Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam AT benfinney.id.au>]

Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no> writes:

> *Most* performance rights organizations and collecting societies
> insists on exclusive rights (i.e. you cannot do dual licensing).

[…]

> PROs are important and valuable members of the infrastructure that
> ensures public access to culture.

In a world where any copyright holder can promote their own material
without transferring their rights, it seems to me PROs are *not*
valuable for ensuring public access to culture.

If they are getting in the way of artists engaging the public (through,
e.g., Creative Commons licenses) then PROs remain important only to the
extent that they impede public access to culture. If they stop their
insistence on being gatekeepers, they might become valuable again.

I hope the trend continues of artists realising they don't need to sign
over a single right exclusively to any organisation in order to promote
their work to the public.

-- 
 \         “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, |
  `\   Brain, but why does a forklift have to be so big if all it does |
_o__)                           is lift forks?” —_Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney