ASCAP VS CREATIVE COMMONS

hey drew,
not sure why you would want to do this with BY-SA works
only. in general
such a provision is present in all CC licenses (talking
about 2.5
generic/US here). the NC licenses retain the right to
collect royalties
through collectings societies / PROs and all other ones
waive this right.
assuming that pretty much all radio play would fall in the
commercial use
category this seems like a solution that lets them forget
the hassle.

now i know that you are arguing for a different scenario
that enables them
if they do want to do the hassle to not pay for non-NC
licenses works, and
of course this would be an ideal world scenario, but i do
not think  that
this would have much appeal to radio stations. what
collecting societies
offer to them is a enormous reduction of their transaction
costs throuugh
blanket licenses. instead of negotiating every work
individually they have
a one or to stop shop situation (the CSs boast to offer them
the rights to
the entire world repertoire). looking into induvidual
licensing situations
on a per work basis is probably every radio stations worst
nightmare (will
be different of course once delivery is completely
electronic and billing
goes via DRM - but that is another story). this summer i
listened to a
presentation by the head of licensing of the BBC. he showed
that the BBC
through all its stations plays on avaerage 200.000 different
musical works
per week(!!) and that they payed 1.7 billion punds (or euros
cant really
remember) in licensing fees in the last year fo these uses.
he went on to
say that he would probably rather pay more than loose the
current
one-stop-shop deal they have with MCPS/PRO (this was in the
context of a
discussion about breaking up territorial monopolies of
Collecting
SOcieties in the EU)

given this i do not think we should focus our energies on
the issue you
are raising here. instead we should (and some of us are)
continue to work
to make it possible for musicians (outside of the US) to be
a member of a
CS and to use CC licenses at the same time...

all the best,
paul


On Dec 21, 2006, at 10:00 PM, drew Roberts wrote:

I have been pondering the possibilities of putting BY-SA
works up with
collection agencies for a whaile now.

Would it be possible for the CC licenses to have a clause
that states that if
you use the work and the work is with a collection agency,
then you can
either pay as per your agreement, or you must make
individual exemption
claims for each use? Assuming you are an entity wich would
need an agreement
with said agency.

The example I am thinking of is a radio station that plays
ARR and CC works.
They can frget the hassle and pay to use the Free works, or
they can report
the individual uses and claim an exemption for them?
Something like that.

I haven't thought this all through yet, but it seems like a
decent time to
bring up the thought for people to discuss / chew on.

Of course, this would only apply to BY and BY-SA works with
respect to
commercial uses.

all the best,

drew


On Thursday 21 December 2006 09:20 am, Fred Benenson wrote:
Fascinating. Such Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt here.

ASCAP seems to be missing the point that Creative Commons
builds on top of
copyright, and while Lessig's books are copyrighted, so is
virtually every
other cc-licensed object. All it does is explicitly define
what rights the
artists are looking to preserve beyond copyright.

Another piece of FUD here: conflating "music" (one
track) with "music"
(your oeuvre). In other words ASCAP makes it appear that if
you decide to
go for CC once then you must license *all* your work under
CC forever. This
is plainly not the case as cc licenses apply to individual
works and they,
too, are non-exclusive, just like ASCAP claims to be. Which
leads to
another confusing point by ASCAP: it would seem that
collecting royalties
under via ASCAP with a CC licensed track (BY-NC perhaps?) 
would be
something they'd object to, when, as far as I can tell,
since they're both
non-exclusive licenses, it wouldn't be a problem.

Still, interesting that they're resorting to the ole' FUD
line then
anything else. That means we must be doing something right.

F

PS: Can I forward this to the cc-community/cc-licenses list?


--
waag society | nieuwmarkt 4 | NL - 1012 CR amsterdam
e: paulwaag.org | t: +31 20 557 9898 | f: +31 20 557 9880



_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Friday 22 December 2006 12:37 pm, Paul Keller wrote:
> hey drew,
> not sure why you would want to do this with BY-SA works
only. in general
> such a provision is present in all CC licenses (talking
about 2.5
> generic/US here). the NC licenses retain the right to
collect royalties
> through collectings societies / PROs and all other ones
waive this right.
> assuming that pretty much all radio play would fall in
the commercial use
> category this seems like a solution that lets them
forget the hassle.

