Cc-uk mailing list

[Cory Doctorow <doctorow AT craphound.com>]

Hey, Ashlyn! It's hilarious to hear the MPA talking about its concern  
for artists' rights, given that it singlehandedly killed the special  
treaty on performers' rights at WIPO, and that virtually everyone  
involved in film production signs a work-for-hire contract!

Cory

On Feb 5, 2005, at 1:16 AM, Ashlyn Eaton wrote:

> Hello,
>   
> I run an independent record label based in London  
> (www.fadingways.co.uk) and we are a completely CC label. All of our  
> releases are under one of the CC licenses and our artists prefer this  
> and benifit from it. I work alongside a Canadian record label  
> (www.fadingways.com) and my Canadian business partner and I replied to  
> Music Week with the following email:
>  
> I am writing in grave concern of the gross misconceptions perpetuated
> by many in the current music business with regards to Creative Commons
> licenses.
>
> In the latest music week dated  05.02.05, an article on p.7. states:
>
> "MPA chief executive Sarah Faulder voices concern that young acts
> could 'give up everything for no money and irrevocably' in their
> keenness to be heard."
>
> We at Fading Ways Music have been using Creative Commons licenses
> (there is a range of licenses that artists can pick from based on
> their needs and wishes) for a year now; we are not "giving" anything
> away other than non-commercial rights; through the use of CC licenses
> we have garnered more fans and a much higher sales revenue than prior.
> It is a gross misconception that CC licenses means "giving everything
> for no money". The license we use, the CC
> Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, allows for fans'
> home-taping and P2P NON-commerci al distribution of our catalogue of
> works while enforcing the copyright over commercial usage. Creative
> Commons lincenses are a clarification of copyright, NOT an opposition
> to it.
>
> The article further states,
>
> "Patrick Rackow, barrister at Steeles Law, believes that the CC
> license is totally unnecessary . 'This is not an alternative to
> copyright,' he says. 'If people want to give their work away they have  
> always been able to do that.' "
>
> Like many others, Mr. Rackow not only misses the point but shames his
> legal capacity for understanding contracts - or just hasn't taken the
> time to know what he's talking about. While he is correct in pointing
> out that CC is not a copyright alternative, CC licenses clearly are
> NEEDED in today's marketplace for artists that believe home-taping and
> P2P file sharing is beneficial to our work and essential to our
> internet and street-team marketing. It is ludicrous to accept the
> present music b usiness industry model, which is incredibly stumped and
> outdated by the information highway, without looking at other ways to
> legally improve our business practices.
>
> I understand that many dinosaurs in the music biz are afraid of
> change; but why does MusicWeek have to propagate their campaign of
> misinformation and paranoia ("downloads hurt sales, etc.") without
> voicing the other side to this important issue?
>
> To add insult to injury, on p.26 of the same MusicWeek you quote David
> Ferguson,  who threatens, "A Creative Commons license is not just for
> Christmas- it's forever. You and the band will never earn one penny in
> publishing royalties from your creation"
>
> This is innacurate - our CC licenses retain all copyright over
> commercial airplay, film & TV rights, and other publishing
> explorations - our artists still get paid all these royalties.
> Furthermore, his comments on Prof. Lessig border on the libellous.
> Prof. Lessig i ssued a commercially published book that sold very well,
> but was ALSO available online for free downloads under a CC license.
> One does NOT preclude the other, whether it's under US, Canadian, or
> UK / European law.
>
> Why don't these "industry" experts talk instead about the EU
> parliament's IP Enforcement Directive, that will soon allow the majors
> to raid the houses of suspected downloaders and confiscate their
> computers? That, in my view, is a MUCH larger threat to both musicians
> and their fans - CC licenses may well prove to be the salvation of the
> music industry.
>
> Sincerely,
> Neil Leyton
> Label Director & Artist
> Fading Ways Records Ltd. (Canada)
> Fading Ways Music UK
> --  
> www.fadingways.co.uk
> www.fadingwaysmusic.com
> We have yet to receive a response, although I do expect one, as the  
> two pieces published in the latest Music Week could  potentially have  
> a damning effect on the spread of CC throughout the UK Music Industry.
>   
> Ashlyn Eaton
>  
> Label Director
> Fading Ways Music UK
> www.fadingways.co.uk
> 07764 575600
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. MUSIC WEEK CRITICISES CC (David M.Berry)
>    2. Re: MUSIC WEEK CRITICISES CC (Rob Myers)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 18:09:56 +0000
> From: David M.Berry <d.berry AT sussex.ac.uk>
> Subject: [Cc-uk] MUSIC WEEK CRITICISES CC
> To: cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <CF528D92-760E-11D9-BBD8-000A95B8FFFA AT sussex.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
> This is in Music Week this week...
>
> Thoughts comments?
>
> David
>
> ---
>
>
> Music Week 31st Jan-3rd Feb
>
> There has been a lot of talk about a new idea for copyright from across
>  the Atlantic from the US. We are told this is an idea that will
> revolutionise both culture and commerce on the internet and will create
> a new huge ‘public domain’ of ideas from which will spread a new
> renaissance. Sounds good? Not if you are involved in the music
> business.
>
> Originated by Stamford law professor Laurence Lessig, Creative Commons
> is a new series of licences that creators can attach to their work for
> internet distribution. But where is the commerce element? The answer is
> there isn’t any – the creator puts the work up for free and the only
> real right which he or she tries to enforce is the  right to have their
> name attached to the work.
>
> OK, I’ve pressed up 200 copies of my band’s demo and we’re looking for
> a deal, so I’m giving them away to everyone and I’ll stick a Creative
> Commons licence on them for our webpage and then when we get a deal
> we’ll cancel the licence, get an advance from ‘Super Publishing inc’
> and put out the album.
>
> Sorry, no. A Creative Commons licence is not just for Christmas, it’s
