[cc-community] ASCAP VS CREATIVE COMMONS
Terry Hancock
hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Sat Jan 6 12:04:41 EST 2007
drew Roberts wrote:
> Bjorn, like I say, you are entitled to your belief and I am not against
> success in those efforts. It is just that if those efforts result in a better
> situation for people using NC while leaving those using plain BY-SA or BY no
> better off, I do not personally care. That is, it will not benefit me
> personally nor will it benefit the cause I am trying to advance. (If it does
> benefit the authors of Free works, that is different. Perhaps I am not
> expressing myself properly here. I am trying though.)
Which license applies isn't relevant, drew. This isn't a license problem.
The only way this could be solved in a way that could "result in a
better situation for people using NC while leaving those using plain
BY-SA or BY no better off" is to write NC-specific legislation into the law.
For grassroots movements, that basically never happens. However, what
*is* usually feasible is to attack the basic root of the problem, which
is *exclusivity* and *anti-competition* (and of course *preventing*
keyhole laws from sneaking through via said public ridicule). Thus any
realistic solution for By-NC-* users is going to equally benefit ANY
independent licensing of music, whether CC or not and even whether
free-licensed or not (which, for completeness, includes our beloved By
and By-SA licenses!).
Since, for a grassroots movement to succeed in changing a government's
mind requires *unity*, it is extremely counterproductive to plant seeds
of discord such as saying 'I don't care what happens to NC users'! This
is a situation where ALL independent sale of music is blocked, and thus
ALL people who want such sales to be legal should present a unified front.
Of course, neither drew nor I live in Holland, so this isn't our fight
(we aren't part of said government's constituency), but international
unity of opinion on the idea is still support for those who are Dutch
citizens.
>>>>Note that this is NOT a problem for CC to solve. It can't. It doesn't
>>>>matter what the legal structure of the licenses is.
>>>
>>>I am not sure that is fully established yet, although that would be my
>>>take based on what I have learned so far.
The point is that the law permits these monopoly juggernauts to control
the marketplace. Their controls include blocking ALL independent sale of
music through their exclusive contracts.
I believe it *is* theoretically possible for a movement of dissenting
clubs to form that only play free music. But while that's a nice theory,
it lacks punch as a means of changing the society: that's a formula for
creating a tiny "outcast sanctuary" outside of the system, not making
the system more friendly to independent licensing (which includes ALL
free licensing, including ALL CC licenses, including By and By-SA).
In fact, the irony is that the only CC licenses which provide a legal
lever against this system *are* the NC licenses. Because the best legal
basis for a lawsuit is that the collecting societies are collecting on
rights they don't own (there's another, which is the right of "free
venues" to exist).
>>Yes, it is a political issue and CC cannot change this, but CC has to
>>- at least - be aware of this and the fact that this is actually
>>witholding CC in EU for musicians.
Absolutely, Bjorn. I agree. I'm not sure what CC can do about it, unless
to politically support the opposition to these laws.
This is much more the kind of activity supported by the FFII, though:
http://www.ffii.org/
(Which is European, of course -- I'm guessing you already know of them
from their campaigns against software patent legislation in the EU)
I would mention the Electronic Frontier Foundation, except that they are
in the USA, and I don't think they have the ability fight international
cases:
http://www.eff.org/
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
More information about the cc-community
mailing list