I think you misunderstand my point. The reason for BY and
BY-SA only is 
precisely becuase NC does not need it as ou yourself point
out. Most radio 
station uses would have to pay to use NC no matter what
therefore such a 
clause is not needed for NC works.

I said BY-SA because that it my preferred CC license. BY
could have one too 
from a need standpoint.
>
> now i know that you are arguing for a different
scenario that enables them
> if they do want to do the hassle to not pay for non-NC
licenses works, and
> of course this would be an ideal world scenario, but i
do not think  that
> this would have much appeal to radio stations. what
collecting societies
> offer to them is a enormous reduction of their
transaction costs throuugh
> blanket licenses. instead of negotiating every work
individually they have
> a one or to stop shop situation (the CSs boast to offer
them the rights to
> the entire world repertoire). looking into induvidual
licensing situations
> on a per work basis is probably every radio stations
worst nightmare (will
> be different of course once delivery is completely
electronic and billing
> goes via DRM - but that is another story). this summer
i listened to a
> presentation by the head of licensing of the BBC. he
showed that the BBC
> through all its stations plays on avaerage 200.000
different musical works
> per week(!!) and that they payed 1.7 billion punds (or
euros cant really
> remember) in licensing fees in the last year fo these
uses. he went on to
> say that he would probably rather pay more than loose
the current
> one-stop-shop deal they have with MCPS/PRO (this was in
the context of a
> discussion about breaking up territorial monopolies of
Collecting
> SOcieties in the EU)

It is precisely because of this desire for a one stop shop
by radio stations 
why I think that such a clause would be useful.

Let's say a BY-SA or BY songwriter puts their BY or BY-SA
works with a 
collection society. The stations pay for using these works.
Has fraud been 
commited? We would have charged people to use something for
which they have 
the right to use for free.

Ot would the society collect from the stations but not pay
the BY or BY-SA 
songwriters?

What would the situation be?
>
> given this i do not think we should focus our energies
on the issue you
> are raising here. instead we should (and some of us
are) continue to work
> to make it possible for musicians (outside of the US)
to be a member of a
> CS and to use CC licenses at the same time...

Hence the thought that it might be useful to allow people
dealing with 
collection agencies to just pretend that By or BY-SA works
need to be paid 
for if that makes their life easier. At their option.

I have not thought through all the details mind you.
>
> all the best,
> paul

all the best,

drew
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2006, at 10:00 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
>
> I have been pondering the possibilities of putting
BY-SA works up with
> collection agencies for a whaile now.
>
> Would it be possible for the CC licenses to have a
clause that states that
> if you use the work and the work is with a collection
agency, then you can
> either pay as per your agreement, or you must make
individual exemption
> claims for each use? Assuming you are an entity wich
would need an
> agreement with said agency.
>
> The example I am thinking of is a radio station that
plays ARR and CC
> works. They can frget the hassle and pay to use the
Free works, or they can
> report the individual uses and claim an exemption for
them? Something like
> that.
>
> I haven't thought this all through yet, but it seems
like a decent time to
> bring up the thought for people to discuss / chew on.
>
> Of course, this would only apply to BY and BY-SA works
with respect to
> commercial uses.
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
>
>
> On Thursday 21 December 2006 09:20 am, Fred Benenson
wrote:
> Fascinating. Such Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt here.
>
> ASCAP seems to be missing the point that Creative
Commons builds on top of
> copyright, and while Lessig's books are copyrighted, so
is virtually every
> other cc-licensed object. All it does is explicitly
define what rights the
> artists are looking to preserve beyond copyright.
>
> Another piece of FUD here: conflating "music"
(one track) with "music"
> (your oeuvre). In other words ASCAP makes it appear
that if you decide to
> go for CC once then you must license *all* your work
under CC forever. This
> is plainly not the case as cc licenses apply to
individual works and they,
> too, are non-exclusive, just like ASCAP claims to be.
Which leads to
> another confusing point by ASCAP: it would seem that
collecting royalties
> under via ASCAP with a CC licensed track (BY-NC
perhaps?)  would be
> something they'd object to, when, as far as I can tell,
since they're both
> non-exclusive licenses, it wouldn't be a problem.
>
> Still, interesting that they're resorting to the ole'
FUD line then
> anything else. That means we must be doing something
right.
>
> F
>
> PS: Can I forward this to the cc-community/cc-licenses
list?
>
>
> --
> waag society | nieuwmarkt 4 | NL - 1012 CR amsterdam
> e: paulwaag.org | t: +31 20 557 9898 | f: +31 20 557 9880
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/262954
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Drew/Paul et al,

