Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Gary (AUDN)" <gary AT audn.net>]

Yes I kindof agree.

Although I think your scenario is definitely feasible, I'm not sure how many artists are realistically going to get their "big break" this way - especially with the state of commercial radio.

 

In the UK at least, and I'm sure in the USA too, the commercial radio stations pay a lot of money on a "blanket music license" which gives them an absolutely huge selection of artists already.

To play an artist who is not part of this system, and possibly incur additional royalty fees is not particularly likely. It is more likely the discovered artist would get a contract with a standard record label and become "part of the system".

 

If I wanted to start an internet radio station in the UK and use "standard music", then my license fees, per year, if I had only 100 regular listeners, work out at around 1000 GBP (1700 USD)!!! (I would need to make 3000 GBP from these 100 listeners just to break even).

See http://www.mediauk.com/article/1 for more info if you are interested.

 

Basically, the dominant licensing companies currently favour the large corporations and (certainly in the UK) it has made it financially unviable for small companies to even run small internet radio stations or podcasts.

 

There is a huge opportunity for artists and independent/small internet radio stations to make a stand against this "manufactured" industry - and make money whilst doing it.

 

However after some discussion on here, I do not think the Creative Commons licenses as they are currently structured will be the savior. The greatest selection of music tracks is available NC only.

I think the likely next step would be for someone to create a cheaper music licensing system for smaller companies, using artists who are currently releasing tracks through CC. This way, artists will be paid modestly and "internet radio" companies can exist!

I think we need to take a pragmatic approach here. Even the well respected "Radio Paradise" is a for-profit venture.

 

I guess I am basically saying that the music licensing companies have monopolised the market. They favour the large companies because it keeps them dominant.

I believe there is a need for competitive licensing organization(s) which favours the small companies, and with this mechanism in place, internet radio can flourish and take the artists with them.

 

 

 

>Greg wrote:

>Music Mike records some tracks. He licenses one of them

>CC-BY-NC-ND. Fans pass the track around via email and their

>webpages, and it becomes viral. It eventually comes to the

>attention of Radio Rick who is a DJ and who wants to play

>the song on their commercial station. If the work is CC-BY,

>with a URL that points to license information and contact

>information, then Rick can get ahold of Mike and ask him if

>he'd be willing to allow him to play the song over commercial

>airspace.

> 

>You don't need this license to allow people to broadcast

>your music for indirect commercial profit. The lack of the

>license is not the gating factor. The gating factor is getting

>a work that's viral enough that some commercial place wants

>to play it. And if they want to play it, and you licensed

>it CC-BY-NC-ND, they should be able to click through to your

>attribution URL, get your contact information, and email you

>for permission to broadcast your work without paying you,

>if that's what you're willing ot allow them to do.

> 

>Some things don't get solved by a license because the lack of

>the license is not the cause of the problem. This is one of

>those situations.