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?
Because you asked us in public on Facebook to act illegal for you re. to book non GEMA venues in Germany and because you don’t agree with the GEMA conditions and law, we decided to dismissial with immediate effect the booking contract…
You clearly demanded us criminal actions, at least, in public. We don’t agree to work with artists which bring agents and venues in bad situations like you do, we don’t agree to work with artists which work against (German) GEMA “law”, so try to bring us in bad situations.
conclusion… In Germany its a criminal action to sing a song in a public space without paying Gema, well at least from the bookers point of view. In fact the booker in Germany thinks that if you play a show in a space where you don’t pay gema, that they can no-longer be your booker. Now imagine if i said to someone having a conversation in a pub, hey mate, you want to talk to that person you have to pay me this much per minuet. Gema must be stopped!
the songs are me with some words and the guitar. the songs belong to everyone and if someone says that they don’t then that would be kind of strange, as i was just walking down the street and the wind blew on the tree and i had this idea. Could have happend to anyone. I decided to put a creative commons license on my live performance. The license is legal the venue can choose to use the license if they like or not, so can the public that visit the concert. I reckon its a great idea and good promo for me. Ultimately it would be best to CC zero the live show, yet that is in the pipe line.
Now i know that i have broken copyright law by printing the message above (and bellow) without the permission of the booker and i don’t normally do that (i have left the name out). yet the reason i have put the message is cause it would be great if the booker would sue me for printing the email on the blog. Cause at least when the court might charg me, they would have to read the message i copied to the court and the court is also some kind of public space right? never realized facebook was public, yet for a German booker it is. done
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.
In the US if an artist creates music for a movie she/he is able to collect residuals for the use of that content as the film gets more and more popular. If an artist writes a song that has not been created specifically for a film. The artist is not able to collect any residuals via film/tv.
I spose this ultimately means if an artist writes lots of music that is similar to other artists already published that the artist has more chance of having songs licenses for use in film and TV. In Europe when a song is used in a film by law (from what i understand) the guilds have to include the artists that created that content in the residuals.
Although these differences seem like minor things, it must have an impact on what music is used in films and TV. We can’t afford cold play, yet we can afford that song that sounds like Jack Johnson.In one place the professional musician wants to be paid, in another the home creator or self publisher that just wants people to get what she/he does.
does the system force the comercial artists to be like another artist, as the artists that have a name make sure that films pay big money to use that name, even though the film is letting people know about their art. The system only looks to work for large labels and large film companies.
Theaters in Europe that don’t show major films are all funded through government cultural funds as well as the films that play in them, often even these cultural performance spaces become outlets for the major films, in some places people are to glued to their TV to go and see a film and with torrents, people are downloading a lot and not getting the film, so this must lower the quality of major films. what’s it going to be soon, just one sound, one picture and a drink 10 times more powerful than red bull.
The value for music property works on market factors, outside the US guilds and rights organizations make sure that everyone is paid equally. Ultimately the in-equality between the two systems allows the US entertainment business to dominate the system outside the use. How many people in the world, how much media arrives to people created on the planet via way of California.
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.
*-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”
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?
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.
Posted by jamyoung 
Posted by jamyoung 
Posted by jamyoung 