACDC’s music are able to put themselves on the board. Board members are making decisions mainly in the interests of publishers. Board members can’t be expected to make decisions that benefit culture, artists or the arts scene. They are more likely to make decisions that creates better conditions for a karaoke bar than self publishing of art.
I reckon the organisations that keep a check on these monopolies (the ACCC in Australia) must spend a lot of time figuring out how they are able to justify the existence of structures like APRA. When these organisations fail, what shall take their place?
Myspace have their own blanket license system. Myspace are able to collect music content and sell advertising space without paying the artists for use of their content. Almost every popular band in the world must be on Myspace. Even APRA have endorsed myspace by creating their own profile. All live venues and media in Australia have to comply with APRA policy, yet Myspace does not. These double standards create conditions only big venues and big media can stay in step with. Small clubs shut down. Internet radio is also not possible in Australia, only streaming of content from above ground networks.
When I joined APRA (Australian Performing Rights Association) I thought that the organisation was similar to a post office. I cancelled my membership when I realized that APRA was far from anything like a regular post office. Rights organisations create conditions so that publishers can communicate the message of published artists best. With the internet and new technologies here, more is being created. Why can’t what we create be used by media in conjunction with popular media to the advantage of that media. Its seems that works created by few are creating unfair conditions for all.
The community benefits when artists are able to self publish. If Creative Commons licences can be used by media in Australia (and other countries) with an incentive for media to use that content, culture would improve (I reckon). Some might drop their graffiti cans and be more interactive. Many artists give up on art because of the brick wall the rights organisations create. Other artists start out creating art for the community, end up scoring films and making content for commercials. Free Culture and Creative Commons is part of the solution.
Posted by jamyoung 
Posted by jamyoung 
Posted by jamyoung 
visit the uncultured project at this link
Hey Shawn,
A pleasure to be a part of your project. This film use was great news for me as i’m self publishing my art. Part of the problem is that the large charity organizations all want to deal with the big stars like u2, yet there is heaps of art that sounds great that can be used in so many ways and create such a great result for the organization. I started a project a long time ago called hungry artists feed hungry people on myspace http://www.myspace.com/hafhp i started to gradually understand the reality of many of the charity organizations. They are interested in the rock gods. Yet the reality to my mind is that these media stars are a big part of the problem and part of the reason for poverty. When people are hearing the song “one love” “one world” written via the likes of U2, some might think that problems are being solved. Yet part of the reality is that a publisher is collecting something. Creative commons is part of the solution and its great that i inspired you to use the licenses. I bumped into the CC licenses through the hafhp project. I hope that more artists go with the hafhp idea. I just wanted to be true to my word,
its great work your doing shawn, keep going. thanks a lot.