[cc-community] ASCAP VS CREATIVE COMMONS

Mia Garlick mia at creativecommons.org
Thu Dec 21 13:31:28 EST 2006


even though i agree that it is highly likely that ASCAP are focused  
on irrevocability, fred's comment is still accurate that their  
arguments are valid only if you conflate CC licensing one work with  
CC licensing your entire repertoire.  also, their argument relies on  
an assumption that every freely available online copy is a lost sale  
and commercial disadvantageous to an artist.

given neither of these assumptions are accurate and collecting  
societies continue to ignore the legal and practical reasons for  
irrevocability (the point of CC licenses is to permit & encourage use  
and reuse not chill it with the threat of withdrawing rights + how to  
do you revoke a public license when you may not know who has accepted  
the work under the license) their arguments suggest that their  
criticism stem from a gut reaction based on a refusal to properly  
engage with the issue...

On Dec 21, 2006, at 7:10 AM, tomislav medak wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> fred,
>
> they might be referring to the irrevocability of license, which means
> that the author cannot revoke the license he has once given to the
> recipients. though, he can decide to distribute the work under  
> different
> terms, but the copies he has distributed under that license are in the
> free and stay in the free, allowing the recipients to continue to use
> and distribute them further under that license.
>
> this is one of fundamental general reproaches collecting societies  
> raise
> against the CC, particularly in droit d'auteur jurisdictions.
>
> tom
>
> Fred Benenson wrote:
>> Fascinating. Such Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt here.
>>
>> ASCAP seems to be missing the point that Creative Commons builds  
>> on top
>> of copyright, and while Lessig's books are copyrighted, so is  
>> virtually
>> every other cc-licensed object. All it does is explicitly define what
>> rights the artists are looking to preserve beyond copyright.
>>
>> Another piece of FUD here: conflating "music" (one track) with  
>> "music"
>> (your oeuvre). In other words ASCAP makes it appear that if you  
>> decide
>> to go for CC once then you must license *all* your work under CC
>> forever. This is plainly not the case as cc licenses apply to  
>> individual
>> works and they, too, are non-exclusive, just like ASCAP claims to be.
>> Which leads to another confusing point by ASCAP: it would seem that
>> collecting royalties under via ASCAP with a CC licensed track (BY-NC
>> perhaps?)  would be something they'd object to, when, as far as I can
>> tell, since they're both non-exclusive licenses, it wouldn't be a  
>> problem.
>>
>> Still, interesting that they're resorting to the ole' FUD line then
>> anything else. That means we must be doing something right.
>>
>> F
>>
>> PS: Can I forward this to the cc-community/cc-licenses list?
>>
>>
>> On 12/21/06, *Elizabeth Stark* <estark at law.harvard.edu
>> <mailto:estark at law.harvard.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>     <-----Original Message----->
>>> From: Benjamin Sisto
>>> Sent: 12/20/2006 11:50:25 PM
>>> To:
>>> estark at law.harvard.edu <mailto:estark at law.harvard.edu>;wilbanks@
>>     creativecommons.org
>>     <http://creativecommons.org>;driscollkevin at gmail.com
>>     <http://gmail.com>;thwang@ fas.harvard.edu
>>     <http://fas.harvard.edu>;antalliance at gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [POSSIBLE SPAM] ASCAP VS CREATIVE COMMONS
>>>
>>> Round one, fight!
>>> From board.lemmingtrail.com <http://board.lemmingtrail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Benjamin,<-------- (not me, ben sisto..someone else)
>>>
>>> ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are all Performing Rights Organizations
>>     (PRO's). The basic
>>> function of all of us is to collect royalties for artists when
>>     their music is
>>> performed on the radio, film, TV, internet, etc.
>>>
>>> ASCAP is the oldest and strongest PRO in the world. When you join
>>     ASCAP, you
>>> join for 1 year terms (meaning you can resign each year if you
>>     want). We're a
>>> not for profit company and have the lowest operating costs in the
>>     States and
>>> amongst the lowest in the world. When you join, you become a member
>>     and have a
>>> say in how we operate. It's free to join and there are never any
>>     dues to pay.
>>> These points are NOT all true for either BMI or SESAC.
>>>
>>> I know a lot of bands from Boston like the idea of Creative Commons
>>     and aren't
>>> sure how PRO's play into it. Here's what you should know, if you
>>     join ASCAP,
>>> it's a nonexclusive agreement. Which means, you tell us if/when you
>>     want us to
>>> collect your $. So, if you choose to give your music away for free,
>>     just let us
>>> know. It's your music and we want you to do what you want with it.
>>     If you want
>>> us to collect your money, just let us know and we will. So, you
>>     really have the
>>> option to choose on your own.
>>>
>>> Please be aware though, that if you take the route of Creative
>>     Commons, there's
>>> no turning back. You have just given away your music for free,
>>     forever. You
>>> can't later change your mind and decide you want to make royalties.
>>     Creative
>>> Commons is really controversial and so misunderstood by so many
>>     that it's hard
>>> to know exactly what you're getting into. Lawrence Lessig is the
>>     man who is
>>> pushing the concept and has written books about the subject, but  
>>> it's
>>> interesting that his books are copyrighted, published and earn
>>     money just like
>>> songs do.
>>>
>>> Anyway, best of luck on whatever you decide!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> XXXXXXXXXX
>>>
>>> --
>>> Benjamim Sisto
>>> 617 784 6115
>>> ben.sisto at gmail.com <mailto:ben.sisto at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> The content of this email message is licensed under a Creative  
>> Commons
>> Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License, Some Rights Reserved.
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> ---
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-community mailing list
>> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFFiqPukbN024ZV0z0RAgj3AKC8JofR+GkKFe/RZkGCWyMRNx4ZrQCfUJJ6
> EbRndutSPCJG9DrepJC23MU=
> =Sw/f
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community



More information about the cc-community mailing list