Cc-uk mailing list

[Sam <sam AT musicindie.com>]

Dear all

I organised 
the CC panel discussion, which I think all 
panelists felt was very useful.  Below is 
another write up of the event to compliment 
the piece in the register.  Intelligent 
contributions from all parties has helped 
moved the debate forward considerably.  
We will publish our own transcript of the 
event over the next week or so, on our web 
site (musictank.co.uk) and I'll post a link 
when it's up.

best

sam

CMU 
daily, 28.4.05
--------------------------------------------------

UK 
INDUSTRY DEBATE CREATIVE COMMON MOVEMENT
Some 
people really like Creative Commons. Some 
people really hate them. Of
course, most 
people couldn't care less, because they 
are essentially a
branch of copyright law 
and, as we all know, the thing about copyright 
law
is that - while it is the very foundation 
on which the music business is
built - 
it is also very very dull. So kudos to the 
MusicTank team for
creating a very interesting 
and, at times, entertaining debate at last
night's 
Think Tank event - despite the fact it had 
the copyright principle
of Creative Commons 
as its theme.

Creative Commons is a 
new copyright philosophy which enables creators 
to
make their work available to the public 
for non-commercial use for free. The
people 
behind the philosophy, which was originally 
articulated by Stanford
University professor 
Lawrence Lessig, now offer young creatives 
template
legal documents that enable them 
to formally make aspects of their work
copyright 
free, as well as internet tools with which 
they can publish their
work online.  

The 
movement has caused some controversy in 
the music business because label
and music 
publishing executives fear that young musicians, 
eager to get
their work in the public 
domain, may be attracted to Creative Commons 
and
inadvertently give away the rights 
to their work - rights which, one day,
could 
be valuable. 

Voicing those concerns, 
Emma Pike of British Music Rights, the joint 
body
designed to promote and protect the 
copyright of songwriters, told the Think
Tank: 
"I don't have a problem with the concept 
of Creative Commons. However,
I am very 
concerned that the people behind Creative 
Commons are not giving
young artists and 
songwriters enough information and explaining 
the long
term risks of giving away the 
copyright on even some of their original 
works
- especially as a Creative Commons 
licence is irrevocable once issued."

Defending 
the movement, Paula Le Dieu of the Creative 
Commons International
organisation, and 
Oxford University's Damian Tambini, who 
is heading up the
UK implementation of 
the philosophy, said they accepted the industry's
concerns 
and recognised that they might need to review 
the information they
provide to people 
considering granting a CC licence for their 
work. However,
they stressed that the 
Creative Commons movement was not attempting 
to trick
creators into giving up their 
copyright. Rather, they argued, they are
aiming 
to offer the tools that enable those people 
to promote and share
their work, to encourage 
creative collaboration, and to help increase 
the
value of those creators' future work.

Neil 
Leyton, of independent record label Fading 
Ways Records, also talked up
the value 
of Creative Commons in increasing the value 
of a musician's future
work. His company 
uses Creative Commons as a way of making 
some of their
artist's work available 
for free. That won the artists a fan base 
that they
would never have reached with 
conventional marketing channels, and, Leyton
argued, 
it meant more record sales in long term. 
Those fans appreciated the
fact the label 
issued Creative Common licences with their 
free music because
it meant that they 
could safely download, share and remix them 
without the
fear some sinister authority 
like the Recording Industry Association 
of
America would suddenly show up with 
a copyright violation lawsuit.

Those 
in the industry might argue that artists 
and labels are always at
liberty to give 
away music if they so chose, and that they 
don't need a
complicated new branch of 
copyright law to enable them to do so. However
most 
of those opposing the concept at the MusicTank 
event were willing to
concede they had 
no problem with the Creative Commons movement 
providing
they were clear and upfront 
about the future implications of making your
music 
copyright free - in essence the point with 
which Pike began the
debate. 

Of 
course quite how and where Creative Commons 
should or will educate
creatives on the 
implications of their licences remains to 
be seen - to be
fair, and as Le Dieu pointed 
out - "it's not really our job to single
handedly 
educate everyone in copyright law". 
But as MusicTank chairman Keith
Harris 
pointed out, what young creatives might 
need is more a lesson in
reality than copyright 
law - "one thing that occurs to me," 
Keith pointed
out, "is that for some 
artists there early work is their best work. 
There is
a danger here that artists will 
give away the copyright on their first album
in 
order to get noticed on the basis they'll 
earn money on later albums. But
for some 
bands that first album is really it - and 
they might be giving away
all their future 
potential income".

More on Creative 
Commons, if you're interested, at
http://www.creativecommons.org/


-- 
Sam Shemtob
MusicTank
University 
of Westminster
T   +44 (0) 20 8357 7305