arch

i got info via the open rights mailing list, about an organization called ARCH, action on rights for children, its interesting what is happening with GPS technology, finger prints and surveillance. For sure a different kind of kind of punk is going to evolve, locked into GPS under surveillance, prints and DNA. Every stop planned from crawl, walk to talk. what is the future for out of here thinking? up down good bad left right, software programs designing the patterns we crawl into, beyond z.

The Commons vs Merlin. Work in progress…

Recently I got a mail on the Austrian mailing list about an event that was looking at the music business, from the CC perspective, i went along to the event. My second Creative Commons event so far, other than the the first event i went to in Croatia.

It seems mostly a closed shop to the commons for those without a university education, intellectuals funded via universities are the ones that are putting together the jigsaw in their own “free time”.

Often it also seems about research topics and presenting topics to the EU, to keep their world rocking and not rock from rocking. Ask someone funded through a project that relates to the commons about putting an article they might make in regard to the commons, out and about under a CC licenses, and you’ll get an inverted explosive blank look, yet these guys get the invitations to all the gigs, even though they not using the licenses. Ultimatly if they did use the licensse, they might not publish to journals, just as the artist that wants to be a rock star best not use a CC license. Then again this blog does not have a CC license on it.

The event in Vienna I went to was funded by bunch of corporations and yet mostly sponsored by the telecommunications company, free beer was available to get the attention of those around, yet not the real http://www.freebeer.org

The night started out with Stephan Dorfmeister from G-stone. He was talking about the way that funds are digested by the industry and then handed back out. Stephan’s main concern was reform of the redistribution of funds collection via these organizations.

G-stone seemed insistent that AKM (rights organizations in Austria) was not responsible for problems that relate to issues of self publishing. My view is fully opposite that, G-stone’s knowledge of the CC licenese’s and their application seemed kind of limited.

I explained how i thought that it was not fair that the live venues in Austria are paying for the use of live songs, where as when an artists based in Austria (with AKM) that uploaded content to a server based in the US, the content be free to that server. A server based in Europe has to pay for streaming of content, its also difficult also as rights organizations in Europe don’t list who their members are.

This creates a kind of paralel universe that ultimatley empowers a US business model, and often means that web services in Eruope are partly subsidized. maybe?

Stephan seemed insistent that a service called Merlin would solve any trouble that the indie artist had. Again and again using the word Merlin, explaining that Merlin would collect any revenues that the rights organizations could not scoop, from myspace or youtube, any US based web service that was not paying for use of content. The reason why these services don’t pay in many instances for the use of content is that the artist contracts for the use of rights is a non-exclusive contract.

What is interesting is that Merlin an NGO based in UK. My understanding is that as BBC had so much content used on youtube, the BBC were able to insist that all artists that were members of UK rights organizations based in the UK be paid when their content is used on youtube/online mediums.

In effect what has happend is that IODA (US based company) and their pool of indie content is able finds a back door to get paid for all use of content via BBC/uk/rights admin/law. Maybe? Is this fair? What about rights organizations in conjunction with mechanical organizations in each territory being able to do their job, why is only the BBC able to flex its muscles? Is this legal, or am i confused? Or is it illegal and i’m also confused? or is it just fine that the publisher/label always gets paid no matter what terms or conditions they agree to?

I checked out Merlins website. The mission of Merlin… “Merlin is a non-profit organisation charged with representing independent music companies in enhancing the commercial exploitation of their copyrights on a global basis.”

Merlin does not represent artists it only represents companies. It has the same face as the regular rights organizations, yet these guys have left the artists out of the loop. Look at the board of directors. So this is a bunch of independent music companies going in for the kill with smaller vacum cleaners, armed with copyright law and innovative lawyers.

What is most interesting about Merlin is that it says this… “Merlin reserves the right to refuse membership to any company whose membership the supervisory board of Merlin reasonably believes would be incompatible with the achievement of Merlin’s objectives.” I reckon its safe to say that artists that set up their own company and go in for representation with Merlin that use a creative commons license are not going to be allowed in.

Its interesting that Kevin Arnold, IODA, company based in San Francisco representing independent labels for distribution of MP3’s is the power house for content within the Merlin network. IODA is the key to a massive pool of indie content, the idea is that all the labels shall be paid for all uses that are not able to be collected. Its interesting that artists that agree to the terms and conditions that allow their content to be used freely are now going be paid for the use of their content. Maybe?

This possibly means that services like youtube and myspace are going to be forced to serve up published content, so they can pay their bills. For sure its going to make it harder for artists to self publish their works to their community. IODA/merlin is locking down the net, for the sake of a couple of dollars for larger indie labels/publishers.

My experience with IODA as an artist that was falsely represented by them, is simple. If your an artist without a lawyer, we don’t care for your rights. Itsaboutmusic a street label represented my tunes through the IODA distribution network without my consent. A street label to my mind is a label that takes any content for a price and pools it into a larger network, they get paid for doing nothing, the deal is non-exclusive, yet few artists do a reverse turn. IODA do not list IAM as a label and ItsAboutMusic don’t list IODA as their distributor. What’s worse is that IAM infer that they do direct business with all of IODA’s content distributors. I contacted IODA 6 months ago asking them to include itsaboutmusic within their label search, and that IAM show IODA on as their distributing partner. No change so far.

Anyway.. it seems part vampire to the left of me fully vicious vampire to the right. Without a lawyer ,an accountant, with a company set up, what chance does the self publishing artist have to get any revenue through the centralized media? Keep the artist hungry, don’t let them know their rights and pool what the self publishing artist make to your friends labels.

I’m not a lawyer, so maybe i have all this mixed up, little snake… big snake though, what’s the difference. The rules of the corporate media must be obeyed to at all times, regardless of how stupid or backward they might be. I reckon i’m defending the right for the artist to make her/ his own choice. Or maybe i’m just throwing it out and about.

Content poolers are using every means they can to shut down freedoms, to get access to a shrinking pie. How to make a non-exclusive an exclusive, to a non-exclusive and always get paid. Artists deserve the right to choose. AKM is wrong, Merlin is wrong, monopolies that control rights to songs on any exclusive basis that are not published songs, need to be shut out of the system. Let the art flow, de-regulate. No wizards in this game, just a new layer of corruption to re-hedge the same thing in a different suit with the same set of shoes.

What happens when that 10 percent of the world can’t afford your indie content, are you not shooting your artists in the foot, with the lie of Merlin?

I heard that 10 percent of the worlds population can afford copyright content. If you work at Merlin, keep this in mind. You do have the right to take your label out of Merlin’s network and build bridges that help the art in your community, well i hope you do. Don’t support the independent global music sweat shop. Its not really independent, its another loose loose device that the major label/publisher is using to lock those lower down the scale out of the game. I reckon it starts with the artist that you have met. Doing business with art in these big pools seems so impersonal and can’t be what the “songs” want, if the song had choice.

At the home page of Merlin, it says why Merlin exists.

“Merlin also does not operate in the space occupied by Collecting Societies, rather Merlin aims to address the gap between what these societies are able to offer their members and what labels and aggregators can achieve individually.”

The reason why Merlin exists is because media like myspae and youtube pay the large publishers/labels yet not the small publishers/labels. Rather than Merlin going with the future, they have run with herd of dinosaurs that are consuming each other in a war on rights ,rather than looking at the real picture.

Consider that it is the job of rights organizations to look after all their members on equal terms as far as collecting royalties, they don’t do this, yet that is their job. When independent labels and publishers agree to terms and conditions that give their media away freely, yet then want to get paid as well, yet not get paid through their own territory, yet via agreements in the UK, where all use of media is payed for. What is the end result?

Ultimately the territory that protects those rights is empowered and the self publishing artists in all territories are pushed aside. Consider that the younger generation on a general level have less interest in music than the generation of 35 plus. New game technology and technology that allows people to create and interact is what has eroded the media, not just that reality that every household in the developed world has a copy machine.