> 
> It is precisely because of this desire for a one stop
shop by radio stations 
> why I think that such a clause would be useful.
> 
> Let's say a BY-SA or BY songwriter puts their BY or
BY-SA works with a 
> collection society. The stations pay for using these
works. Has fraud been 
> commited? We would have charged people to use something
for which they have 
> the right to use for free.
> 
> Ot would the society collect from the stations but not
pay the BY or BY-SA 
> songwriters?
> 
> What would the situation be?

The current situation would be:

1) An artists cannot use a CC license AND be a member of a
collecting 
society, at least in The Netherlands and as far as my
(limited) 
knowledge goes this is the same for the rest of Europe
(Although I 
belief the UK is different in this).

2) The collecting society will collect the money and
distribute it among 
their members. So the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA artists will not
see a penny 
back. Again this is the situation in the Netherlands. It is
getting so 
bad that I know of several bands and musicians that were
using Creative 
Commons licenses (Silece is Sexy, Feverdream etc) and
stopped using it 
because of this situation. Although these bands would love
to keep on 
using CC.

3) It seems even venues usually pay a blanket license (stil
researching, 
so I'm not certain yet) and thus the CC artists get less
money when 
performing than a non-CC artist.

As I mentioned already, I'm currently researching this
because we 
(Simuze.nl) fear that CC will become only something music
creators will 
use when they are die-hard CC believers in the Netherlands.
Only these 
artists are willing to accept the fact that they will not
get the money 
a collecting society is collecting 'on behalve' of them.

Basically using CC licenses with music is a lot harder than
just 
sticking with the old system. Even when bands or artists are
actually 
quit fond of the whole CC concept. This needs to change if
CC is to stay 
'alive' in the Netherlands (and perhaps the rest of the EU
too..).

I would greatly appreciate some input on this from other
(EU) countries 
as I'm currently writing an article about the Dutch
situation and I 
would like to connect the Dutch situation with other (EU)
countries.

ps: If I've made any erors in this I would like to know this
as well, 
off course. I'm not a lawyer, just a music geek ;)

grtz
BjornW
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Friday 22 December 2006 06:54 pm, Bjorn Wijers wrote:
> Drew/Paul et al,
>
> > It is precisely because of this desire for a one
stop shop by radio
> > stations why I think that such a clause would be
useful.
> >
> > Let's say a BY-SA or BY songwriter puts their BY
or BY-SA works with a
> > collection society. The stations pay for using
these works. Has fraud
> > been commited? We would have charged people to use
something for which
> > they have the right to use for free.
> >
> > Ot would the society collect from the stations but
not pay the BY or
> > BY-SA songwriters?
> >
> > What would the situation be?
>
> The current situation would be:
>
> 1) An artists cannot use a CC license AND be a member
of a collecting
> society, at least in The Netherlands and as far as my
(limited)
> knowledge goes this is the same for the rest of Europe
(Although I
> belief the UK is different in this).

Why is there some law against it, or are the collecting
societies just being 
pic headed?

