Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Kevin Phillips (home)" <tacet AT qmpublishing.com>]

There are two conditions/scearios I've come across (personally and from
other musicians)

1) musician releases music to a community to have stuff remixed/shared under
no expectation usually under NC....because of the (possible false)
assumption that no large commercial entity can then "use" it.  In the
McDonalds example Eric gave, or in the real world example where a corporate
viral marketing campaign on YouTube used a ccMixter audio track and only
paid up after being outed by the YT community.

2) musician releases music generally to the net, blog space, or myspace - if
it's cc licensed then quite often it's an SA license because of the
(possible false) assumption that no large commercial entity can then "use"
it (as above).

In both instances (NC & SA) the musician IS covered by the "catch all" Sound
Exchange system for radio playback, if she/he's registered with SE at least.
Most folks aren't, so the way I understand it is that the payments go in
their general pot marked "misc royalty payments".

Initially some webcaster/podcasters assume because cc music is "free" it'll
help remove some of the burdon of payments under the new system.  However
when they look into it further they discover the SE catch all and dutifully
pay their fees or switch back to their (c) source material.

NC licensed music is a no-go area for most podcasters/webcasters because
they ultimately have to pay for their stream fees, the money usually comes
from click-thrus or banners, and NC licenses don't have any degrees of
tolerance for these things.

There are no license options for "I grant a no-compesation allowance for
podcasters or webcasters" in order to help them reduce their insane royalty
payments (and gain me some exposure).  I would tick that box, as long as it
wasn't a loop hole for ClearChannel.

Kev

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathon Blake" <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
<cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Is "podsafe" music affected by CRB rulings


> Eric wrote:
>
> > The issue of the NC license certainly does add an element of complexity
> > though. It's unfortunate because I'd bet most musicians who use NC just
want
> > to make sure a scenario like McDonald's using one of their tracks in a
> > commercial won't happen, not knowing about the difficulties this could
cause
> > a webcaster with a tip jar, to use a previously given example.
>
> Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems that musicians want a
> licence that allows their product to be streamed, but not synchronized
> unless a royalty payment is received. I'll grant that they probably
> don't want (insert nationwide radio station that plays in 5000 markets
> with 1 DJ pretending to be a local inhabitant of all of those markets,
> and runs 100 commercials an hour) playing their music.
>
> If that is the case, then writing a brand new licence just for audio
> is called for.
>
> xan
>
> jonathon
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>