sky lab

lone tree

Originally uploaded by jamtea

Had a great gig at the Duckbar.cz on the weekend, thanks Nina and Ivan for hospitality, great bar, someone told me that it was voted as the best bar in Brno, not so bad for a bar that looks to be made partly of recycled parts and spontaneous art. Think it kind of shows how people don’t want the clean cut bathrooms with well planned gimmicks, throw whats around the neighbourhood at the walls around a space and people feel at home. thanks Duckbar..

also: i found out something interesting, about being able to license through ASCAP, previously i had been contacting GEMA or AKM to license my music, i found out though that i would have to contact ASCAP to ensure that the license would be free. ASCAP would in effect issue the license as i would like it to be, this is kind of weird, yet seems the only way to ensure a direct license in a live environment where the venue does not have to pay a fee. Just to fill those in that are lost with what i’m saying, artists that join rights organisations in Europe are unable to license any aspect of what they create musically without charge, in the environment of the internet and also the amount of spaces that allow live music, this is not so practical anymore, esepcially for those without a publisher. One way around this “possibly”, well a way that i’m exploring at getting around this situation is to join ASCAP, as the contract is non-exclusive. Although, the news that i get from ASCAP is not so good for creative commons though, the reason being that in order for the creative commons license to function, the need of a rights organisation is supposed to be ruled out. This means artists (with ASCAP) would have to confirm licenses with ASCAP, for the license to work. What would be practical would be for ASCAP to create licenses similar to that of creative commons, yet more in the style of the artists needs. I’m still not 100 percent sure about any of this, so make sure you don’t act on what i say here. The license that i would probably take out with a venue, would be a license that would go for-ever, in effect i would deal direct with the space without Gema, AKM or partners. Established artists with publishers and long term touring acts that get paid well via Gema, ASCAP and AKM and all the rest, would probably not favor this, as it would create competition and exclude many acts. For the self publishing act unable to get music into the live space, yet sometimes getting paid, this is a practical solution. Maybe?

emi apra producers

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.

who cares about the artist in the license… i tried 2 do that and look what happend when i thought in the process of thinking.

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.

green dust blue

green dust blue

Originally uploaded by jamtea

its interesting though about the whole free-culture outside the US, it seems that free-culture is looking to be funded via the state. well at least all the admin operations, so does that mean that mechanism behind free-culture is fed through the government.

so the government build more trains for the first class passengers. i had hoped that free-culutre also means the right to do as you choose with what you create. yet being able to only license using the CC licenese and be a member of a rights organization outside the us does not make sense. it seems that ideas for artists might also move on the artists http://www.owntems.org the universal blanket license for eternity is sometimes to much for the artists. how about the universal blanket license for the local pub, that the artists can turn on and off when he feels like it?

Creative Commons might at least give merit to the other ideas, or would that be competition in a monopoly circumstance?

proove me wrong and put project applications in place via some of the CC affiliates outside of the US that are funded through the state to get moving on these kind of ideas? maybe i have it wrong though, another good pipe dream.

free-culture= free to do what you want with what you create.

not free to make it free only under a creative commons license, yet its interesting. i’m not worried about the CC license, yet maybe this article above shows an argument that might get thrown at you guys from time to time. how can you have a summit for free culutre within a blanket license and no definiftion within the law of what is non-commercial and what is commercial?

anyway i find it intersting, cause in all the time i have been using these CC liceses, i still can’t get free legal advice. both sides seem the same as they have a political agenda, ultimatley the artists uses the tools that are available to her/him to get what they made heard. So i have to wonder if CC within the blanket admin of APRA is such a good thing. Is it not unfair to other licenes that might want to exist?

.mp3 .wav .ogg for Soldiers Of Happiness Jamison Young

Soldiers Of Happiness large mp3 7.6 meg

Soldiers Of Happiness By Jamison Young  33.5 meg .wav file

Soldiers Of Happiness 3.2 meg Ogg file

link to all large mp3’s

link to all ogg files

link to all .wav files

This song is licensed under creative commons attribution license 2.5 BY license in Australia. link to license

Attribute my website http://www.jamyoung.net and the creator Jamison Young when using the song where possible.

for a smaller mp3 file goto my website

 

 

