Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Douglas Boyce <douglasboyce AT comcast.net>]

actually, such a license if very relevant, though in a very different
community than one which is generally being addressed by creative commons,
the 'classical' new or contemporary music community

the most common way that contemporary classical is exchanged is not in
digital form, but on the printed page.  thus, licenses that expressly allow
the mechanical reproduction of the printed score are extremely helpful and
allows for a more free exchange of  cultural content.  [ most photo-repro
places (kinko's, et c.) will not let you reproduce musical scores without
written permission from the 'publisher', even if there is no such
organization - i've even been stopped from copying my own works(!) ]

recordings of 'concert' works are not functionally a part of the economics
of performance, though they are exchanged as a convenient way to make
performers aware of a new work.  there are few points in the cc-licenses
that account for the fact that sound files are not the only way in which
music is disseminated; a license specifically dealing with the role of the
score (and the score only) would be very helpful.

the licenses geared to the distribution/reproduction of digital recording
are great, but it should be noted that relationship between performer and
composer is very different in these communities than in many other musical
communities.  composers often work with performers on just one project, and
not all performers will have the same interest in copyleft that some of us
do, and so, as a composer, it is not with in my rights to say that 'all
recordings of my music will be released under a particularly open license.'
the collection of mechanical reproduction residuals is a major part of many
performers economic reality and mindset;  to not receive those royalties for
recorded work is a big leap for many of them to make, and could easily feel
to them like 'studio work' which for many performers is a real slap in the
face. (why that's the case is a much bigger question, having to do with
education, and the history of the record business, and this post seems long
enough)

so a separate license that deals with the distribution of the print score
would be very helpful, but would need to be fairly limited in scope since it
would, down the road, interact with other peoples rights as performers.  to
my mind, a 'commercial performance' license would be very helpful to
advancing cc and copyleft models of behavior in a community that currently
has remained very resistant (or unaware) of them, and would give performers
freedom to do what they can, and make as much money as they can with the
piece.  adding contact info and a note that the performance limitation is
easily waived works, but is a bit inelegant.

contemporary chamber music performers have some very particular issues to
consider.  all of this on this list know about the extortion of money from
concert venues by the various performance royalty collection agencies.  one
solution that very small venues use is to not present 'new' (non-public
domain) music, and stick to Beethoven Bach and Brahms, or all performances
with contemporary music are given on a 'suggested donation' model.  the last
system works ok, but generates practical problems, especially since many
smaller venues that mostly deal with public domain repertoire (Beethoven,
Brahms, et c) well not let you present a concert on a suggested donation,
since they often take a cut of the door as part of the hall rental
agreement.  also remember that this model means that these agencies take
money from the performers (through the venues), take a cut, and try to give
it back to me even if i didn't want them to take it from the performer in
the first place.  this system is deeply deeply entrenched, and i dont' think
there's a silver bullet to make it go away, but some performances of all
cc-licensed music with all revenue going directly to the performers is for
me and interesting start to reworking the system.

also, it should be noted that there is no cash cow, either from performance
or recordings.  for the vast majority of composers of this kind of music,
what little money is made by composers generally comes from commissions,
which have absolutely no bearing on performance (or recording) rights
(though there are sometimes 'exclusivity' clauses in commission, giving
certain performers exclusive rights for a finite period of time.

so, anyway, that's why i first posted that question; there might simply be
too few people involved in this sub-domain of classical music to start/have
this conversation ‹ it sure is surely part of an incremental approach to
deploying some of these ideas in a different context, but if people have
other ideas about how to refashion the economics of classical performance
from the ground up, i'd love to hear them.