[cc-community] Copyright enforcement and CC BY-NC licenses

Fred Benenson fred.benenson at gmail.com
Sat Aug 2 13:27:15 EDT 2008


> Are you reading the US port?


Yes, I am.


> Because while I think ASCAP amd BMI will not
> collect for you if you are not a member, I think that in some places, a
> collecting society collects for you whether you like it or not and you
> cannot
> get your share unless you sign up as a member and agree to their
> restrictions. I think this is where some of the objections arise.


This was not clear to me.


>
> >
> > If you've signed up with a collecting society (say ASCAP) then you've
> > aligned their interests with yours, or vice versa. You've essentially
> said:
> > please find those circumstances in which I should be remunerated and
> > collect fees, then distribute them to me proportionally (ignoring how the
> > obvious liquidity of the definition of "proportionally" is) to my work's
> > popularity.
> >
> > And then you go home and release those works under BY-NC.
>
> Also, for instance, from what I understand about how PRS works here, a
> radio
> station for instance, pays a percentage of total revenue in order to have
> rights to the music. Enev if that station were to play 25% BY and BY-SA
> music, for which no royalties should be due, the contract works in such a
> way
> that there would be no reduction in fees and so no monetary benefit to the
> station for playing the BY and BY-SA works over BY-NC or even ARR works.
> This
> is not an equitable situation in my mind.


I appreciate your observation here but I'm at a loss at how it can be
remedied -- would ASCAP have to pro-rate subscriptions based on percentages
of non-collectable works played?


>
> >
> > I don't really see why this is so inconsistent -- to the extent that
> > collecting societies were instantiated to protect artists rights in
> > situations where their work was being exploited commercially (see: plays
> > over radio and public venues), then why complain that they're acting
> > against your wishes?
>
> They act against your wishes, for instance, in places where they can by law
> collect for all music, members and non-members alike, but only pay out to
> members. I have always understood that there are places like this. Am I
> wrong?


Again, I was assuming US jurisdiciton and you were not.





>
> >
> > In other words, if you want to release under NC but you don't want a
> > collecting society making money off of your work, then why bother with a
> > collecting society in the first place?
> >
> > Don't sign up; because you can't have your cake (royalty payments from a
> > CS) and eat it too (the desire for them not to collect money when you're
> > releasing a work gratis).
> >
> > > Why?  Well, I'm assuming "look no waiver" was added to pacify the
> > > collection
> > > societies and their signed up professional musicians who were persuaded
> > > in the early days of CC to release stuff into the pool for remixing via
> > > ccMixter et al.
>
> Is the no waiver even in the NC licenses? It is in BY-SA.
> >
> > The "waiver" was added to make CC licenses compatible with collecting
> > societies. It makes it possible to release under CC and still be a member
> > of one. Do you object to this?
> >
> > >  NC protected their work from commercial "leaks", yet still
> > > offered them a slice of the payment for radio/blog/youtube play etc.
> (as
> > > a contributor).
> >
> > I'm not understanding your objection here.
> >
> > > The double-sided sticky irony :
> > >
> > > Whenever I release under NC and a small radio station plays my work,
> they
> > > have to pay the collection society irrespective of me being registered
> or
> > > not.  The collection society then keeps the money (*cough* shares the
> > > money with their artists).  I cannot opt out of this or waiver the
> fees,
> > > or even re-route the collected fees to a charity of my choice without
> > > becoming a fee-paying signed up member of the society....which is a
> > > commercial "merry go round" if ever there was one.
> > >
> > > A musician wanting a truly "money-free" license, where there's no
> > > commerciality guaranteed end-to-end (unless negotiated with him/her
> > > directly) AFIK cannot use any of the CC licenses.  He/she will be
> guided
> > > towards NC as the solution by the various automated systems and general
> > > advice and away from SA licenses which are maybe more suitable for
> > > his/her purpose.
> >
> > If you don't like NC and you don't like collecting societies collecting
> on
> > your behalf, then there is a very simple option: choose neither.
>
> Ahain, as I understand, some people do not have this option where they
> live.
> >
> >
> >
> > F
> >
> > > Sorry if this slightly moved things off topic.
> > >
> > > Kev
> > >
> > > > xan
> > > >
> > > > jonathon
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080803/71387e11/attachment.htm 


More information about the cc-community mailing list