Paul Kellar talks about creative commons

Torbranda from Bergen

done

Torbranda from bergen talks about rights organizatio Tono and getting the pop art out and about where ‘es based.

http://www.rawmedia.tv 

Hein from Amsterdam

done

We met at Waterhole (venue in Amsterdam). Hein was watching some of his friends performing covers. It seems the only gig a self published artist can get in Amsterdam is playing content owned by a publisher or playing in a competition for free.

You can find out more info about Hein Japp and the band he performs with @

http://www.reboundoogiebent.nl

http://www.rawmedia.tv

creative commons and rights organizations

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.

APRA create conditions to suit their needs

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.

canada rights organization

i read this at this link

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?

Buma Stemra Art Pirates

Recently I called up Buma/Stemra (Dutch collection society) to find out more information about the Creative Commons pilot project. Read the press release here. The project was initiated by the Creative Commons team in the Netherlands, this mail thread explains more.

What I understood after the conversation was this: its as difficult to change what a commercial use is for art licensed with Creative Commons licenses (for members of rights organizations) as it is to create a ‘license back situation’ for all artist members. From what I understand a license back situation would allow the artists to deal with their rights as they choose, yet still participate in the collecting system where the artist wanted to. The reason why Buma/Stemra would not create a license back situation (according to Buma/Stemra) is that it would cost its members to much and there would be nothing to collect if they did this anyway.

From what I understand Buma/Stemra see little difference between what a commercial use is for art licensed with a Creative Commons non-commercial license and art not licensed with one (for members that participate in the pilot). Buma/Stemra see almost everything as a commercial use. What is going to happen if in the future rights organizations adopt the NonCommercials Creative Commons license under the Buma/Stemra conditions? Would this give the rights organizations the ability to charge non-profit organizations for the use Creative Commons Non Commercial licensed works in that territory ? Consider also: even a small flow from one rights organization might effect the art developing via Creative Commons licensing.

A way around this problem might be to add a feature to the license that would let the user of the license know that the art was administered by a rights organization (Buma/Stemra, yes no). By doing so creating a new aspect to the licenses. In time the rights organizations might work towards a Non Commercial use that resembles the Creative Commons Non Commercial use. For the rights organizations to build a new system they would have to dismantle/rebuild the old one. What incentive is there for a board of directors that are involved mostly with large publishers to do this?

Buma/Stemra must have been extremely aware of their system when this pilot started and knew from the very moment that it started that the conditions of a commercial use could not be changed. Were the Creative Commons team in the Netherlands aware of this?

Why would Buma/Stemra treat online users of content any differently to off line users ? Consider also: If Buma/stemra do treat a Non Commercial use differently online, then what is the effect of creative commons licenses on spaces outside the net now and in the future (where the pilot might be introduced)? Is two separate conditions for the use of content a good future to grow up in?

If this pilot continues, users of Creative Commons licensed works and artists that license using Creative Commons licenses are going to be confused.

Who am I to make any assumptions about Buma/Stemra? Although I am from Australia and was previously a member of APRA. Over the last months I have had the opportunity to tour music through the Netherlands. In this time I was able to get feedback from venue owners on how Buma/Stemra deal with people.

Here’s an article with more thoughts on the Creative Commons Non-commercial use.

Buma/Stemra Pilot

Recently I called up Buma/Stemra (Dutch collection society) to find out more information about the Creative Commons pilot project. Read the press release here. The project was initiated by the Creative Commons team in the Netherlands. This mail thread explains more.

What I understood after the conversation was this: its as difficult to change what a commercial use is for art licensed with Creative Commons licenses (for members of rights organizations) as it is to create a ‘license back situation’ for all artist members. From what I understand a license back situation would allow the artists to deal with their rights as they choose, yet still participate in the collecting system where the artist wanted to. The reason why Buma/Stemra would not create a license back situation (according to BS) is that it would cost its members to much and there would be nothing to collect if they did this anyway.

Consider: Buma/Stemra see little difference between what a commercial use is for art licensed with a CC NC license and art not licensed with one (for members that participate in the pilot). Buma/Stemra see almost everything as a commercial use. What is going to happen if in the future rights organizations adopt the NC CC license under Buma/Stemra conditions? Would this give the rights organizations the ability to charge non-profit organizations for the use CC NC licensed works in that territory ? Consider also: even a small flow from one rights organization might effect what is developing through CC licensing.

A way around this problem might be to add a feature to the license to let the user of the license know that this music art is with a collection society/system, by doing this creating a new license and less confusion. In time the rights organizations might work towards a NC use that resembles the CC NC use. For the rights organizations to build a new system they would have to dismantle/rebuild the old one. What incentive is there for a board of directors that are involved mostly with large publishers to do this?

Buma/Stemra knew that the conditions of a commercial use could not be changed. Were the Creative Commons team in the Netherlands aware of this ?

Why would BS treat online users of content any differently to off line users ? Consider also: If BS do treat a NC use differently online, then what is the effect of creative commons on spaces outside the net now and in the future (where the pilot might be introduced) ? Is two separate conditions for the use of content a good future to grow up in ?

If this pilot continues, users of Creative Commons licensed works and artists that license using Creative Commons licenses are going to be confused.

Who am I to make any assumptions about Buma/Stemra? Although I am from Australia and was previously a member of APRA. Over the last months I have had the opportunity to tour music through the Netherlands. In this time I was able to get feedback from venue owners on how Buma/Stemra deal with people.

Here’s an article with more thoughts on CC Non Commercial use.

Buma Stemra and Creative Commons

this is about Buma Stemra creative commons. if you do a web search you’ll find some info on it. my blog is probably slightly confusing, yes it is.

If Buma/Stemra treat a commercial use for a musical work licensed with a creative commons license the same way that they treat a work not licensed with a creative commons license, how does that effect non-profit organizations that want to use audio works licensed with a creative commons license in holland or outside ?

Do Buma/Stemra see any difference between a commercial use of a work licensed with a creative commons license and one that is not ? If the collection society did, this would encourage non-profit organizations to use works licensed with a creative commons license. This in turn would decrease the amount of revenue that is collected. Consider how the board works within these organizations.

In Australia: for every 500 dollars that an artist or publisher collects the artist or publisher gets an extra vote. The same system applies to all collection societies, as far as i understand. The board members of these organizations create conditions in favor of the shareholders they represent. Consider this when looking at the Buma/Stemra project.