Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

Eric Garner wrote:
> Real-world uses for the CC-licensing structure seem pretty obvious, but
> sometimes answers lead only to more questions:
> 
> There seems to be some confusion in the blogosphere as to whether
> CC-licensed (aka "podsafe") content offers an alternative library to
> webcasters who won't be able to afford the new SoundExchange payments
> conceived last month. How does CC-licensed content fit into in this
> scheme? I've been following this matter since the announcement of the
> new royalty structures by the CRB last month, and there seems to be an
> assumption that podsafe music will be able to fill the void if
> webcasters are unable to continue using their current libraries. There
> is also some concern that podcasting, which is currently unaffected by
> the CRB ruling, may be next in line for regulatory action.
> 
> As a musician, am I correct to assume that CC-licensing my music places
> it into a body of work residing outside the reach of the CRB and
> SoundExchange for purposes of webcasting? As a podcaster, am I safe to
> assume that my sticking with podsafe, CC-licensed music will is enough
> to satisfy any future regulations which might be in store for this medium?

My understanding is yes.  The CRB system applies only where the
performer has refused permission.  Where the perform has granted
permission, as though a CC license, the terms of the deal are whatever
the performer and webcaster have agreed to.  In the case of a CC
license, those terms are often "go right ahead!"

As for future podcasting regulations, no one knows what Congress will
come up with, but it seems safe to assume for the time being that using
CC-licensed music will continue to be a safe route.

This is not legal advice, etc.

James