[cc-community] BY-SA license in the UK has non-waivered collection society fees?
Kevin Phillips (home)
tacet at qmpublishing.com
Sun Aug 17 17:09:42 EDT 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Hancock" <hancock at anansispaceworks.com>
To: <cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-community] BY-SA license in the UK has non-waivered
collection society fees?
> Kevin Phillips (home) wrote:
>> As I've mentioned before (in other threads) it kind of makes more sense
>> to
>> my simple mind that an SA license is non-waivered,
>
> Too many negatives!
I did warn you ;) My simple mind tripped us both up in this instance, I was
talking of the US/Unported
SA which is waivered (contains a waiver - see 3f in the license), where NC
is not (has no waiver).
Sorry, one too many non's.
My mind wasn't in the UK whilst making that point ;)
> So, "non-waivered" mean "does not waive the author's monopoly on to
> commercial exploitation"?
US/Unported SA waiver means the licensor isn't expecting their CS to
collect.
NC clearly states otherwise, as does the UK SA.
Again, sorry for the "non" too many.
> So, you approve of the UK By-SA license that you posted if it has the
> effect of allowing one to collect collecting society income?
I don't approve or or disapprove, I was merely bringing this out in the
open, as this whole CS
topic is something of a hot issue. Particularly when it's suggested the SA
license (US/Unported)
waiver may be ignored, because of the way the collection societies work.
>> because I see it as a
>> "commercially open" license more so than NC. My understanding of SA is
>> that
>> you (the next in the chain) need to share alike otherwise you need a
>> different license or agreement from me, the author (and other authors
>> along
>> the chain). If remix my music and you do share alike your remix, there's
>> no
>> restictions on you making money through ad streams or some other cunning
>> route. Right? Well that seems like a whole lot more enterprise friendly
>> than an NC release :) Yet the US & unported SA license contain the
>> waiver.
>
> Okay, now I'm confused again. Yes SA certainly allows any recipient to
> commercially exploit the work. It wouldn't be a "free" license if it
> didn't.
No, you're not confused, we agree :)
> Whether that is more "commercially open" or not depends on who you are.
> If you are the original rights-holder and you wish to use your monopoly
> on either copying or commercial exploitation to make money from the
> work, then the SA license is not going to help you do that. OTOH, if you
> are a recipient of the work and want to use it to make money (say by
> distributing it alongside ads) then it does help.
>
> In the end, I would have to say that both NC and SA licenses can be
> "commercially friendly", but to different sorts of businesses.
>
> It's probably just confusing to try to decide on one or the other being
> "more commercially friendly". You really need to think in terms of whose
> PoV you are taking and what strategy they are going to adopt.
>
If I own the work out right then I can do what I like. This is my PoV
sometimes as a licensor when granting others less commercial opportunity
by slapping on an NC license. That doesn't stop me selling the work,
it's mine. If I choose instead an SA license then I'm slightly more open to
folks making a living, as long as they share alike.
So IMHO with NC I monopolise things, with SA I'm being a little bit more
commerce friendly.
However, my PoV most of the time is neither of these. I remix a lot
of stuff from other folks who have already applied a license to the work.
99% of the time that's an NC license.
As is, that's a big restriction on what I can do with my resulting remixes
by
way of making a living, or beer money (being realistic). If they'd have
licensed SA I'd have no problem running google ads and keeping my
remixes SA for the podcasters and stations who also run ads.
Therefore, I see SA as being more commercially open, and that's open
as in "to options" not as in "free".
> Also I really must insist that we use the word "monopoly" rather than
> "rights" -- it's really important to make the distinction: SA gives you
> all kinds of "rights", but it doesn't give much "monopoly". OTOH, NC
> does give you a "monopoly", but is short on some "rights".
Well, this is where the problems start when you have differences in
jurisdictions which are as fundemental as CS alignment.
SA becomes much more like the NC license when there's no waiver (in the UK).
>> I would have thought with this in mind for instance, a popular group
>> might
>> want to experiement with SA, knowning that they'll at least be paid via
>> their CS if their songs become popular enough to gain internet/radio
>> play.
>> It seems to me that NC has too many restrictions for such cunning
>> enterprise.
>
> Not really ... if you have to go the collecting society route, then you
> are outside of the restrictions of the license anyway. At that point,
> you are using the work under a separate (perhaps implicit) license, and
> not the CC license at all. So it hardly matters which license you used.
Im curious to explore the combination of SA and CS.
More small bands might sign up to a CS if they think they are going to
make back their annual subscription, at the very least.
IF they release their work under SA, then an ad-sponsered station might
play them, or a podcast and do so within the scope of the parameters
their CC license.
It's a lot of maybes. However if they release NC, the ad-sponsored
station or podcaster can't even look at playing them within the terms
of their NC license, and so would have to re-negotiate another license.
NC+CS seems paradoxical to me.
> The advantage to By-NC is it clearly forbids the radio play on
> commercial stations unless such an extra license is used (which in turn
> implies that the collecting society would have to be paid for the extra
> license). With By-SA it's not so clear that the station would have to
> pay anything (it's quite possible that the airplay can occur under the
> By-SA license).
>
>> Here in the UK the CS organisations seem to be very much pulling strings
>> as
>> far as the law is concerned. It took me unawares but really doesn't
>> surprise me that the waiver isn't there in the UK license.
>
> Not sure what you mean by that. Do you imagine that the CSs had an
> impact on the writing of the UK version of the CC license? That seems
> just a little improbable to me, as CSs don't seem to approve of By-SA in
> general. But I may just be misunderstanding your point here. Also, I
> don't live in the UK, so I may have some wrong ideas about the UK
> politics.
PRS and their ilk are famous for their lobbying power here. Government
write the laws, the courts uphold those laws for the good of us commoners
apparently. "Rights" are complex laws here designed to provide a
monopolistic framework, as you state.
I imagine the CSs and the law were both considered, if not consulted.
Kevin
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
> --
> Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
> Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
>
More information about the cc-community
mailing list