Creative Commons Polska

[Alek Tarkowski <alek.tarkowski AT creativecommons.pl>]

Ulrike Mahlmann z niemieckiego CC przeslala ciekawe sprawozdanie z 
imprezy, w ktorej uczestniczyla. W trakcie 75 minutowej dyskusji nad CC 
zostal m.in. poruszony temat OZZ. Dla mnie najwazniejszy jest wlasnie 
ten fragment - Ulrike pisze:
"In other Popkomm discussions, e.g., on podcasting, it became clear that 
GEMA remains firmly convinced that it must keep tariffs high, even if 
this means stifling the distribution of their authors’ music via new 
technologies completely. So they must be displeased with CC because CC 
music is in competition with their authors’ music. In the podcasting 
discussion, Jim Griffin, founder of the Pho group and mailing list, said 
that in the U.S. it is also impossible to obtain (valid) licenses for 
podcasting, so *podcasters can only use free music. However, he had 
ended up not even missing the non-free music…* "

pozdrowienia,

alek.

--
koordynator / Public Lead
Creative Commons Polska / Poland
http://creativecommons.pl

--- Begin Message ---

• From: "Ulrike Mahlmann" <Ulrike.Mahlmann AT gmx.de>
• To: cc-icommons AT lists.ibiblio.org
• Subject: [Cc-icommons] Issues raised at pop music conference: Collecting societies, warranty, NonCommercial, request for limited term license
• Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:08:19 +0200 (MEST)

Dear All,

This is a report on a CC workshop at Popkomm, an international conference on
pop music in Berlin, in September. I'd be interested in your comments on the
issues that were raised or on whether you think I could have made a better
argument on anything.

The event was moderated by Hubert Gertis of GertisMedia. Panelists were Dr
Martin Schaefer, former Bertelsmann executive and now a lawyer working in
free practice; Neil Leyton, International Director of the label Fading Ways
Music (CAN/GB); and myself (I stepped in on short notice for Christiane
Asschenfeldt, who had obtained the invitation). The audience consisted of
maybe 80 people, among them many from abroad.

My 15-minutes introductory presentation was followed by approximately 75
minutes of discussion and answers to questions from the audience.

The overall atmosphere was quite friendly. I was particularly pleased by Dr
Schaefer’s positive attitude. He said that Creative Commons was one of the
most positive and exciting things that had happened in the area of copyright
during the last years because it promoted a “This is what's permitted”
approach instead of the rigid “All rights reserved” approach.

The following issues were raised:


- How does one make money on CC-licensed music? Neil Leyton confirmed
that
his label was doing very well by distributing music online for free under
NC-SA and NC-ND licenses and selling the same music on CD. I said that
musicians might also consider CC-licensing only part of their repertoire or
publishing different versions of a work under different legal conditions,
and that we would like the collecting societies to collect for commercial
uses of NC-licensed music.

- Which leads straight to the problem of the (in)compatibility of
CC-licensing and membership in collecting societies (CSes), which was also
raised. In Germany, GEMA membership makes CC licensing of works impossible
because GEMA members are routinely required to assign all their rights in
all their works to GEMA. It may be possible to extract online rights from
their grip but that decision has to be made regarding all works, not just
individual works. This situation is unlikely to change in the short term.
(Unfortunately, nobody from GEMA was there. In other Popkomm discussions,
e.g., on podcasting, it became clear that GEMA remains firmly convinced that
it must keep tariffs high, even if this means stifling the distribution of
their authors’ music via new technologies completely. So they must be
displeased with CC because CC music is in competition with their authors’
music. In the podcasting discussion, Jim Griffin, founder of the Pho group
and mailing list, said that in the U.S. it is also impossible to obtain
(valid) licenses for podcasting, so podcasters can only use free music.
However, he had ended up not even missing the non-free music… As he’s
probably not the only one, this is bad news for CSes and the authors they’re
protecting… or patronizing?)
Neil Leyton said that he would like the Creative Commons organisation to
address the CS problem more actively. I said we’re working on it. He added
that the CSes will adapt to CC or die!


- The question of the “reliability of the CC label”, as someone put it
in a
rather peculiar way, was raised. Could a user be sure that anything under
CC, or anything found by the CC and Yahoo! search engines, was really
validly CC-licensed, i.e, that the person who had licensed it was really the
rights holder? (I get that question quite frequently here in Germany, are
others equally obsessed with it?) I said that there is no "CC label" in THAT
sense, that we don’t give any warranty
whatsoever and that it’s not our task to try to control this. I'm not sure
they understood that but they did see the problem of practical feasibility.
Nevertheless, several participants observed that if any problems arise for
users of CC-licensed works that turn out not be the property of the licensor
(whether or not the latter was acting in bad faith) it will be a serious
public relations problem for CC anyway.
I wonder if we should change the standard licenses as they are displayed on
the Net to include some info on the original licensor and possibly a short
declaration as to why he claims to have the necessary rights in the work and
who to contact for further information? Or should we just use another <sigh>
disclaimer?


- The workshop was full of fans of the NonCommercial licenses. As nobody
there questioned their usefulness we did not dicuss this but I'd like to add
a few thoughts on the recurring criticism of these licenses. I partly
understand the objections of those who think the NC-(and ND-) licenses are
not “free” enough. However, music is different from software. And I do not
think that the NC licenses make things actually worse, as has
sometimes been suggested. I think the NC licenses mostly give access to
content that would otherwise be locked away under All Rights Reserved. In
many cases the use of an NC license may also introduce a rights holder to CC
and over time he or she may understand the benefits of the licenses that
allow commercial use and the creation of derivatives. Furthermore, some
users of an
NC or ND license are not opposed to the use of their work without
remuneration as such but merely wish to remain in control and examine
applicants for more far-reaching uses one by one. I heard that Arte Radio,
the French-German radio, is an example for this.
I would suggest to encourage licensors to consider the advantages of
“freer” licenses than NC/ND, and to suggest that they indicate if, from whom
and under what
conditions it is possible to obtain a license for commercial use or for the
creation of derivatives if they do use an NC-ND license. Maybe that
information could be included in the metadata or be attached to a work in
such a way that the information travels with the work when it is
distributed?


- Quite a number of participants demanded an additional, even more
“restrictive” option: CC licenses valid for a limited term only. I said that
in any event that would appear to make sense only for NC-ND licenses for
practical reasons, and even for those I did not quite see why anyone would
need a CC license to make a work freely available only temporarily. However,
as they were very keen on it and kept asking if there was ANY chance of a
limited-term CC license being developed, I hereby forward the question to
you. The topic is obviously related to the question of why the licenses must
be irrevocable; I recall having seen a request for input on this topic on
this list recently.


Regards, Ulrike



--
GMX DSL = Maximale Leistung zum minimalen Preis!
2000 MB nur 2,99, Flatrate ab 4,99 Euro/Monat: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
_______________________________________________
Cc-icommons mailing list
Cc-icommons AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-icommons



--- End Message ---