Independent labels/publishers best look at the dynamic from the self publishers point of view rather than that of the major labels and publishers. That is if the concept behind your label is to connect whats around you to the community around you.

Consider what your trying to achieve with artists in your community, not with what major label/publisher dinosaurs. Ultimately Merlin is the wizard that is going to put your content out of business, the problem seems that small labels/publishers are being sucked in by the illusion of a forced regulation. Even if the Internet was dissolved and shelved, i don’t reckon the music business would revert back to what it was. Distributors like IODA that don’t have any transparency within their system ,that allows artist’s within their pool to have assurance and security about the use of what they create, are not the way.

IODA/merlin might remove you (“you” being the company that signs up) from the community, might even wax your legs with the same spell that the major label/publishers have been tarnished with via the public’s perspective. I can’t see how any train can do a hard right turn and stay on track, its strange to see the indies flock to the de-railed wastelands. Do other ways exist to innovate? What does independent mean in all this? What of the rights of the future generation? Is the Merlin blanket going to be the box around your organization that you get burned in, not even leaving a tomb “stone” behind ? What did the last artist that you signed and gave an advance 2 have 2 say about the word free ?!

Indra from Antwerp

done

http://www.rawmedia.tv

Talking to Indra from a family based in Antwerp that run events in the lounge room for local artists. Although the doors are open to the public they do not do any advertising through any off line channels. The result is that they get a great bunch of people to listen to artists from the community. Although the event is free and most of the artists that play music are not with any form of publishing, SABAM have the right (by law) to fine AMPER elders for use of music. SABAM view all use of music content as commercial. The events have become so popular that well known artists within the Belgium arts scene that are with cultural/commercial publishers see this as an event that they want to perform at. The over regulation of the scene by organizations like SABAM not only effect artists at a grass routes level. They effect artists that are at higher up the food chain. The reality is that the board of the SABAM wants to see more karaoke/cultural music than anything else, as they represent shareholders of corporations or cultural funds. SO what about PUNK culture? The only way that this can change is through these monopoly organizations being forced into deregulation by the authorities run by the government. The Belgium government is quite aware of the corruption within the system, however they want force change. Partly because so many non-profits are funded. Why are the funded? because of the over regulation. What to do? This same or similar situation exists in all of the developed world except in the US, in the US artists are able to work out agreements as they choose and remain with BMI ASCAP rights organizations. One solution would be to change the way that the common law is structured. Yet i’m still trying to get my head around that.

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 

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

done

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

Niaal Performs in

The low Frequency In Stereo

The Megaphonic Thrift

The Alexandria Quartet

http://www.rawmedia.tv 

David Venue owner in Bergen Norway

done

David run’s a venue called vamoose in Bergen. The venue is popular and is doing ok. Being a fan of live music Vamoose puts on a live act when it can. The reality is that the venue often looses money even when the band is playing for free. Stage space use and sound of artists means a night of live music can mean less money. Tono regulates the use of content in this venue even though much of the music comes through unpublished sources. David says that most bands would rather collect anything he pays to Tono direct from him. Myspace don’t pay for use of content, yet Vamoose does. Vamoose does not have soap commercial running over the artists head when they are playing their tunes to the public. What to do?

Ideas i have brought forward to the university of Oslo have been knocked back, as i have no proof that the projects i offer have a use in the community. I was not able to talk to students about ideas that relate technology and art. (you visit the projects at this link. Why? it would be un-ethical for me as my opinion is un-qualified. So the artist press kit idea gets shelved, intellectuals advise students what project they should do. The interesting thing is that few people within the intellectual community have much experience in the art world beyond a theory of understanding. Most universities promote types of art that have already been established in the media/publishing.

Every which way you loose, be sure to copyright everything and put it in a freezer and then present it as a paper and get a better salary. If your also able to merge a couple of those corrupt organization with your findings (TONO), better still and more points to you.

Anyway: excuse my cynical way here, meanwhile another person starts to write a song- cause they figured that song was better than the one they heard on the radio. They buy a guitar/amp, software for the computer, eventually an artist press kit, they sign their rights with a rights organization, they create a myspace, they try to tour out of their town, they can’t- no infa structure.

