Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Tuesday 04 April 2006 05:19 am, Gary (AUDN) wrote:
> Yes some great comments here.
>
> If I can answer/address a few points.
>
> Rob said: "Musicians could release a closed version of the track as a promo
> and an NC version of the track for online advertising/ remixing. I think. I
> am not a lawyer, though."
>
> The commercial bodies such as PRS/MCPS/PPL and USA versions I believe put a
> clause which means these artists are not allowed to release the odd track
> under another license such as a CC one. They are trying to monopolize the
> market.
>
> Rob and Greg made the point that what is the difference between someone
> "selling" the track via podcasts etc, and "selling" the track on a CD.
>
> What I think is missing, is a license that allows the INDIRECT commercial
> benefit of the tracks. Podcasts or internet radio which charge to listen or
> download are obviously breaching this. Putting the music in a "free"
> Podcast is not "distributing it" in this sense. In fact you could add a
> clause to say the music must be "spoken over" with a credit if the artist
> was worried about this. It is an entertainment medium, not a distribution
> medium.

I have often wondered about the effectiveness of a living human, retail only 
license. (Since I am me, tacked onto some copyleft type thing. ~;-)

Only people (ok and sole proprietorships) get the license. Partnerships, 
corporations, everything else, no.

They can only operate commercially on the retail level.

The thing is, we have these desires, but to express them cleanly in a license 
which is not open to easy abuse is difficult. This is why I think NC is so 
problematic. Everyone has these shadings of meaning in their mind when 
thinking of what they want NC to do for them.


Honestly, what I encourage everyone who legally ca to do is to release at 
least one of their better tracks as BY-SA and see where it gets them. Unless 
you see yourself as a one hit wonder, chalk it up to advertising and 
promotioon costs.

Or hey, start with someone elses BY-SA stuff and try to improve it. That way 
you are not setting free any of your original works.
>
> This is mutual benefit. The artist essentially wants to make money from
> their tracks, they want to have money to tour, advertise and buy new
> guitars or simply to be able to leave their job and make an income from
> their art. Even if the broadcaster makes money via advertising, this is not
> really "making money from the track" - well even if it is, the money made
> is payment for the exposure the artist is getting for the track.
> The artist WOULD NOT release all of their tracks under this license. This
> is key. The artist gets exposure, people want more, they visit the website
> and buy the album.
>
>
> The podcaster or internet radio person wants to make money too. How many
> podcasts die out or internet stations are limited in bandwidth? 

Peercast and other p2p streaming apps could be of some help.

> The money 
> is needed so that more time and money can be spent on the venture. It's the
> only way people can even dream of competing with the multi-million pound
> corporations.

That human with a pulse license fits in nicely here.
>
> I think what makes people angry is abusing the system, people making lots
> of money off of someone elses creations. 

So now we need an artist income limit clause. Artist states his income, you 
are free to profit from his work so long as you make less than him. If you go 
over, any profits must be split 50/50. (Then how do you stop "creative 
accounting?" Bend and shape clause to your liking.

> People are also angry about the 
> big corporations and how everything commercial is so bland.
>
> Greg: CC-BY-ND would not provide the artists enough protection.
>
> Terry: I agree!
>
> This would be a license for "small businesses" - hey you could even put
> this into the clause somehow. This is putting power back to the cottage
> industries.

Human with a pulse, retail / single market only. (Hey, no online while we are 
at it.)
>
> In a year or so time, we will have so many people making mediocre podcasts
> from shoestring budgets that the public will get bored. The commercial
> corporations will watch what is successful and steal the best ideas - but
> steamroller the original guys with advertising and hype. Like they always
> do.
> (There are some excellent podcasts out there, but how long will they last
> before they want to become commercial in some way. And why not, if it keeps
> the podcast running).
>
> Greg: If the license became so common place that most record labels were
> using it on their music, I think that secondary sites, which could allow
> downloads of the music for no direct costs and make their money on
> advertising, and direct sales would drop
>
> I would like to see the license common place, but NOT all tracks would be
> on the license. This would stimulate sales of CDs/downloads. Hey it's like
> having a trial version of software, "try before you buy".
> Plus - musicians make money from loads of other sources, merchandise and
> tours.

Again, if you are not going to do all tracks under this license, try BY-SA 
and 
write the losses off to advertising and promotion.

You still have possibilities for income even with this generous a license. If 
you had a hugh hit and the big record companies made a mint from your track, 
some movie mogul might want it for his big budget blockbuster soundtrack. 
Unless you expect to see a big budget blockbuster come out with a BY-SA 
license anytime soon, you are golden.
>
> Greg: It'd be nice if everyone was on the same page as to what, exactly,
> CC-NonCommercial meant before we went off and tried to create
> Yet-Another-Incompatible-License-Option.
>
> Couldn't agree more. It's too fuzzy.
> Websites like podsafeaudio.com are great, but as podcasts become more
> commercial it makes a complete folly of the CC-NC license.

Here is another good wish towards a commonly understood NC option.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Greg London
> Sent: 04 April 2006 03:50
> To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Creative commons for music
>
> > On the contrary, I'd say it's very different: There's a lot of
> > difference between "indirect" profit from the free sharing
> > of a work and "direct" profit by controlling the distribution
> > of the work.
>
> It'd be nice if everyone was on the same page as to what,
> exactly, CC-NonCommercial meant before we went off and
> tried to create Yet-Another-Incompatible-License-Option.
> I can just imagine the CC-IN debate over the license
> that would allow INdirect commercial use, but not direct
> commercial use, and it makes my head hurt. Just thinking
> about the NC definition makes my head hurt enough that
> I've avoided further reading of CC's NC questionaire.
>
> > In fact, I think there's probably a lot of people who wouldn't
> > care about the indirect profit issue as long as they could
> > retain a monopoly on selling CDs or whatever medium they
> > chose (or on per-track download fees).
>
> Except the person who originally brought up this idea
> was talking about a "license for the record companies".
> And when you look at it that way, the license doesn't scale.
> If the license became so common place that most record
> labels were using it on their music, I think that
> secondary sites, which could allow downloads of the music for
> no direct costs and make their money on advertising,
> and direct sales would drop.
>
> (1) Go to www.majorrecordlabel.com and pay 80 cents
> for a download or
> (2) Go to www.musicondemand.com and get the song at no cost.
>
> as it is, I subscribed to Rhapsody almost a year ago,
> for a flat fee of $8 a month, and I can listen to all
> the music I want to hear there. I'm assuming that some
> of my money is going back to the record company, and then
> a small sliver of that is making its way to the artist.
>
> But if Rhapsody could give the music away for free
> while making money on various advertising angles,
> I'm sure they'd figure a way to make the numbers add up,
> maybe use Peer-To-Peer networking to share the bandwidth
> and storage among the various users or some such thing.
>
> The short of it being that if everyone licensed their
> work to allow anyone to make indirect profit, then
> I don't see direct profit having much of an income
> potential.
>
> If nothing else, fans could host their favorite music,
> and then a decent search engine could find the music
> for free rather than go to the Record Label page and
> pay for it. Yes, people could buy the work as a way
> of giving alms, but if that argument were to scale,
> then you could simply license the work CC-BY, let folks
> sell it, and then wait for your true fans to come to
> your site and give you money to keep playing.
>
> Greg
>
> btw: everything I say here is wrong
>
> > But clearly this is not the meaning of the current NC clause.
> >
> > Terry
> >
> > --
> > Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
> > Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145