In the US at least, I htink a new collecting society could
spring up that 
would agree to accept artists using CC licenses.

Does the law in come countries give monopoly protections to
certain blessed 
collecting societies?
>
> 2) The collecting society will collect the money and
distribute it among
> their members. 

So, how do they collect the money for works they have no
rights to. Wouldn't 
this be fraud? Can you explain how their deals with the
artists works and how 
how deals with say radio stations work?

> So the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA artists will not see a penny 
> back. Again this is the situation in the Netherlands.
It is getting so
> bad that I know of several bands and musicians that
were using Creative
> Commons licenses (Silece is Sexy, Feverdream etc) and
stopped using it
> because of this situation. Although these bands would
love to keep on
> using CC.
>
> 3) It seems even venues usually pay a blanket license
(stil researching,
> so I'm not certain yet) and thus the CC artists get
less money when
> performing than a non-CC artist.

I don't follow this logic. Can you elaborate?
>
> As I mentioned already, I'm currently researching this
because we
> (Simuze.nl) fear that CC will become only something
music creators will
> use when they are die-hard CC believers in the
Netherlands. Only these
> artists are willing to accept the fact that they will
not get the money
> a collecting society is collecting 'on behalve' of
them.

If a radio station were to start up that only played CC By
and BY-SA music, 
could the collecting society demand payments?
>
> Basically using CC licenses with music is a lot harder
than just
> sticking with the old system. Even when bands or
artists are actually
> quit fond of the whole CC concept. This needs to change
if CC is to stay
> 'alive' in the Netherlands (and perhaps the rest of the
EU too..).

Personally, I don't care too much unless they are using BY
or BY-SA licenses. 
Those using NC don't much interest me. I am insterested in
solutions for 
those using the two licenses I mention though.
>
> I would greatly appreciate some input on this from
other (EU) countries
> as I'm currently writing an article about the Dutch
situation and I
> would like to connect the Dutch situation with other
(EU) countries.
>
> ps: If I've made any erors in this I would like to know
this as well,
> off course. I'm not a lawyer, just a music geek ;)
>
> grtz
> BjornW

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/262954
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

just to note one minor correction:

On Dec 22, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Bjorn Wijers wrote:

> Drew/Paul et al,
>
>>

<cut>

>
> The current situation would be:
>
> 1) An artists cannot use a CC license AND be a member
of a collecting
> society, at least in The Netherlands and as far as my
(limited)
> knowledge goes this is the same for the rest of Europe
(Although I
> belief the UK is different in this).

the UK is not different.  the situation in the US is
different.

>
> 2) The collecting society will collect the money and
distribute it  
> among
> their members. So the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA artists will
not see a penny
> back. Again this is the situation in the Netherlands.
It is getting so
> bad that I know of several bands and musicians that
were using  
> Creative
> Commons licenses (Silece is Sexy, Feverdream etc) and
stopped using it
> because of this situation. Although these bands would
love to keep on
> using CC.
>
> 3) It seems even venues usually pay a blanket license
(stil  
> researching,
> so I'm not certain yet) and thus the CC artists get
less money when
> performing than a non-CC artist.
>
> As I mentioned already, I'm currently researching this
because we
> (Simuze.nl) fear that CC will become only something
music creators  
> will
> use when they are die-hard CC believers in the
Netherlands. Only these
> artists are willing to accept the fact that they will
not get the  
> money
> a collecting society is collecting 'on behalve' of
them.
>
> Basically using CC licenses with music is a lot harder
than just
> sticking with the old system. Even when bands or
artists are actually
> quit fond of the whole CC concept. This needs to change
if CC is to  
> stay
> 'alive' in the Netherlands (and perhaps the rest of the
EU too..).
>
> I would greatly appreciate some input on this from
other (EU)  
> countries
> as I'm currently writing an article about the Dutch
situation and I
> would like to connect the Dutch situation with other
(EU) countries.
>
> ps: If I've made any erors in this I would like to know
this as well,
> off course. I'm not a lawyer, just a music geek ;)
>
> grtz
> BjornW
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Mia, is the US the only country that is allowing this?

