[cc-community] CC license for download music

Kevin Phillips (home) tacet at qmpublishing.com
Sun Jun 1 05:53:02 EDT 2008


Hi Lucas,

Just like many people reading this list I'm an enthusiastic supporter of CC 
rather than a lawyer, but as music is my thing I have more than a passing 
interest in the outcome of this conversation.  Drew is correct, it's 
something that keeps returning to the discussion pot, and we really should 
get to the bottom of it.  I'd personally like to see something on the CC 
wiki which deals with these issues right down to the nitty gritty, the 
current information resources seems a little vague.  Whenever we discuss 
elements of this (on this list) we never seem to reach a conclusion, even 
when a lawyer chips in there's often a difference of opinion.  From what I 
understand of it, the lawyers really need test cases to be certain, until 
then it's also just their opinion....though qualified, hopefully :)

I think there's a couple of things going on here for starters which need 
individual attention  :

1) Defenition of a "work", specifically and conclusively.
        - does a work (in the cc license) relate to a "recording" or 
instance  (ie. a copy) or an "idea" or lineage (ie. like a patent) ?

2) The differences between  the right to copy a cc "work" and its 
performance rights (ie. the right to perform or play the work in public)
        - which aspects are effected and covered by the cc licenses and what 
effect this has on the collection society model
        - the right to cover

It would probably be a lot easier to get our collective heads around this if 
the "work" was/is indeed the specific end-stage recording.  However, I tend 
to agree with the folks who have suggested the "work" is the actual lineage, 
because of the nature of the cc license and it's intention to promote a 
re-use and re-mix culture. As an example, imagine if you were kind enough to 
have one of your bands release an acapella vocal and multi-track 
instrumentation for one of their songs. You send me a copy for me to use 
under a BY license, I then re-mix and re-use these samples in three of my 
own songs.  Each of my three songs I credit your band as per the license 
(BY) and subsequently a producer remixes two of my three songs, crediting me 
(BY) and your band (BY).  So the attribution is all to do with lineage so 
far, but what about the original recordings you provided?  In the sense of 
them being 1's and 0's in the FLAC files you supplied - a copy - they're 
long gone.  I've transposed, edited, and transformed them into my own works, 
the producer even more so with his.  So much so that he could probably pass 
them off as his own, just like the infamous Amen Break by The Winstons 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_Break).  He doesn't even have to be 
mean-spirited, he'd just need to have a different opinion of what 
consititutes his sampling "freedoms".

These are more my curiosities than yours right now, if your bands "works" 
are complete songs (which are never to be released as individual multi-track 
exports) then it's a lot easier for you to verify each "copy" by simply 
listening.  Any judge would side with you if it's obviously your band's 
song/work which has been re-mixed outside the scope or spirit of your 
license.

There are other complexities with "cover" versions of songs which stretch 
beyond the bounds of cc licensing, but which could have an impact on bands 
which are not registered with a performing rights society and releasing into 
the cc domain.  We've discussed this in the past and the potential of a 
signed band using their right to pay a pre-determined cover-fee and doing 
their own version of your band's song(s).  No attribution included.

Anyway, that's my 2p understanding of this.  I hope this helps further the 
discussion and open up a few more cans, welcome to worm-catchers R Us ;)

Kevin


-----------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lucas Gonze" <lucas.gonze at gmail.com>
To: <cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: [cc-community] CC license for download music


> I've been assuming that it covers the file, and the file alone, unless
> you say otherwise.  For example a different rip or encoding of the
> same underlying recording would not be covered, and a re-recording of
> the song would not be covered.
>
> If you want to cover the composition, recording, sample rights, etc
> you have to say so.
>
> best,
> Lucas
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Ed Pybus <ed at slrecords.net> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm wondering - if I make a track available for people to download for
>> free under a CC license is it the 'song' or the recording that I'm
>> issuing under a CC license.
>>
>> Would the band be able to re-record the track ie a new recording of the
>> same 'song' and would then this recording to be affected by the original
>> CC license?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------
>> S L    R E C O R D S
>> +44 (0) 131 466 2009
>> +44 (0) 7930 536 963
>> ed at slrecords.net
>> --------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> 



More information about the cc-community mailing list