Torbranda from Bergen

done

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

http://www.rawmedia.tv 

cultural folk or folk as in punk folk

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.

canada rights organization

i read this at this link

In Canada the songs organization want to put a 60 dollar tax on every net connection and allow free file sharing. my response that seemed to have got lost in a huge ocean of response. My response was this.

what about art that people want to give away free. why would people pay for that? seems like a law not fair to artists not with labels and publishers. good law for the bureaucracy. what rights organizations tend to forget is that people are just not buying as much content as they used to. people are making more content at home. technology has changed yet the laws have stayed the same. these rights organizations were created for the publishers not the artists. with the net we don’t need them publishers or labels anymore.

we also don’t need them political people making decisions that make life better for corporations than people. what to do?

Contracts for artists & physical spaces.

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.

Contracts for artists & physical spaces.

Recently i was in Belgium, home of rights organization SABAM. I spoke to both venue owners/promoters and artists about SABAM. It seems that the cost for use of musical content is going up (via the rights organizations), yet interest in quality “self published” content via commercial and non-commercial media streams is going down.

Culturally funded venues/festival/theaters in Europe are promoting published and label acts mostly. Self Published acts are often asked by culturally funded spaces to perform at no cost. This bureaucracy of cultural funding combined with a strict regulation of music rights, makes it mostly impossible for “self published” artists to get exposure in Europe. Cultural funding is creating conditions that often ensure “self published” artists join rights organizations when possibly they don’t have to. What to do ?

Could Creative Commons create contracts that help “self published” artists and venues/spaces? The two contract ideas bellow might give venues an incentive to play music from bands/artists that were in direct contact with that space. It could also give physical spaces an incentive to invite bands to tour when they created new music.

1)-Contract that the artist signs to tell the venue that the artist is not with rights organization and shall perform only original content (that the artist her or himself created) at the venue on that particular night.

2)-Contract that the artist signs that allows the venue to use the recorded music of that artist in venue free of charge. It would be the obligation of the artist to let the venue know if in the future the artist joins a rights organization. The rights organizations might in the future provide a list of artist’s that are registered with a rights organization(s)

Myspace & youtube do not pay for use of the artists or bands content, yet venues & spaces mostly are (even when the artist is not with a rights organization). Venues mostly are not beaming soap commercials above performers heads as they perform their tunes. Physical spaces might welcome the opportunity to be able to collect works that the venue could use free of charge. Many artists would give their content freely to a venue that would give them the opportunity of a paid performance combined with regular exposure in that space.

What is Sabam?

done

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.

Buma/Stemra Pilot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

article in progress “Some reasons why artists don’t use CC license”.

Most artists when they get started on their path mostly seem interested in distribution of ideas, rather than revenue. I spoke to a blues guitar player recently, when talking about money and music. “The music is free, what your paying for is the strings, the amp, the petrol and all the rest of it; but the music its free”. Its not easy for some artists to license their art with a CC license, Creative Commons is difficult to explain to an artists having a hard time. The void within the publishing system creates a magnet to almost every idea, creative commons is the only . I’m convinced that CC creates a better flow of culture within culture, yet getting that message through is not easy.

License:
The most effective distribution tool (i reckon) is an open license, yet for a commercial organization to use an open license can create problems. Recently virgin mobile in Australia used images, licensed with an open license without a model release. This resulted in legal action against virgin mobile and creative commons by the person that licensed their image using a creative commons open license. If the person using a license can sue the organization that creates the license, what is the future of that license ?

Publishing:
The publishers have created difficult circumstances for “self publishing” artist with new ideas. As publishing industries grow smaller, exploitation of the “self published artist” grows. Organization have sprung up all over the net that offer artists the opportunity to get through the wall at a cost. Its easy for an artist with little understanding of the publishing industry to be sucked into this system. Even when artists create ideas compatible with contemporary ideas, unless publishing industries have nurtured these ideas the ability to distribute the idea is not easy. One of my favourite artists “beck”, was related to the business when he started out. Publishing good ideas has less to do with the idea and more to do with who you know, even with