Basically, the argument that I heard was that because most
rights  
collection agencies do a blanket fee. Therefore the cost of
dealing  
with venues saying, "I only played songs that were CC
licensed" or  
artists saying, "I'm only licensing these songs from
that album"  
would be high and add a great deal to the complexity. What
are the US  
rights collection agencies doing different that allows them
to have  
artists use CC licenses?

  - Joi

On Dec 23, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Mia Garlick wrote:

>>
>> The current situation would be:
>>
>> 1) An artists cannot use a CC license AND be a
member of a collecting
>> society, at least in The Netherlands and as far as
my (limited)
>> knowledge goes this is the same for the rest of
Europe (Although I
>> belief the UK is different in this).
>
> the UK is not different.  the situation in the US is
different.

--
My Timezone: Tokyo - UTC+9
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=248


_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Drew et al,

>>> It is precisely because of this desire for a
one stop shop by radio
>>> stations why I think that such a clause would
be useful.
>>>
>>> Let's say a BY-SA or BY songwriter puts their
BY or BY-SA works with a
>>> collection society. The stations pay for using
these works. Has fraud
>>> been commited? We would have charged people to
use something for which
>>> they have the right to use for free.
>>>
>>> Ot would the society collect from the stations
but not pay the BY or
>>> BY-SA songwriters?
>>>
>>> What would the situation be?
>> The current situation would be:
>>
>> 1) An artists cannot use a CC license AND be a
member of a collecting
>> society, at least in The Netherlands and as far as
my (limited)
>> knowledge goes this is the same for the rest of
Europe (Although I
>> belief the UK is different in this).
> 
> Why is there some law against it, or are the collecting
societies just being 
> pic headed?

Mostly because the rights collecting society (in the
Netherlands) seems 
not to be willing to change their contracts from an
exclusive contract 
(they get all the rights) to a non-exclusive contract. As
far as my 
knowledge goes this is the main issue between CC licenses
and their 
contracts.

> In the US at least, I htink a new collecting society
could spring up that 
> would agree to accept artists using CC licenses.
> 
> Does the law in come countries give monopoly
protections to certain blessed 
> collecting societies?

Yes, sadly we have a government that did this. Although I
belief this 
will change due to EU regulations. Paul and other people on
this list 
are probably more knowledgeable than me in this matter.


>> 2) The collecting society will collect the money
and distribute it among
>> their members. 
> 
> So, how do they collect the money for works they have
no rights to. Wouldn't 
> this be fraud? Can you explain how their deals with the
artists works and how 
> how deals with say radio stations work?

I cannot explain how it works (yet). I'm currently trying to
get more 
information on this, but let me be very frank on this:

The information is pretty hard to get and the rights
collection 
societies are all but open or transparent. It's probably
easier to 
infiltrate in some gang than get any insights in the
innerworkings of 
the Dutch rights collection societies ;)

My hypothesis is that they collect most of their money under
blanket 
licenses and try to gain insight into which tracks have been
played 
(although I've also heard they don't...). Based on this they
create a 
repartion scheme and pay their members. The money from
tracks collected 
that don't point to members will probably be 'kept' until
they can pay 
it to the right person, if ever. In the meantime it will
probably be 
quite usefull for the rights collection society with
interest and 
such....

>> So the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA artists will not see a
penny 
>> back. Again this is the situation in the
Netherlands. It is getting so
>> bad that I know of several bands and musicians that
were using Creative
>> Commons licenses (Silece is Sexy, Feverdream etc)
and stopped using it
>> because of this situation. Although these bands
would love to keep on
>> using CC.
>>
>> 3) It seems even venues usually pay a blanket
license (stil researching,
>> so I'm not certain yet) and thus the CC artists get
less money when
>> performing than a non-CC artist.
> 
> I don't follow this logic. Can you elaborate?

