Niaal works in the Bar at Vamoose and is in a band

done

Niaal works in the bar at Vamoose. Over the past 3 years performing in Venues around Norway.

Niaal Performs in

The low Frequency In Stereo

The Megaphonic Thrift

The Alexandria Quartet

http://www.rawmedia.tv 

is it worth standing in front of a bulldozer to save a tree?

Creative Commons are asking people for feedback on policy

CC/ iCommons is looking (from a distance) to be moving towards the corporations rather than the artist. Policy of iCommons is directed to those who create pools of content rather than users. The problem might be that most of the funds CC/iCommons get don’t come via individuals yet from larger corporations/organizations. CC has business people on the board. yet these people look at content from a business perspective not from that of an artist. From a far out view it looks like the same thing is going on a different plate.

who is going to decide what a non-commercial use is. The corporations or the people? The more people that use CC licenses the more important the organization is.

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.

Myspace or APRA who is more evil ?

This article was deleted from myspace twice by myspace. This is kind of strange, I don’t think the article is that radical.

Myspace or APRA who is more evil ?

If you put your profile up on Myspace and you don’t let people know about your music, then nothing much happens with your art. Maybe a random search will bring someone to your art, you have to publish your works to be successful on Myspace. In order for an artist to get known on Myspace you are going to spend a lot of time clicking on profiles or you are going to buy a bot program. You could get a fan to do this for you or you might pay someone.

It’s a difficult situation for the artist that wants commercial success through Myspace. When Myspace sold to News Corp none of the contributors within the system received any type of bonus. The bonus they got was that it would get bigger. Myspace gets its revenue from advertising and does not split any of this advertising revenue with artists, nor does it pay for the rights to use this content to any rights organization.

The contract that the artists agree to when they put their music on Myspace is in conflict with all collection societies outside the US, but Myspace has had no major legal problems as a result. Even artists that contribute to Myspace are bombarded within their own profile by banners. Sure you can take your music off Myspace and go back to some other form of publishing, yet most artists/musicians go with what seems to work.

Myspace doesn’t have to pay a fee to the collection society for the use of any material. A venue does, a radio station does; everyone else has to. One way of looking at Myspace is this: Myspace went into a bus, cut a door in the side of the bus, and started selling tickets to people coming onto the bus. Now if I did this I would be in court/jail straight away, yet if I knew the bus company and the driver of the bus, it might be easier. So the bus that is owned by the public (the contributing musicians who are members of the collecting societies outside the US) is now partly owned by Myspace; well at least that door is.

Who has been ripped off here? The artists were always upset that they could not publish without a publisher and Myspace has created a stream of exposure for them. The collection societies created a system where the price of content worked in favor of the artists that were published, so self-published artists are really happy that Myspace is here now. Maybe the bus is not necessary anymore, or maybe the artists have to build their own bus. Why did myspace accept music from artists with APRA ? Why has APRA not done anything about this ? Would be nice if myspace was for artists not with APRA, yet that would be a good reason not to join APRA ! and myspace would not be popular if it did not have popular art within its system.

How was myspace able to get away with using content without paying, any live venue would be within its rights to create its own contract with any artist, to use content for free. Does this mean the need for the rights organizations is no more ?

response to someone asking for more info about US rights to those outside the US.

My answer: The point is more that the myspace terms and conditions are in conflict with the rights organization artist conditions. A venue or online business in the UK can’t create a similar myspace contract (for artists with a rights organization). Yet business in the US can create this type of contract. Why? artists with rights organizations in the US are able deal with content as they choose and remain within the terms and conditions of the rights organization. A similar business to myspace based in the UK would have to pay the UK rights organizations for use of content. last.FM have to pay for use, they would love to have it all for free. More an issue of double standards.

blanket license suffocation, care of APRA

Currently the media in Australia including JJJ basically use only published content. Media is given no incentive to use works licensed with creative commons, this is due to the blanket license system that APRA issue to all forms of media; including live venues. APRA do not offer artists the ability to license back. This means artists not with APRA can’t license direct to media as they choose. The arts council don’t even encourage use of creative commons licensed works, even though its public money that is funding the creation of the works. All the problems point to APRA. APRA also have the right to refuse an artist joining their organization if they have used a creative commons license, creative commons licenses are in conflict with the APRA contract.

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.

Tono soup

I reckon Tono are much the same as any other rights organization, the difference with Tono is that in order to “vote” you have to collect the equivalent to over 400 Euros each year. 800 members and 15500 half members. The board is moving to change regulations so that 2/3 of the organization is run by the collectors of income, the other third might be run by publishers. Tono shall contact members and ask if they shall adopt a NC creative commons license to their system, yet it would work against most full members to change what a commercial use is. Most labels and bands are culturally funded through non-profit organizations.

my view: In order to maintain a one member one vote system (this is law here), Tono have created regulations that push the artists that might regulate the system for art rather than commerce out of the system.

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.