Who is going to build that infa structure. Lets wait and let myspace get around to doing that, rather than using any of that public money. The more advertising space the better, we like it best also when the artist gets none of that money that myspace get for the use of the artists content. That way the artist is sure to never be able to tour beyond the doors of her/his home, or if they do for sure its with an established publisher. We also like it that soon myspace are going to be selling stages to live venues with soap commercials above it. Yes mypsace sponsored by the rights organizations making sure that live music stays within the home for 99.9 percent of content created.

Now with the added bonus of knowing that a possibility to innovate did exist, however the idea did not have a PHD attached to it.

For sure if your good enough one of the major publishers is going to find you. Live performance skills are not needed with all this technology! Make sure you work on your online smile size, respect those building your cyber home. If we are all nice enough the walls of the future may not be all google adds.

http://www.rawmedia.tv

Zou from Antwerp

done

http://www.rawmedia.tv 

Frank from Antwerp

done

talking to frank about the artist creative commons and copyright. Visit franks page http://www.myspace.com/tmuziekdooscollectief

http://www.rawmedia.tv 

Paul Keller Creative Commons Netherlands

done

Talks about a commercial, non-commercial, creative commons, rights organizations, myspace and youtube.

On last tour to Belgium I was able to meet up with Paul Keller from CC.nl .

Questions sent out to CC mailing list: even if a site is set up as a non-profit is it fair that they run google adds with content licensed under a non-commercial license? I understand that often the non-profit makes very little from the adds, yet how do creators view this use? Are most artists ok about that art being associated with any product that google choose for ever and not participating in any part of that revenue? If a creative commons non-commercial use did not allow any kind of associated advertising, would the license work better? Is there a demand for a non-commercial license that does not allow advertising?

http://www.rawmedia.tv

Francios from Antwerp about sabam and a free culture

Last week i was in Antwerp and interviewed Francios, shall post some bio information soon.

done

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.

APRA create conditions to suit their needs

Although i can find many artists to agree to copy and paste on my myspace “i support reforms for APRA” (with very little effort) not one alternative radio station that I am aware of has mentioned issue’s that relate to APRA and Creative Commons. I have contacted many alternative and public radio stations around Australia to raise the issue, with no result. I started to wonder why, the issue of creative commons licenses and rights organizations is quite interesting for artists and public.

PBS is a radio station based in Fitzroy Melbourne that uses mostly alternative music content. PBS are able to stream content globally under the license fee they pay. PBS possibly get much of the revenue to run their organization through subscriptions from abroad. If PBS started to collect content from artists that were not members of APRA, under something similar to the ownterms contract idea at this link, http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/contract-2 (to lower operating costs and introduce new media to their listeners) APRA who have a monopoly would see this as a threat.

APRA are easily able to manipulate market conditions. APRA create conditions that force “self published” artists to join a network of rights organizations so that media can use that content (without the artist being a member of APRA the media is not legally able to use that artists content) APRA supply content at one price. APRA want recognize Creative Commons licenses. Creative Commons licenses provide a legal platform for use of self published content without the rights organization.

I’m not sure how APRA work out how much users of content pay to be able to stream content, as APRA do not list prices for use of content on their website. Does this create unfair conditions for business? The market is not able to use other content in conjunction with APRA’s content to the users advantage. Its quite simple for content to be tagged and identified as a different media. New technology means that media and creators of media need to be able to innovate. APRA’s blanket license prevents innovation to occur from both the creators and users perspective.

Without all price variables for use of content being listed in an easy and understandable way online, how can users be sure they are being treated on equal terms? How are artists able to judge if they want their content provided at this price? If i had a venue or was running an event i would want the details of how the price for use of content is construction. I would want security that my competitors were paying the same price. Listing the variables used to calculate prices for use of content on APRA’s website (however complex they may be) seems like something the business community would want. A regular audit by the ACCC would ensure consumer comfort. Under the current conditions it appears that APRA are able to create conditions that suit the board.