The venues pay the rights collection society (RCS) for the
music being 
played, but because the venue seem to use a blanket license
the money 
for CC artists will be collected allthough the artists won't
get a penny 
from it. Thus the CC artist get less money than those being
part of a 
rights collecting society.

CC-artist = gig money

Non-CC and member of RCS = gig money + royalties


>> As I mentioned already, I'm currently researching
this because we
>> (Simuze.nl) fear that CC will become only something
music creators will
>> use when they are die-hard CC believers in the
Netherlands. Only these
>> artists are willing to accept the fact that they
will not get the money
>> a collecting society is collecting 'on behalve' of
them.
> 
> If a radio station were to start up that only played CC
By and BY-SA music, 
> could the collecting society demand payments?

No. This is a nice clear example, but sadly not how it works
in reality. 
No 'serious' radiostation or any media outlet would be
concentrating 
only on licenses as a filter to determine what to play and
what not. And 
they shouldn't. Personally, I wouldn't create a favorite
playlist based 
on license nor would I select my dinner based on color ;)

>> Basically using CC licenses with music is a lot
harder than just
>> sticking with the old system. Even when bands or
artists are actually
>> quit fond of the whole CC concept. This needs to
change if CC is to stay
>> 'alive' in the Netherlands (and perhaps the rest of
the EU too..).
> 
> Personally, I don't care too much unless they are using
BY or BY-SA licenses. 
> Those using NC don't much interest me. I am insterested
in solutions for 
> those using the two licenses I mention though.

If we are not able to resolve these issues it doesn't matter
which 
specific version of the CC licenses at all at this moment.
We need to 
resolve this if CC is ever to be usefull for musical
creators in the 
Netherlands at all. If we can solve (some of) these issues
we can 
concentrate on educating people why we would like them to
use BY or 
BY-SA instead of other licenses, but first we need to solve
some more 
fundamental issues.

grtz
BjornW






_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Thanks Mia!

So all of Europe has the same issue than?

Mia Garlick wrote:
> just to note one minor correction:
> 
> On Dec 22, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Bjorn Wijers wrote:
> 
>> Drew/Paul et al,
>>
> 
> <cut>
> 
>> The current situation would be:
>>
>> 1) An artists cannot use a CC license AND be a
member of a collecting
>> society, at least in The Netherlands and as far as
my (limited)
>> knowledge goes this is the same for the rest of
Europe (Although I
>> belief the UK is different in this).
> 
> the UK is not different.  the situation in the US is
different.
> 
>> 2) The collecting society will collect the money
and distribute it  
>> among
>> their members. So the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA artists
will not see a penny
>> back. Again this is the situation in the
Netherlands. It is getting so
>> bad that I know of several bands and musicians that
were using  
>> Creative
>> Commons licenses (Silece is Sexy, Feverdream etc)
and stopped using it
>> because of this situation. Although these bands
would love to keep on
>> using CC.
>>
>> 3) It seems even venues usually pay a blanket
license (stil  
>> researching,
>> so I'm not certain yet) and thus the CC artists get
less money when
>> performing than a non-CC artist.
>>
>> As I mentioned already, I'm currently researching
this because we
>> (Simuze.nl) fear that CC will become only something
music creators  
>> will
>> use when they are die-hard CC believers in the
Netherlands. Only these
>> artists are willing to accept the fact that they
will not get the  
>> money
>> a collecting society is collecting 'on behalve' of
them.
>>
>> Basically using CC licenses with music is a lot
harder than just
>> sticking with the old system. Even when bands or
artists are actually
>> quit fond of the whole CC concept. This needs to
change if CC is to  
>> stay
>> 'alive' in the Netherlands (and perhaps the rest of
the EU too..).
>>
>> I would greatly appreciate some input on this from
other (EU)  
>> countries
>> as I'm currently writing an article about the Dutch
situation and I
>> would like to connect the Dutch situation with
other (EU) countries.
>>
>> ps: If I've made any erors in this I would like to
know this as well,
>> off course. I'm not a lawyer, just a music geek ;)
>>
>> grtz
>> BjornW
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-community mailing list
>> cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> 
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

well, the CC-people in macedonia have told me that this is
not the case
there, and that there are two CSs at the moment - with the
new
contesting the older one.

