[cc-community] Copyright enforcement and CC BY-NC licenses
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sat Aug 2 13:48:29 EDT 2008
On Saturday 02 August 2008 13:27:15 Fred Benenson wrote:
> > Are you reading the US port?
>
> Yes, I am.
Cool. Hencs some of the confusion I think.
>
> > 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.
I am still waiting to hear from others to be sure I got things right, but I
think we may be making progress.
>
> > > 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?
Something like that.
The way it probably should work is for a CS to set a yearly percentage rate
based on revenue and assuming all music played is theirs.
Then in cases where there are multiple CSes, you would give each their fees
reduced to match the actual percentage of their music played and not assuming
the 100%. (Is that wording clear?) Then if you played music for which you
would not have to pay a CS to use, you would actually save some money. This
could be considered a marketing adantage for those using such licenses...
>
> > > 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
all the best,
drew
More information about the cc-community
mailing list