[cc-community] ASCAP VS CREATIVE COMMONS
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Fri Dec 22 14:44:20 EST 2006
On Friday 22 December 2006 12:37 pm, Paul Keller wrote:
> hey drew,
> not sure why you would want to do this with BY-SA works only. in general
> such a provision is present in all CC licenses (talking about 2.5
> generic/US here). the NC licenses retain the right to collect royalties
> through collectings societies / PROs and all other ones waive this right.
> assuming that pretty much all radio play would fall in the commercial use
> category this seems like a solution that lets them forget the hassle.
I think you misunderstand my point. The reason for BY and BY-SA only is
precisely becuase NC does not need it as ou yourself point out. Most radio
station uses would have to pay to use NC no matter what therefore such a
clause is not needed for NC works.
I said BY-SA because that it my preferred CC license. BY could have one too
from a need standpoint.
>
> now i know that you are arguing for a different scenario that enables them
> if they do want to do the hassle to not pay for non-NC licenses works, and
> of course this would be an ideal world scenario, but i do not think that
> this would have much appeal to radio stations. what collecting societies
> offer to them is a enormous reduction of their transaction costs throuugh
> blanket licenses. instead of negotiating every work individually they have
> a one or to stop shop situation (the CSs boast to offer them the rights to
> the entire world repertoire). looking into induvidual licensing situations
> on a per work basis is probably every radio stations worst nightmare (will
> be different of course once delivery is completely electronic and billing
> goes via DRM - but that is another story). this summer i listened to a
> presentation by the head of licensing of the BBC. he showed that the BBC
> through all its stations plays on avaerage 200.000 different musical works
> per week(!!) and that they payed 1.7 billion punds (or euros cant really
> remember) in licensing fees in the last year fo these uses. he went on to
> say that he would probably rather pay more than loose the current
> one-stop-shop deal they have with MCPS/PRO (this was in the context of a
> discussion about breaking up territorial monopolies of Collecting
> SOcieties in the EU)
It is precisely because of this desire for a one stop shop by radio stations
why I think that such a clause would be useful.
Let's say a BY-SA or BY songwriter puts their BY or BY-SA works with a
collection society. The stations pay for using these works. Has fraud been
commited? We would have charged people to use something for which they have
the right to use for free.
Ot would the society collect from the stations but not pay the BY or BY-SA
songwriters?
What would the situation be?
>
> given this i do not think we should focus our energies on the issue you
> are raising here. instead we should (and some of us are) continue to work
> to make it possible for musicians (outside of the US) to be a member of a
> CS and to use CC licenses at the same time...
Hence the thought that it might be useful to allow people dealing with
collection agencies to just pretend that By or BY-SA works need to be paid
for if that makes their life easier. At their option.
I have not thought through all the details mind you.
>
> all the best,
> paul
all the best,
drew
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2006, at 10:00 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
>
> I have been pondering the possibilities of putting BY-SA works up with
> collection agencies for a whaile now.
>
> Would it be possible for the CC licenses to have a clause that states that
> if you use the work and the work is with a collection agency, then you can
> either pay as per your agreement, or you must make individual exemption
> claims for each use? Assuming you are an entity wich would need an
> agreement with said agency.
>
> The example I am thinking of is a radio station that plays ARR and CC
> works. They can frget the hassle and pay to use the Free works, or they can
> report the individual uses and claim an exemption for them? Something like
> that.
>
> I haven't thought this all through yet, but it seems like a decent time to
> bring up the thought for people to discuss / chew on.
>
> Of course, this would only apply to BY and BY-SA works with respect to
> commercial uses.
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
>
>
> On Thursday 21 December 2006 09:20 am, 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?
>
>
> --
> waag society | nieuwmarkt 4 | NL - 1012 CR amsterdam
> e: paul at waag.org | t: +31 20 557 9898 | f: +31 20 557 9880
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
--
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954
More information about the cc-community
mailing list