and someone who has read the bosnian copyright law told me
that there is
also no statutory monopoly there (though there's at the
moment only one
CS doing work for all forms of expression).

tom



Bjorn Wijers wrote:
> Thanks Mia!
> 
> So all of Europe has the same issue than?
> 
> Mia Garlick wrote:
>> just to note one minor correction:
>>
>> On Dec 22, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Bjorn Wijers wrote:
>>
>>> Drew/Paul et al,
>>>
>> <cut>
>>
>>> The current situation would be:
>>>
>>> 1) An artists cannot use a CC license AND be a
member of a collecting
>>> society, at least in The Netherlands and as far
as my (limited)
>>> knowledge goes this is the same for the rest of
Europe (Although I
>>> belief the UK is different in this).
>> the UK is not different.  the situation in the US
is different.
>>
>>> 2) The collecting society will collect the
money and distribute it  
>>> among
>>> their members. So the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA
artists will not see a penny
>>> back. Again this is the situation in the
Netherlands. It is getting so
>>> bad that I know of several bands and musicians
that were using  
>>> Creative
>>> Commons licenses (Silece is Sexy, Feverdream
etc) and stopped using it
>>> because of this situation. Although these bands
would love to keep on
>>> using CC.
>>>
>>> 3) It seems even venues usually pay a blanket
license (stil  
>>> researching,
>>> so I'm not certain yet) and thus the CC artists
get less money when
>>> performing than a non-CC artist.
>>>
>>> As I mentioned already, I'm currently
researching this because we
>>> (Simuze.nl) fear that CC will become only
something music creators  
>>> will
>>> use when they are die-hard CC believers in the
Netherlands. Only these
>>> artists are willing to accept the fact that
they will not get the  
>>> money
>>> a collecting society is collecting 'on behalve'
of them.
>>>
>>> Basically using CC licenses with music is a lot
harder than just
>>> sticking with the old system. Even when bands
or artists are actually
>>> quit fond of the whole CC concept. This needs
to change if CC is to  
>>> stay
>>> 'alive' in the Netherlands (and perhaps the
rest of the EU too..).
>>>
>>> I would greatly appreciate some input on this
from other (EU)  
>>> countries
>>> as I'm currently writing an article about the
Dutch situation and I
>>> would like to connect the Dutch situation with
other (EU) countries.
>>>
>>> ps: If I've made any erors in this I would like
to know this as well,
>>> off course. I'm not a lawyer, just a music geek
;)
>>>
>>> grtz
>>> BjornW
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cc-community mailing list
>>> cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-community mailing list
>> cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


iD8DBQFFjH+JkbN024ZV0z0RApkFAJwKhg9Xk7zZrt0TleXdaWz1gcGW9wCg
qMNE
Y9MnOBKIx2dP8CLPRNtwcNo=
=pRET
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Friday 22 December 2006 07:44 pm, Bjorn Wijers wrote:
> Drew et al,
snip
> >
> > Why is there some law against it, or are the
collecting societies just
> > being pic headed?
>
> Mostly because the rights collecting society (in the
Netherlands) seems
> not to be willing to change their contracts from an
exclusive contract
> (they get all the rights) to a non-exclusive contract.
As far as my
> knowledge goes this is the main issue between CC
licenses and their
> contracts.

OK, so they are being pig headed.
>
> > In the US at least, I htink a new collecting
society could spring up that
> > would agree to accept artists using CC licenses.
> >
> > Does the law in come countries give monopoly
protections to certain
> > blessed collecting societies?
>
> Yes, sadly we have a government that did this. Although
I belief this
> will change due to EU regulations. Paul and other
people on this list
> are probably more knowledgeable than me in this matter.