The soldiers of happiness have gone to sleep
The mirror on the mantelpiece tells me it’s time to leave
Because the soldiers of happiness have gone to sleep
Why do I feel so much pain
When no-one remembers anything anyway
No-one cares what you say, people within their space
‘Cause the soldiers of happiness have gone to sleep

Hey, where’s the beautiful princess going
Really just a snob with a bad attitude
There ain’t no time to tell her the way you feel
Before you know it, a piece of meat on a wheel

The soldiers of happiness have gone to sleep
The mirror on the mantelpiece tells me it’s time to leave
‘Cause the soldiers of happiness have gone to sleep
I wonder what they’ll do when they all wake up
‘Cause the soldiers of happiness have gone to sleep

My days, my nights, my dreams throughout my life
Counting stars in my mind, feelings by my side
My higher mind’s talking to the shadows on the wall
Dream from yesterday, you can write any rhythm
Put it in a book, nothing explains the way to feel
When the soldiers of happiness have gone to sleep
The mirror on the mantelpiece tells me it’s time to leave
‘Cause the soldiers of happiness have gone to sleep
The soldiers of happiness have gone to sleep
The mirror on the mantelpiece tells me it’s time to leave
‘Cause the soldiers have left and gone to sleep

.mp3 .wav .ogg for Top Of The Hill Jamison Young

Top Of The Hill large mp3 11.4 meg

Top Of The Hill By Jamison Young 50.3 meg .wav file

Top Of The Hill 4.7 meg ogg file

link to all large mp3’s

link to all ogg files

link to all .wav files

This song is licensed under creative commons attribution license 2.5 BY license in Australia. link to license

Attribute my website http://www.jamyoung.net and the creator Jamison Young when using the song where possible.

for a smaller mp3 file goto my website

Complicate, liberate, confused by the call
Into the forest where the angels waking
Like the birds in the trees
I only wish we could catch the first plane out of here

Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon

The stars are UFO’s, all eyes neon globes
Everything is watching him
He’s the centre of the dream
The birds are talking to him
Hey, he just worked out telepathy

Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon

Into the stars, back through the sun
Top of the hill where the angels fly
Into the sun, back through the stars
Top of the hill where the angels fly

Terminate the terminal 
We all live so we can fly
That true destination 
Where’s the ticket, anyhow

Take drugs, climb that hill
See the world, a different point of view
Burn the future
Burn a past
Fall into the abyss of that ugly mask

Keep on calling, keep on calling
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on calling, keep on calling
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on calling, keep on calling
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on calling, keep on calling
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on calling, keep on calling
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on calling, keep on calling
Little road maps on the moon

Into the stars, back through the sun
Top of the hill where the angels fly
Into the sun, back through the stars
Top of the hill where the angels fly

Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon

.mp3 .wav .ogg file for Island Jamison Young

island Jamison Young large mp3 11.3 meg

Island By Jamison Young 50 meg .wav file

Island 4.6 meg ogg file

link to all large mp3’s

link to all ogg files

link to all .wav files

This song is licensed under creative commons attribution license 2.5 BY license in Australia. link to license

Attribute my website http://www.jamyoung.net and the creator Jamison Young when using the song where possible.

for a smaller mp3 file goto my website

Come to the island, swim through the sea
Over the waves of the past into the rain with me
We’ll have a good time, nothing’s gonna be the same
All our friends drift into space
Just you and me, hey come to the island

Through the sea, over the waves
Just you and me
To the island, through the sea
Just you and me

9 7:05 4:24, the time the trains leave to go up north
There’s the blue sky we’re circling so high
The air is so cold, there are diamonds on the ground
Four suns falling to the green grass below
It could be the end, hey just explode to the island

Through the sea, over the waves
Just you and me
To the island, through the sea
Just you and me
To the island, through the sea
Just you and me

Memories of silence, light of colour
Beneath it, the grail fountains of heavens
Into the stars, we could explode
You turn your head and you say to the island

Through the sea, over the waves
Just you and me
To the island, through the sea

Thousands of islands to travel between
Oceans of worlds, oceans of worlds
Colour the space, walls are no more
Oceans of worlds, oceans of worlds
Swim to the moon, run through the fields
Oceans of worlds, oceans of worlds
Fall to the breasts of creation
Oceans of worlds, oceans of worlds
Swim to the moon, run through the fields
Oceans of worlds, oceans of worlds

To the island, through the sea
Just you and me
To the island, through the sea
Just you and me
To the island, through the sea
Just you and me
To the island, through the sea
Just you and me

