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 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. linklink
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?
response to person who thought decentralized folk is not a good idea.
what do you suggest- centralize the tunes- put ‘em on a shelf /i-tunes? pay to put your music on i-tunes and get people to pay for it- when 99 percent of what is consumed is owned by labels and the only people that pay for your music are your own fans that you develop at live gigs anyway?
cultural money supports the folk scene in most countries. take away the funding that controls the scene and the resource of the community might create the entertainment that is needed. that’s why its best for artists to pay bookers in Europe up front when they book live performance of shows, cause the scene is totally political. Almost every aspect of the music scene is funded. So punk and i see folk as being punk, is not able to happen while artists are judged on their ability to fill out forms rather than what they create. Yet once you
have bureaucracy in place, its not really possible to get rid of it. So i spose musical bureaucrats are always going to laugh at the idea of decentralized folk. look at u-tube! look at myspace, they don’t pay the rights organizations (osa) , look how successful they are when they use content for free.
Recently i was in Belgium, home of rights organization SABAM. It seems that the cost for use of music content is going up via the rights organizations, yet the interest in self published content is going down.
Venues funded by the government are often promoting published and label acts, while self published artists and bands are being asked to perform no cost. This funding combined with a strict regulation for use of music content by the rights organizations, make things not so easy for the self publishing artist. What to do?
The contract ideas bellow might give venues an incentive to play music from self publishing bands and artists that are in contact with that physical space.
1)-Contract that the artist signs to tell the venue that the artist is not with rights organization and shall perform only original content at the venue.
2)-Contract that the artist signs that allows the venue to use the recorded music of that artist in that venue free of charge. It would be up to the artist to let the venue know if in the future the artist joined a rights organization.
Myspace and youtube do not pay for use of the artists or bands content, yet venues do. Venues are not beaming soap commercials above performers heads during the show.
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.
Belgium copyright law makes the composer of a song the exclusive owner of that song and SABAM collects royalties on behalf of that owner. SABAM is an organization that has a monopoly on royalty collection in Belgium. The conditions that the board of SABAM maintain effect the way that members and non members deal with all forms of media. If you join SABAM you give SABAM the rights to your musical and artistic voice. SABAM do not protect creative works of its members from theft. (theft as in someone taking your music and calling the tune theirs) SABAM’s job is to collect royalties for the use of its members content where ever SABAM can. Very much more than most of what is collected by SABAM goes to labels & publishers outside of Belgium. When an artist gives up their music and artistic voice to a rights organization the artist gives up the right for a venue to use that content without SABAM’s permission. This means the price for the use of the “self published” content is the same as that of “well published” content. By joining SABAM your making your content less attractive to grass routes venues and spaces. Don’t join SABAM, SABAM works best for artists signed to a publisher or label. Consider licensing your content with a Creative Commons license and maintaining the rights to your musical voice.
SABAM provide content at one price, this means that published content is used by media almost all the time. 95 percent of SABAM members are self published artists however rights are exercised to benefit corporations like universal music.
Consider also: of the 121 million dollars that SABAM collects for use of universal musics content, 100 million goes to those that own the rights . This compared to rights organizations APRA in Australia that is able collect royalties for a fee’s for around 5 percent. Artists also do not have to pay a fee to join APRA in Australia. What makes it so expensive to collect and distribute a royalty in Belgium?
Recently i read that SABAM want to put a ban on the availability of peer 2 peer file sharing software to the people of Belgium. Organizations like Jamendo however are able to use this technology to help artists distribute their art. It seems Belgium artists are not able to distribute what they create because SABAM price all content at one price. It seems unfair that SABAM shall try to ban this form of P2P distribution.
Consider: Technology allows us all to create new media at home without the use of a regular publishing system. It seems natural that these changes in technology are going to decrease revenues for some corporations. Can the law adapt to have an understanding of new technology? What is next form of technology to be ban in Belgium? blank DVD’s, regulate all online hard drives. Where did it start? where does it end? Is this about control of information or financial gain for corporations, or both. How do the people of Belgium gain from the introduction of this law? How much of that 100 million dollars that is to be paid to universal music is going to people that are still alive that created this content. Is this the future “we” or you as the reader of what i say here want. Are you going to do anything about this?
“We” being the people without a commercial or (non-commercial !!!) publisher. The basic difference between the rights organization in the US ASCAP and SABAM, is that SABAM and its European partners get artists to sign exclusive contracts for the right to use their copyright content, where as ASCAP have artists sign non-exclusive contracts. With changes in technology it makes sense that all contracts now are non-exclusive. Media needs to rebuild, artists need to be business people.
the more i look at the net, the more i see how everything points to a central space. its kind of like a site is a town and people visit that town cause they want something. most towns are plastered with bill boards. with port holes to other towns. the thing is this. if you don’t put yourself on a bill board you end up without anyone knowing about your paradise. if you let people know about your paradise via way of bill boards your joining a process that aint so great. so the best sites on the web are sites that don’t have billboards. yet these sites tend to not be so visited. so everything has to be paid for, even peoples free time is a commodity it seems. people when they write their blogs can have an advert, so you write a blog as someone absorbs your thought and you get paid, the more that person gets paid the more bill boards they can buy. so if you have something really cool to say your going to get rich by saying that. so the more important your opinion the more wealth you have. is this such a good system ? so the most popular ideas are the best.
so how is it possible to create something unless there is an economic incentive. linux is maybe an example of this. kind of like a system that is available to everyone at no cost. yet the people that build the system are most likely helped partly through some type of grant . so some basic incentives were maybe needed, yet i’m not sure about the evolution of this process. linux is getting used by some of the big organizations and a lot of regular software now runs on linux, so maybe the streets of the future net are not going to be plastered by bill boards. you can read up more on linux at this link. most linux users are men and not vegetarian.
in some countries they regulate the use of bill boards and adverts. looking out my window in Oslo i can’t see one bill board in site. i don’t even think the bus’s and taxi’s have mini bill boards on them. looking back at Prague, the last place i lived in. the eastern block. everywhere a billboard is it is. some peoples flat windows are covered by bill boards. the person living in the flat has no choice, cause they are renting. they can move somewhere else, that is market conditions in Prague. the version of the free world that we support. kind of like myspace and facebook, you can move to some network that is without bill-boards. yet hey where is the economic incentive for people to come to that space without bill-boards. so the cyber space for now is a festival of bill boards, we get so used to it that most most likely don’t think twice about what they are saying. yet every now and then something comes up. google have all your information and you use their great apps at no cost, up comes your next flight destination at a good price and you go with it. you just paid for another 300 bill boards. what to do ?
in the future we want buy new cars, we are most likely going to buy a software update that would re-configure the hardware. kind of like a box of mud that can change into a pot we can cook on then turn into a face mask to get all the smog out of our face. although we probably want go outside cause the pollution is going to be so bad or we’ll be busy trying to be fish (the world under water due to global warming). ok, so in the future we’ll just buy updates to make imperfections perfect. re-create the perfect world within our world, so we don’t have to deal with the real world. we want have a car, just think we are in a car and avoid real traffic. yet some are going to have to push the pedals to drive the machine for the/our pleasure. even if they are robots, eventually something is going to have to feel the effect. just like the cow someone eats has to be slaughtered, those building your updates may be living in the smog you don’t breath. to create/maintain your dream. maybe our software updates are going to be built by pigs with hands when they can no-longer build software updates we can eat them. at least the pigs would be doing something useful while they are growing up. quick lets build that farm. at least then the pigs can really take over the world.
Posted by jamyoung 
Posted by jamyoung 
Posted by jamyoung 