[cc-community] [cc-licenses] Thoughts on new wording RE collection societies etc.

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Jan 28 16:27:51 EST 2008

On Monday 28 January 2008 15:02:35 Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On 1/28/08, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > On Monday 28 January 2008 05:52:49 Paul Keller wrote:
> > > The CS will not take as a member if you allow
> > > commercial uses of your music for free (which BY or BY-SA).
> >
> > No problem. But they would be collecting royalties that were rightfully
> > mine for the use of my music and I could set about raising whatever
> > amount of sting I wanted to get them to give me my share as a non-member
> > or to take me as a member on my terms.
> Is there any use case for Drew's suggestion? It seems that EU
> collecting societies are clearly not a use case. 

Well, as you can see here:


Gisle Hannemyr claims that what I am concerned about is the case for Norway 
and she thinks it also applies to Sweden and Denmark as well - and maybe even 
Finland and Iceland.

From my informal asking around here in the Bahamas, I think it may apply to us 
as well. I know PRS give blanket licenses. You don't get discounts if you 
play some songs that you have a seperate license for.

I can see if a friendly lawyer can give me a better answer.

I would certainly appreciate hearing from other places.

Would this be a good time to make up a table?

> Another way of 
> putting it: is there any compulsory collection of fees in the world
> that would happen anyway regardless of the public license waiver of
> such fees and from which the rightsholder would not automatically be
> excluded from by use of a Free license?
> Please followup on cc-community. I suspect this is a long-winded
> discussion that should be concluded before coming back here with
> something concrete for CC licenses. Anyone on cc-community who wants
> to read the thread so far, see
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2008-January/thread.html#628
> I let these last two emails through to cc-licenses because they
> directly talk about proposed changes to CC licenses, but as above, I
> think the tangential use case discussion needs to happen on
> cc-community.
> > > i do not think that the wording of the unported licenses is currently
> > > up for discussion (unless i have missed something, but i think in that
> > > case you need to talk to someone from CC HQ anyway).
> >
> > Hey, what's done is done. Not an issue. The 3.0 licenses are released.
> > But why can't it be fixed for 3.x?
> Suggestions for future versions of the license are welcome, keeping in
> mind that versioning may be in the very distant future -- but not
> impossibly distant, see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7888
> -- of which more input is welcome on.
> Mike

all the best,


More information about the cc-community mailing list