[cc-community] ASCAP VS CREATIVE COMMONS
Jon Phillips
jon at rejon.org
Sat Jan 27 01:06:07 EST 2007
On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 00:52 -0500, Paul Ronco wrote:
> Please remove me from this list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
You can remove yourself.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Jon
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Keller" <paul at waag.org>
> To: <cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [cc-community] ASCAP VS CREATIVE COMMONS
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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)
>
> 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...
>
> all the best,
> paul
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
--
Jon Phillips
San Francisco, CA
USA PH 510.499.0894
jon at rejon.org
http://www.rejon.org
MSN, AIM, Yahoo Chat: kidproto
Jabber Chat: rejon at gristle.org
IRC: rejon at irc.freenode.net
More information about the cc-community
mailing list