.mp3 .wav .ogg file for Cold World Jamison Young

Cold World Jamison Young large mp3 8.3 meg

Cold World By Jamison Young 36.6 meg .wav file

Cold World 3.3 meg ogg file

link to all large mp3’s

link to all ogg files</a

link to all .wav files

This song is licensed under creative commons attribution license 2.5 BY license in Australia. link to license

Attribute my website http://www.jamyoung.net and the creator Jamison Young when using the song where possible.

for a smaller mp3 file goto my website

There’s no point in sinking that ship
When it’s the only way to get away
What they say, they don’t mean
It’s not fair to kill that dream
What they say

There’s no point, it can’t change
Build another world on mars the same
What’s the point
No super man, no profit
No rainbow serpent, no rocket
No picture, no angel
No underground city gonna save you
So what’s the point

No overseas, no internet
Gonna change your face to fit the set
What’s the point
No lover, no flower
No magazine, no paper
No electronic device
Ever gonna replace your life
What’s the point
What’s the point
There’s no point in being so cool in a cold world
There’s no point in being so cool in a cold world

In my face, in my life I can tell
It’s not gonna change
No amount of money
Gonna change the way to fit the set
No love, no hate gonna bring me down
Flat line living on a cloud
There’s no point in being so cool in a cold world (x8)

.mp3 .wav .ogg file Live On A Moon Jamison Young

Live On A Moon Jamison Young large mp3 13.7 meg

Live On A Moon By Jamison Young 60.6 meg .wav file

Live On A Moon 5.1 meg ogg file

link to all large mp3’s

link to all ogg files</a

link to all .wav files

This song is licensed under creative commons attribution license 2.5 BY license in Australia. link to license

Attribute my website http://www.jamyoung.net and the creator Jamison Young when using the song where possible.

for a smaller mp3 file goto my website

I live on a moon, everything’s blue
I receive all communication
I’m wild, I’m crazed, I’m free
I live on a moon far away from you

In that separation
Living like the dawn
Rest under the neon
In this separate world
Fixed to a closed circuit
Framed in a field
And send me, send me to the moon
I live on a moon far away, do you

All the earth-bound people looking toward the heavens
So where tied to places far away, yet here we remain
I live on a moon far away, do you
I live on a moon far away, do you
I live on a moon
I live on a moon far away, do you

My alienation linked via satellite underground
All come from one
One of the earth, one from above
Then the fire finds the wind
Trees do erupt
When there’s no trunk, the tree it does rust
I live on a moon far away from you
I live on a moon far away from you
I live on a moon
I live on a moon far away from you
I live on a moon far away, do you

.mp3 .wav .ogg file for Carry The World Jamison Young

Carry The World Jamison Young large mp3 10.3 meg

Carry The World By Jamison 45.4 meg .wav file

Carry The World 4.2 meg ogg file

link to all large mp3’s

link to all ogg files</a

link to all .wav files

This song is licensed under creative commons attribution license 2.5 BY license in Australia. link to license

Attribute my website http://www.jamyoung.net and the creator Jamison Young when using the song where possible.

for a smaller mp3 file goto my website

I carry the world, I think about you
I really want to change and bring about me
All I do is worry, carry all these chains

I carried it home, home from school
When I left the place I carried it to
I carried it ’round like a ball and chain
All of these things don’t make me feel great

I carried it to the buddha, I didn’t let go
I carried it overseas, I thought it would float
I carried it so much, I thought I was strong
I carried and carried, I carried so long

I carried it up mountains so I could look down
I carried it beneath so I was all around
I clung to my carriage, my mission to carry
I carried and carried, I carried so long

I carried it over bridges ’til they burnt down
I carried it through the desert
I carried it through the clouds
I carried it to places no-one would go
I carried it up streams and I walked it down roads

.mp3 .wav .ogg file for Crush Jamison Young

Crush Jamison Young large mp3 8.1 meg

Crush by Jamison Young 35.8 meg .wav file

Crush 3.3 meg .ogg File

link to all large mp3’s

link to all ogg files</a

link to all .wav files

This song is licensed under creative commons attribution license 2.5 BY license in Australia. link to license

Attribute my website http://www.jamyoung.net and the creator Jamison Young when using the song where possible.