APRA are able to lock use of non APRA content out of the market and their is clear evidence that they do this. I’m quite sure that I am not the first person to bring these issue’s up with the ACCC, what i want to know is why the ACCC continues to allow APRA to maintain their license in such unfair conditions. Members of the business community are simply not able to go against the rights organization because they stand to loose so much.

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?

Artists Right to distribute- work in progress

When media in Australia uses works licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution licences the media is given no rebate by the rights organisation. My view is that if commercial media did get a reduction when they used open content, that the market would be more efficient. More local self published content would be used and publishers might take their ears out of their pockets.

My understanding is that commercial media in Australia pays for the use of much of their content this way: Media is issued with a blanket licence to use any content they choose and provides details of what they use to the rights organisations. Users pay a fee that is distributed via the rights organisations to the publishers and artists that created that content.

Things are different in the U.S. In the U.S artists are able to deal directly with media and licence content as they choose and remain members of a rights organisation. This means that Creative Commons Attribution licences are able to be incorporated into the media in the U.S with some success. Consider also: In Australia artists are not able to sell a song, in the U.S artists can. Artists members in Australia must maintain 50 percent of what they create. Different moral rights apply to content in different countries. No glove fits all yet the net crosses many boundaries.

These double standards give the U.S media the ability to steam roll its content globally. Big name acts like Madonna take much of the media’s attention? Are feet getting cold as a result of over exposure of these acts? Do they create the best content?

Rights organisations provide content at one price, this creates conditions where both commercial and non-commercial media shall most likely always use content owned by a publisher, rather than that of a self publisher. Even when the self publisher can show that she or he created content to the media. Almost all artists associated with rights organisations are self publishing artists.

Most artists that can create a song and sing that song in a public place join a rights organisation, why? I reckon its because of the live performance royalties received when they perform a song. Some self publishing artists might tell the rights organisations that they are performing content they created, when really they are singing songs owned by a publisher. This can increase the live performance returns of that artist. Rights organisations create conditions where artists are encouraged to create content that is similar to content already published.

Woody Guthrie wrote the following message in the 1930’s:

“This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ours, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”

Imagine that copyright is now maintained for over 50 years after death. Much of Bob Dylan’s work would be public now under the conditions of the 1930’s. Copyright keeps on being extended to serve a minority of created works. Is culture better with this extension of author rights and artists not having to register their works?

Artists are often under the illusion that the rights organisations protect their works from theft. If someone steals your art and calls it theirs, its not their job to protect it. Rights organizations collect when your content is performed.

Consider that much of the content used in Australia comes from the U.S. Consider also this: The person with the most steam in the popular music scene might be the programming director of the alternative national youth radio network JJJ, JJJ is a government funded radio network. If most of the exposure that flows into independent music culture comes through government funding, this creates a difficult arts scene.

The way the voting system works for the board of APRA (apra is the Australian rights organization): For every 500 dollars that an artist or publisher collects the artist or publisher get an extra vote. The board is made up by artists that create works for television, popular artist and the publishers that collect the most. Half of the board is made up of publishers and half are creators of content. Albert music who publish ACDC’s music are able to put themselves on the board. Board members are making decisions mainly in the interests of publishers. Board members can’t be expected to make decisions that benefit culture, artists or the arts scene. They are more likely to make decisions that creates better conditions for a karaoke bar than self publishing of art.

I reckon the organisations that keep a check on these monopolies (the ACCC in Australia) must spend a lot of time figuring out how they are able to justify the existence of structures like APRA. When these organisations fail, what shall take their place?

Myspace have their own blanket license system. Myspace are able to collect music content and sell advertising space without paying the artists for use of their content. Almost every popular band in the world must be on Myspace. Even APRA have endorsed myspace by creating their own profile. All live venues and media in Australia have to comply with APRA policy, yet Myspace does not. These double standards create conditions only big venues and big media can stay in step with. Small clubs shut down. Internet radio is also not possible in Australia, only streaming of content from above ground networks.