> forever. You and the band will never earn one penny in publishing
> royalties from your creation.
>
> Worse still, in 2012 when President Jeb Bush is running for
> re-election, he is going to use your anthem for world peace in his
> adverts to demonstrate how the world needs saving from snivelling
> pinkos like you and there is nothing you can do about it. Period.
>
> Prof. Lessig has not done enough research. His licences have some sort
> of value in the world of Academia, where a creator’s sole aim is to
>  distribute his ideas as widely as possible without any money changing
> hands. For the world of music they are a pointless and damaging
> distraction which undermine the concept of copyright and create huge
> difficulties for music writers now and in the future. Worst of all,
> they play into the hands of the big Telcos and ISPs who are all too
> happy to give away our music when they can.
>
> David Ferguson is chairman of the British Academy of Songwriters and
> Composers
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: text/enriched
> Size: 2258 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url :
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-uk/attachments/20050203/ 
> b67084f9/attachment-0001.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 18:39:08 +0000
> From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
> Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] MUSIC WEEK CRITICISES CC
> To: cc-uk <cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <613887f8011b664faa18f24c05dcec94 AT mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;
>  format=flowed
>
> On 3 Feb 2005, at 18:09, David M.Berry wrote:
>
> > This is in Music Week this week...
> >
> > T houghts comments?
>
> Must be a slow news week. :-)
>
> I look forward to Ferguson's thoughts on how demos destroy bands 
> chances of getting a recording contract, how bootlegs destroy  
> fanbases, 
> and how live shows reduce album sales.
>
> Let's step through the mistakes.
>
> > We are told this is an idea that will revolutionise both culture and 
> > commerce on the internet and will create a new huge ‘public domain’
> of 
> > ideas from which will spread a new renaissance.
>
> It's a commons. Copyright is retained and, with CC's licenses, 
> regulated. Public domain is a specific legal term, one that the music 
> industry has recently demonstrated it has no respect for.
>
> > Sounds good? Not if you are involved in the music business.
>
> But what if you're a musician?
>
> > But where is the commerce element?
>
> Enabling noncommercial previewing and sharing of work, enabling bands 
> to build publicity. Allowing sampling without huge lawsuits.  
> Reassuring 
>  consumers that they can use content they pay for. Protecting bands  
> from 
> studio-system licenses!
>
> > The answer is there isn’t any – the creator puts the work up for  
> free 
> > and the only real right which he or she tries to enforce is the  
> right 
> > to have their name attached to the work.
>
> Which license does Ferguson have in mind? Or has he not read enough to 
>  know that there is more than one license?
>
> > OK, I’ve pressed up 200 copies of my band’s demo and we’re looking
> for 
> > a deal,
>
> I thought one put music on the internet? Anyway...
>
> > so I’m giving them away to everyone and I’ll stick a Creative  
> Commons 
>  > licence on them for our webpage and then when we get a deal we’ll 
> > cancel the licence, get an advance from ‘Super Publishing inc’ and
> put 
> > out the album.
>
> The  music industry loves relationships you can cancel. Just ask  
> George 
> Michael...
>
> > Sorry, no. A Creative Commons licence is not just for Christmas,  
> it’s 
> > forever. You and the band will never earn one penny in publishing 
>  > royalties from your creation.
>
> Unless, unlike Ferguson, you understand that there's more than one CC 
> license and license it CC-BY-NC-ND or NC-Sampling-Plus on the promo, 
> and proprietary to the record company. And remember that there's more 
> than one copyright on a musical performance...
>
> > Worse still, in 2012 when President Jeb Bush is running for 
> > re-election, he is going to use your anthem for world peace in his 
> > adverts to demonstrate how the world needs saving from snivelling 
> > pinkos like you and there is nothing you can do about it. Period.
>
> The sampling licenses disallow use for advertising. Notice also how 
>  Ferguson is echoing the "commons equals communism" nonsense that  
> earnt 
> Bill Gates such widespread ridicule a few weeks back.
>
> There's nothing communistic about being able to choose how to exercise 
> your rights to build the business model you want.
>
> > Prof. Lessig has not done enough research.
>
> ROFL. Pot, kettle. Only it's a shiny, stainless steel kettle....
>
> > His licences have some sort of value in the world of Academia, where
> a 
> > creator’s sole aim is to distribute his ideas as widely as possible 
> > without any money changing hands.
>
> Show me a band that succeeds commercially without reputation or 
> popularity.
>
> > For the world of music they are a pointless and damaging distraction 
>  > which undermine the concept of copyright
>
> How? They are built on copyright.
>
> > and create huge difficulties for music writers now and in the future.
>
> If by difficulties he means careers...
>
> > Worst of all, they play into the hands of the big Telcos and ISPs  
> who 
> > are all too happy to give away our music when they can.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_legal_downloads/
>
> "Telcos" and ISPs, who have nothing to do with the content they 
> transmit (much like record companies aren't responsible for their  
> stars 
> bad behaviour), are not worse bad guys than the contract lawyers and 
> creative accountants deployed by record companies.
>
> > David Ferguson is chairman of the British Academy of Songwriters and 
> > Composers
>
> Ah, someone who makes their living by writing and performing music. 
> Unlike the parasites in this report: 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/07/
> artists_not_concerned_about_file_sharing/
>
> - Rob.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-uk mailing list
> Cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-uk
>
>
> End of Cc-uk Digest, Vol 13, Issue 2
> ************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-uk mailing list
> Cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-uk