for a smaller mp3 file goto my website

You don’t have to crush me
You don’t have to put me down
You don’t have to be the way you are
I know that it’s hard
Things are never what they seem
As life goes on things might change
I hope I change my ways

You say that I’m selfish, it’s me I aim to please
I have no heart and I do not care
There’s no one else just me
You don’t have to crush me
You don’t have to put me down
You don’t have to be the way you are

You’ve judged and tried me ten times over
And you told me that I’m cheap
You’ve said that I should get a life
Get a life, just leave

You don’t have to crush me
You don’t have to put me down
You don’t have to crush me
You don’t have to put me down
You don’t have to crush
You don’t have to put me down
You don’t have to
You don’t have to put me down

I know that there’s no point in fighting
Fighting with you
I don’t want to let you bring me down again

I’d like to see you happy but it seems
You’re bent on crushing me
Crushing me
Crushing me
It’s the day after you burnt me and
The smoke still hasn’t cleared
I don’t know what to say
You brought a man to tears

You don’t have to crush me
You don’t have to put me down
You don’t have to crush me (x7)
Crush me (x3)

.mp3 .wav .ogg file for How Far Jamison Young

How Far Jamison Young large mp3 8.6 meg file

How Far by Jamison Young 37.9 meg .wav file

How Far 3.5 meg ogg file

link to all large mp3’s

link to all ogg files</a

link to all .wav files

This song is licensed under creative commons attribution license 2.5 BY license in Australia. link to license

Attribute my website http://www.jamyoung.net and the creator Jamison Young when using the song where possible.

for a smaller mp3 file goto my website

Lyrics

Up and down the same old hill
On the train the same old crew
And I’ll be looking for a change
In the office same young lady gives a smile
And it’s off into a daze
And I’ll be looking for a change

How far, how far, how far
Can this dreaming go
How far, how far, how far
Can this dreaming go

I keep on wondering
What that smile means
Is it a safety zone
Or a way of seeing through
At the station
I only have loose change
I’ll be waiting for greener times
A way out of this

How far, how far, how far
Can this dreaming go
How far, how far, how far
Can this dreaming go

The open road
Then the risin’
All alone it’s good to be on this trip
The sand is joined to the sky it can’t break away

Ten thousand tracks
All divided in ten
Everywhere a junction
Everything everywhere

How far, how far, how far
Can this dreaming go
How far, how far, how far
Can this dreaming go
Can this dreaming go

Beatpick how it works, maybe ???

After reading the italian blog after google translation.

A problem i see with the beatpick contract is that when the artists signs with beatpick, the artist signing is signing that she/he warrants to protect beatpick from any kind of problems that the law might throw at BP. Beatpick also claim to be acting as a contractor not an agent. This is not the way sync licensing normally works.
Why don’t beatpicks present more information on their website explaining how their business model works to artists that are not members of ASCAP?

Why has beatpick not presented their contract that they ask artists to sign to ASCAP for feedback?

It seems that the beatpick contract is not compatible with any of the rights organizations outiside the US, yet beatpick do not make this known on their website. It seems also that once beatpick has cut a deal for an artists work that the only rights organization that the artist can join is ASCAP. Yet this info is not on their website.

Beatpick look to be exploiting rights that would normally belong to publishers and a recording labels via use of the NC license. Yet then they take the compatible commercial rights, to the NC license. This might not be a problem for some artists, yet other artists need the information on the effects. 

Including information like i mention above on beatpicks website, is what is going to make beatpick a fair play music label. 

I take my content from beatpick site and go alone. I thank the fan of my tunes that gave a copy of the cd “shifting sands of a blue car” to the director of the x-files movie…

the new face of evil in Holland

the new face of evil in Holland

Originally uploaded by jamtea

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.

the meat market of free culutre and career termination.

Most artists when they use a Creative Commons license create a non-commercial one. Most music artists also don’t understand that in most countries all public performance is considered to be commercial by the laws in that country. No laws exist anywhere within a country that says this is non-commercial and this is commercial, that i know of yet. Yet tell me if there is one?

The result is that a grey zone has appeared around the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license, that makes it less likely for the artists art to be used in a lot of ways, if they use this license.

My view is that the artists is being given bad information about the effects of the license on music art via Creative Commons, via way of possible manipulation by some of the business models around the license.

Business models like Magnitune, Beatpick and Jamendo work on an understanding that most artists are going to use a Creative Commons license that does not allow Commercial use. What does Jamendo do, well they create agreements that are going to give 50 percent of commercial use to the artists and 50 percent to Jamendo.

What Jamendo seem to forget is that the rights organizations offer a much better rate for use of the artists tune than than Jamendo have in place, only the rights organizations don’t do any promotion for the art. Jamendo sent out a letter to their artists saying that unless they faxed a document to to say that their tunes were not with a rights organization, they would not be able to participate in the jamba royalty share program. An artist that is getting nothing from a rights organization and nothing from the sale of tunes through the net and unable to get a live performance, does have access to a fax machine.

The royalty share program started off being a split in advertising revenue from the site through google banners. The project then swung into many other avenues and Jamendo have incorporated many other different licenses into their system. What i can’t figure out is this, why want free-culture just develop a non-profit to help the artists publish as a community. What upsets  me more, to go on about it, is that Jamendo Magnitune and Beatpick are involved in many of the launches of CC through-out Europe of the Creative Commons license.

Jamendo is part owned by the company that started up skype. Jamendo, Beatpick or Magnitune have little to do with free-culture from my view, or less and less as time goes on. It seems to be about bottom line revenues and the CC license is used to make what is happening look fair. Because of revenue streams that have been created from royalty share program, information becomes a threat to their business models. Information like, artist’s in Europe can use a CC license and join ASCAP. Artists with ASCAP can license what they create freely, join ASCAP if you want to make your tunes free.

Also, its only in the last couple of months that i have come to understand that for a contract to be executed, a contract has to do a round turn. What does this mean? well it means that the CEO of a company (or some representative) has to sign a contract with the artist. This means that the company is best to send 2 contracts to the artist and the artist send 2 back and then the artist be sent one from the company, for reference and to complete the agreement. Its especially important from the point of view of the company that is working with beatpick that this happens. The internet works in a different way, as the artist is able to login and remove art from a site like myspace or jamendo. Yet beatpick is dealing with licensing music to large films and TV.

My guess is that if beat-pick sent contracts in the mail, that the artists would be more likely to show the contract to a lawyer. Most lawyers would point out the implications to artists associated with the non-commercial use and the realities of future publishing opportunities for those works and all the works of the artist. This may not bother some, yet others might move in another direction. Having a situation where the artist prints out one contract and sends/fax’s it in, means that its less likely that much is going to go wrong from the point of view of beatpick. Artists like myself that only send in one copy of a contract are artists that have not done many contracts.

Over the last couple of months i’ve figured how it works a little little more. Owning a part of copyright is like owning a house or anything, you can’t own something without having a structured agreement that says so. Having the right to license rights that are part of a copyright means that the company needs structured contract and those contracts need to do a round turn.

Both Jamendo, Magnitune & Beatpick’s business models are based on more and more artists using the non-commercial licenses. The business model i suggest to artists is based on artists making recordings, finding that there is no market value for the work, and then making that recording available free under a creative commons license, to the global commons that allows commercial use. I made my works available to the global commons, yet then the works found a value, i never anticipated this.

Its interesting that the system is structured in such a way that when any music is used in a commercial context a royalty is paid anyway, so an artists with ASCAP is able to collect for the use of a song and also have the song licensed to the global commons freely. Yet this seems only possible for ASCAP & BMI members, its good information for any artists outside the US to know that they can join ASCAP. It was partly accidental that i found this out, in effect this means when art is used in a commercial context with the creative commons license, that a royalty can be collected. Attribution is something the rights organizations are not set up to police.

The implications of the non-commercial license are complex in many way, as are the commercial ones, yet the commercial one seems straight forward to the user and its important that artists art does get a chance to be a part of the market place. If that was the intention of the artist. An un-known artist putting a non-commercial license on their songs, could potentially prevent the art from being picked up by a publisher. The NC license is a license best described as a license for artists that don’t want their songs used in a corporate context, that’s the way i see it.

Anyway, i’m writing this in my blog, cause when i told beatpick that i no-longer wanted to be with them. The CEO of beatpick wrote this to me at the end of his email.

“contract will be terminated and any activities regarding your career will be stopped.”

I’m not sure if this is because the CEO of Beatpick has a bad understand of English, or if he believes he is a living extension of the god-father (or is). If I’m suddenly deleted from the planet through any means whosoever in the near future, someone read this blog. I did not understand when i signed with this fair-play music label on the internet that my whole career would be controlled by beatpick, these guys don’t even do live gigs.