So just to be perfectly clear, if another group wanted to
start an alternate 
collecting society in the Netherlands, it would be illegal
for them to do so. 
Correct? (Like in the US there is ASCAP and BMI. That can't
happen in the 
Netherlands.)
>
> >> 2) The collecting society will collect the
money and distribute it among
> >> their members.
> >
> > So, how do they collect the money for works they
have no rights to.
> > Wouldn't this be fraud? Can you explain how their
deals with the artists
> > works and how how deals with say radio stations
work?
>
> I cannot explain how it works (yet). I'm currently
trying to get more
> information on this, but let me be very frank on this:
>
> The information is pretty hard to get and the rights
collection
> societies are all but open or transparent. It's
probably easier to
> infiltrate in some gang than get any insights in the
innerworkings of
> the Dutch rights collection societies ;)

You use the plural here. Is there only one collection
society there or is 
there more than one?
>
>
> >> So the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA artists will not see
a penny
> >> back. 

Fine, but what about BY-NC, could they sue the radio
stations or venues?

> >> Again this is the situation in the
Netherlands. It is getting so 
> >> bad that I know of several bands and musicians
that were using Creative
> >> Commons licenses (Silece is Sexy, Feverdream
etc) and stopped using it
> >> because of this situation. Although these
bands would love to keep on
> >> using CC.

There is little doubt in my mind that the whole system is
broken and set up to 
benefit the big boys and that that is just how they like it.
> >>
> >> 3) It seems even venues usually pay a blanket
license (stil researching,
> >> so I'm not certain yet) and thus the CC
artists get less money when
> >> performing than a non-CC artist.
> >
> > I don't follow this logic. Can you elaborate?
>
> The venues pay the rights collection society (RCS) for
the music being
> played, but because the venue seem to use a blanket
license the money
> for CC artists will be collected allthough the artists
won't get a penny
> from it. Thus the CC artist get less money than those
being part of a
> rights collecting society.
>
> CC-artist = gig money
>
> Non-CC and member of RCS = gig money + royalties

CC-artist just says, look, because you are paying a blanket
license and my 
work is not covered, you need to pay a proportionate share
of the blanket 
license to me for this gig. I am my own collection society.
(I guess they 
wouldn't get the gig perhaps...)
>
> >
> > If a radio station were to start up that only
played CC By and BY-SA
> > music, could the collecting society demand
payments?
>
> No. This is a nice clear example, but sadly not how it
works in reality.

Yet.

> No 'serious' radiostation or any media outlet would be
concentrating
> only on licenses as a filter to determine what to play
and what not. And
> they shouldn't. 

Yes, they should. I am serious and I am getting more and
more that way. I have 
been kicking around hte thought of "copyright
pollution" in my head for some 
time now. I need to think on it further and write something
up.

On a related thought, I personally am trying to devote more
and more of my 
"consumption" time to Free works so that if I
creative reworking pops into my 
head, I am free to run with it.

> Personally, I wouldn't create a favorite playlist based

> on license nor would I select my dinner based on color
;)

You of course are free to run your life as you wish within
certain broad 
parameters. If you want to eat blue mashed potatoes and
green mean, be my 
guest.
>
>
> If we are not able to resolve these issues it doesn't
matter which
> specific version of the CC licenses at all at this
moment. We need to
> resolve this if CC is ever to be usefull for musical
creators in the
> Netherlands at all. If we can solve (some of) these
issues we can
> concentrate on educating people why we would like them
to use BY or
> BY-SA instead of other licenses, but first we need to
solve some more
> fundamental issues.

You are of course free to hold this view. I think that it is
more important to 
build up a large enough body copyleft works to be compelling
for re-use. So 
far, I have written the first drafts of two novels which are
under BY-SA and 
some programs which are under the GPL.

I dislike NC partly because I want artists who build on my
works to be able to 
earn a living.

That said, I do not wish to see your approach fail. I wish
you all the best in 
getting the collection societies of Europe to see sense.
>
> grtz
> BjornW
>

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/262954
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community