Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Gisle Hannemyr <gisle AT ifi.uio.no>]

On 16.04.2012 14:38, zotz AT 100jamz.com wrote:
> Only because they insist on being exclusive.
> 
> Say I put two licenses on my song.
> 
> 
> 1. CC BY-SA
> 2. Some license crafted for my CS/PRO that they love.
> 
> 
> They can just ignore the BY-SA and enforce license #2. The ones I know
> about give blanket licenses for everything they license for a set
> percentage of revenue. (For example from a music playing oriented radio
> station.) So they just collect on license #2 from their licensees and
> give me my cut. People playing only Free Licensed music would not need
> to enter into a license with them and so they could not collect under
> #2. People playing a mix of Free and non-Free music would need to enter
> into a license with them and they could then collect on license #2.
> 
> Flaws in this thinking?

CS'/PROs are member-governed organisations, and allowing you do this
is not currently in the pecuniary interest of the majority of their
members.  Therefore they won't.  The majority insists on exclusivity
*because* they want to prevent members from using dual licensing.

It is not difficult to understand why:
If the pool of Free music becomes sufficiently large, more People
will opt for playing *only* Free Licensed music and don't need to
hold a blanket license.  This will reduce the total income for the
PRO/CS.  Since each member's payout at the end of the day comes out
of this income, most member's will not want this to happen.  There
are  some exceptions to this (as noted by Paul Keller), but the norm
is that the members of CS' and PROs thinks that their pecuniary
interests are best served by insisting on exclusivity as a condition
for membership.

At one point in this discussion, Diane Peters wrote:

   CC licenses, on the other hand, are non exclusive and can be used
   alongside other licensing models where those models so permit.
   For the most part, it's up to the creators to choose (or not)
   to participate in a collecting society that requires exclusivity.
   Ideally, we would like all creators to have the ability to choose
   our licenses if they think our licenses are right for them.  But
   there's nothing CC can do once exclusivity is the path chosen.

The above is correct.

However, the next sentence is not.

   No revision to the definition of NC itself or in the way CC
   licenses treat royalties can change the reality that where
   collecting societies take an exclusive assignment of rights,
   the creator is no longer able to use CC.

What this paragraph fails to recognise is that the creator does
not have to become a member of a collecting society to receive
payment for blanket license royalties.  And there is nothing that
prevents a *non-member* of a collecting society from using a
dual license.

This may sound like a weird thing to do.  However, in jurisdictions
with extended collective licenses, where Collecting Societies by
law are required to collect for non-members as well as members,
this *may* make sense (but currently, it does not - because the
CC contains a royalty-waiver clause which takes precedence over
any royalty-bearing license arrangement).

What I want is that the royalty-bearing licensee apply when the
licensee holds a *some* license that generates royalties, and
that the CC license should apply in all other cases.

The way I see it, it is up to CC to fix this.  My suggestion
is to say that *when* an extended collective license, or other
applicable blanket license, is held by the licensee, the right
to collect royalties is *not* waived by the Licensor. (But that
in the in the cases where the licensee does *not* hold an extended
collective license, or other applicable blanket license, the Work
is available for use under the CC public license.)

> Rob Myers wrote:
>> I can give you the right to freely use my work, or I can give the 
>> collecting society the right to collect fees from everyone who uses my 
>> work. I cannot do both at the same time...

Nobody is proposing that.

What is proposed is that I can give you the right to freely use my
work, *unless* you have entered into a blanket license agreement
with a collecting society.  Then I am entitled to my fair share of
whatever you pay the collecting society.

For avoidance of doubt: If you choose to *not* enter into a blanket
license agreement with a collecting society, you will have the right
to freely use my work.
-- 
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
    "Don't follow leaders // Watch the parkin' meters" - Bob Dylan