As artists can license their author rights and sound recordings as they choose and be with a rights organization in the US, the creative commons license seems more relivant to music artists outside the US. I hope more business models evolve that are more upfront about the reality of the license. The licenses are great, yet i reckon the artists need good information about what license is going to work for them.

interview with Jamendo www.jamendo.com

-You’re an Australian living in Europe, why did you make the move, its all beaches why spend a winter here?

I moved from Australia about four years ago, and i’m mostly based in Prague. I made the move because i wanted to be performing more tunes rather than just a guy with a recording. I lived mainly in the inner city of Sydney and out of a 150 potential spaces to perform tunes, music happens in about two. The scene is not that much different in Europe, yet more cities, more people, and a better understanding of what art means, makes life more interesting. We have it good in Australia, more space, less people, yet its not really that great a place for someone a little off-beat. Its a great inspiration, yet hard to figure out a way to connect that inspiration.

-Recently you had a song go out in the now showing x-files film “i want to believe”, how did this happen and what does it all mean for you?

The director of the film Chris Carter found out about the song and Beatpick licensed the recording to fox. I was shocked to find out about it. The use of the song in the film has changed a lot of things for me, an industry that has left me out of things for so long has taken an interest. That’s not a bad thing, yet i’m still not sure how to react. Its going to take time to re-adjust and i’m in no hurry.

-What creative commons license do you use and why do you use that license?

I use a creative commons license that allows commercial use, i use this license as it offers more flexibility to the user than a non-commercial license. Consider though that although a song might have gone out as part of a major film production, look into the commercial avenues where artists can have their music used and gain a revenue and I don’t see many “self published” works being used. Mostly the rights organizations issue blanket licenses, for the use of content that is owned by publishers. The system is set up in favor of the publisher not the artist. To me it seems its best to license content with as little restrictions as possible, as there are already a heap of restrictions in place as things are.

-Do you think this could be the first major released film to use a song that is also licensed with a creative commons license?

I hope so. Its interesting to consider all the people in the past that gave their songs up, many maybe taken or given away in the hope of getting a name for themselves, or some songs maybe just in the hope that people would get it. The thing i really appreciate about a Creative Commons license that allows commercial use, is that a regular publisher could possibly use a song that is licensed with a creative commons license, yet probably wouldn’t as someone else could use that song as well. This might be the reason why publishers are putting bad vibes out about Creative Commons.

-How did you hear about Jamendo?

I found out about creative commons through an open source guy in Vienna, at first i was skeptical about Creative Commons, it took me a while to even get what open source meant. Then i struggled with understanding my situation. In the heat of the moment i told APRA in Australia to cancel my membership, at the same time i went along to the Icommons isummit in Croatia. I sat on the plane next to the CEO of Jamendo with a project.

-You joined ASCAP to collect for the use, are you worried about not being included in any revenues from the film?

I can’t see much reason for a self publishing artist to join with any rights organization, unless they are sure they are going to collect something. Sure its a family of artists, yet its a family of artists that is represented mostly by the artists and publishers that collect the most revenue. As soon as an artist joins a rights organization other than ASCAP or BMI it seems that they are removing themselves from the market place. Self published artists look to be better off with ASCAP and publishers in Europe might even be better to transfer their artists memberships to ASCAP/ harry fox. Less equals more. Most publishers and labels based in Europe are using Myspace anyway. I’m still trying to figure it all out, yet it seems this way.

I was not so worried about not collecting revenues through the screen actors guild as I did not write the song for the film. Its just the way it works and i can’t change that. I respect competition and the right for the artist to be able to choose. I’m told a small residual is paid when the song gets to TV though.

Consider though, artists, web services, film makers and the consumer are left in the cold as a result of how the rights organizations look after their authors copyright outside the US. Its just not fair. For me its important that people get to hear the song, looking for ways for people to get the song I’ve gone active against the system. I’m not sure if one side is better than the other, it seem as if both sides don’t care much for the art though.

Interview with X by X is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at jamyoung.wordpress.com.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.jamyoung.net.