When I joined APRA (Australian Performing Rights Association) I thought that the organisation was similar to a post office. I cancelled my membership when I realized that APRA was far from anything like a regular post office. Rights organisations create conditions so that publishers can communicate the message of published artists best. With the internet and new technologies here, more is being created. Why can’t what we create be used by media in conjunction with popular media to the advantage of that media. Its seems that works created by few are creating unfair conditions for all.

The community benefits when artists are able to self publish. If Creative Commons licences can be used by media in Australia (and other countries) with an incentive for media to use that content, culture would improve (I reckon). Some might drop their graffiti cans and be more interactive. Many artists give up on art because of the brick wall the rights organisations create. Other artists start out creating art for the community, end up scoring films and making content for commercials. Free Culture and Creative Commons is part of the solution.

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.

Myspace or APRA who is more evil ?

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

Myspace or APRA who is more evil ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Bout time video

Although this song has images from both Europe and Australia, the song was written in Australia. For me this song partly represents a feeling of being trapped in a system that is destroying the environment and offers little/no community alternative. The wind technology pictures were taken from a bus on the Austrian boarder going into the the Czech Republic. The images of red earth were taken in Australia, many places in Australia have been cleared of trees and farmed with cattle, sheep or are used to grow grain.

The idea of the fence is something that would not be needed if people respected animals and were basically vegetarian. Much of the crops grown go towards feeding animals. When you eat your next steak/meat/chook (if you do) think of the land mass that could have trees on it as a result of the food you eat, then flick to the all the promotion of meat products via the media. The sense of you need meat to be healthy; yet at what cost is this health to the environment and is it really healthy? A thought of the live sheep export and then to think of the beings in the ocean. Sure your just one person in this world, yet every time you eat a living being your telling the person next to you that its ok to do this. People live healthy & haapy lives without having to eat meat. Eating living beings is a huge contributor to global warming, I don’t think Al Gore is vegetarian.

Media and Creative Commons.

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

Why I put this very lo-fi clip together ?

I watched the Bob Dylan film last night “i’m not there” and decided that folk music is not so dead. Its just maybe defined to much by publishing organizations. If things decentralize more and more then folk can/might re-invent itself or be what it was. Although for folk to be what it was would be a contradiction to folk. Folk is like a dirty word it seems sometime; if you tell people you sing folk music; some might think you work in a museum. Folk seems to be you your means and the world around you. Maybe everything is folk and folk has got a bad name cause rock stars ate all
the space that was folk. In the film Bob Dylan talks to Brian Jones and “says, oh your the guy from that covers band”. The rolling stones took folk to rock and rocked. Good covers band. The sad thing for now is that when people pass songs back and forth you can be sure a publisher is getting something. Is a centralized pop based system responsible for
giving folk music a bad name. Punk is folk as folk is punk.

The film inspired me to put this lo-fi clip together.

About the clip

The footage was taken using a samsung vp-d351
The footage was edited using final cut pro.
The footage was edited on a mac g4 1.2 ghz
The music was recorded using a hand held device Olympus VN-960pc, normally used for dictation.
The music was recorded at http://www.soundofmu.no on Sunday November 11th
The song/footage is licensed under any creative commons license you like.
Footage comes from Australia & Europe. Song written in Australia.

Buma Stemra Art Pirates

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

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

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

A way around this problem might be to add a feature to the license that would let the user of the license know that the art was administered by a rights organization (Buma/Stemra, yes no). By doing so creating a new aspect to the licenses. In time the rights organizations might work towards a Non Commercial use that resembles the Creative Commons Non Commercial use. For the rights organizations to build a new system they would have to dismantle/rebuild the old one. What incentive is there for a board of directors that are involved mostly with large publishers to do this?

Buma/Stemra must have been extremely aware of their system when this pilot started and knew from the very moment that it started that the conditions of a commercial use could not be changed. Were the Creative Commons team in the Netherlands aware of this?

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

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

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

Here’s an article with more thoughts on the Creative Commons Non-commercial use.