[cc-licenses] Use Value vs Sale Value of Creative Works

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed May 31 07:13:40 EDT 2006

On Wednesday 31 May 2006 04:31 am, rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com>:
> > Which people, groups, companies, industries use the sorts of works we are
> > interested in funding as tools rather than as goods for sale?
> Use rather than sale:
> Music: clubs, restaurants and other public places. 

They don't even have to be all that public do they? If a company pipes music 
onto the shop floor for the employees, don't they need a license?

So, does anyone have any ideas on what costs they incur if they do things by 
the book? Can we imagine a way for them to save money by funding the creation 
of copyleft music that they could use to replace the ARR music and save on 
the use fees?

> Stations, shops and 
> other business places. 

Right, for both the customer spaces and for the employee (non-customer places) 

Again, same question really.

> Radio, TV, cinema and other broadcast or derivative 
> contexts. 

And movies.

As a thought on license tweaking. What if you got rid of the aggregation idea 
for music. Then you offered a third off to any radio station where they 
played only BY-SA music during any hour. (For that hour's license fee.) And a 
half off for any day where they play only BY-SA music.) Whatever. I am 
willing to discuss possible effects of something like this. I do say that 
this is a good idea, I wonder about such things though.

> Any live performance. 

Right, including theatre and concerts. This is where musicians become users of 
their own and each others works for their use value.

Same question in each case. Can any of these players save money by funding the 
creation of copyleft works which they can use in place of ARR works?

Also, if musicians get into the game more for fame and thrills than for money, 
could the BY-SA route make things easier for them?

Lastly, considering how the game is currently played at the top, as opposed to 
how we theoritically say copyright works, would they actually retian more of 
they value in their own works by playing under a different set of rules?

> Art: Museums, company lobbies, hospitals. And any artist-in-residence
> schemes. Any live performance.

Do any of these pay use fees to display works of art in public? Anywhere in 
the world? (Where the fees go to the artists themselves? Or the copyright 
holders? As opposed to the owners of the physical objects which would be more 
like traditional rent.)

> Literature: readings in public or on radio.

OK, public performance fees. I am under the impression that libraries in some 
parts of the world also pay royalties in order to be able to loan out books. 
Is this the case or am I mistaken?
> Music in particular benefits from use revenue from the various performance
> and transmission rights and licenses.
> Art in particular benefits from patronage and the service model.
> Conceptual art
> is particularly good for "installation fees". :-)
> - Rob.

all the best,

Record a song and you might win $1,000.00

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list