Paul Kellar talks about creative commons

song not included in x-files “I want to believe” official sound track yet in the soundtrack

My song did not make the cut for the x-files soundtrack. Its interesting how it all works.. and to see that it really is the way that the worst nightmare explains to you how it is.

why am i saying this?
About 3 years ago i decided i would not be a part of the music industry, and so i went on that path. i bumped into creative commons and then saw the potential of making whats created free. if i’m in a place far away from something and people demand i’m in another place, is it worth it? you do what you do and you are what you say you are.

its interesting how people say how great it is that your song is in a major flick. its interesting that the song does not make the soundtrack, especially as i would have licensed it to the soundtrack label for next to nothing for use. maybe the production quality was sub standard from decca records point of view, yet the soundtrack did include remixes of songs and final track in the film. Universal music had previously licensed my song for free goto this link. the film use is great, yet the reality seems that the people that are going to find out about the use of the song are the people that i bump into or if i blog or tag it. i can pay a publicity person to promote me, yet where are the sales going to come from to pay the publicity person if the tunes are free? if i was included on the sound track it would be different.

As the song was not on the soundtrack, i started on the path of posting a single of of the tune on i-tunes, via cdbaby. Although the tunes are free anyway. some would say, well why post it on i-tunes…if people expect something to be somewhere, its a good idea to put it there… that’s the way i see it. if something is worth something, its cool that they pay for it… keep in mind that the reason the songs are free is partly also because the industry gave the songs no value…

The orchard who i paid 150 dollars 4 years ago to promote the album listed it next Jerry Seinfeld in their catalog and in that time i’ve sold less than 25 dollars worth of downloads, at least it was not exclusively next to Jerry Seinfeld. What was i supposed to do? wait for the big wave and remain loyal to the music business, i made it free cause i wanted people to get the tunes.

as a result of my songs being with a creative commons license people do get to hear the tunes, the intro music in this youtube clip shows the potential of the license.

A couple of hundred million people are going to hear about a minuet of recorded music i created in cinemas, cable, TV, yet still only 5-10 people are going to arrive to see a live performance sometimes. i have not sold one cd since the film has been out.

to go on…
i put this single together for i-tunes, i was not able to use the word “soundtrack” in the tittle of album as “soundtrack” and “x-files” is owned by Decca records/fox, i would have to create a license for that to happen… to go on further.. can i use an image from the fox film with the release of the single to i-tunes…? no fox’s images are under a strict copyright…can i make a license with fox to use their image in conjunction with a cd single?.. no response yet.

i best be more happy about the use. maybe i had some expectation of something, yet even when i sent an email to fox here in Prague, they did not respond. If i was in the soundtrack they might have.

anyway, i reckon its worth saying all this. maybe i’ll get back from that far away mountain sometime. artists and musicians best understand this about the music business though. if you do want to get your music onto a popular soundtrack released by the likes of Decca in conjunction with a popular film. best that you remain with a business model that integrates into the current system. If you go against that union of publishing corporations that put a block on all culture, be prepared for the consequences.

The big corporations do not work on terms that relate to market conditions it seems, its appears as if a mafia from the smallest amount pirated from the business to the largest dollar sucked from the consumers pocket. Don’t be worried about corporations using tunes or photo content free via a creative commons license. Putting a CC license on whats created, that allows commercial use is good way to fight back and allow new business to evolve, that does have a fair spirit. Don’t expect to find to much humanity in the entertainment industry as it is.

For universal music to put you on a compilation with a global release, they would have to own you. Its just the way it is, i sent my cd to universal music in Australia and it was rejected. I would never sign with this kind of company. I gave them a free license to distribute my songs in Poland. They could have negotiated a free license to use my song on the soundtrack. Its sad that art that is part of a film soundtrack can’t make the released film soundtrack, even the use could have be negotiated for free.

 

*** to add to this blog, i found out that i was not able to send out a single as i did not read the fine print on the contract when i paid the Orchard 150 dollars to release my songs through i-tunes. You see according to the Orchard what is non-exclusive has changed in the last years. They claim i have a non-exclusive exclusive. Anyway the result is that my songs have been taken down from the Orchard. I no-longer distribute the tunes through i-tunes or any paid digital networks. The tunes are available for free on my site and a couple of other services where i can make them free for download.  Even if self published artists do really sell music through i-tunes/Orchard, my thoughts are at the moment that these funds are being tunneled into the pockets of executives that work within the Orchard and labels around the catchment area.

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”

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?