CC music and webcasting

On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 19:36 -0800, Eric Garner wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
>   I posted this question already in the
"licenses" discussion, but
> just in case that wasn't the appropriate forum, I'll
post it here too:
> In light of the new Soundexchange arrangement for
webcasting
> royalties, I can see where many webcasts that are able
to stay
> online might switch to music deemed 'podsafe'. However,
given
> language in the DMCA that mandates royalty collection
on all
> non-interactive delivery systems, it looks like
webcasters will
> have to pay royalties on all music regardless of label
affiliation,
> including CC-licensed music. In fact, the
Soundexchange
> website indicates that independent musicians might have
money
> already held on their behalf, but that they must
become
> Soundexchange members in order to collect.
>   This brings about the following questions:
> 1) Is it possible for people who choose to produce
podsafe
> music to opt out of the mandatory Soundexchange
royalty
> collections so webcasters can freely use the music?

That is a good question for soundexchange actually. Others
might know
here as well.

> 2) If so, can a CC license act as a de facto opt-out
notice for
> this purpose, or does a musician have to contact
> Soundexchange and explicitly tell them each time they
introduce
> a song with a podsafe, royalty-free intent?

I'm not sure about this, but yet again think you should put
this burden
onto them. In the end, the second you make a work, its your
copyright.
The CC licenses use copyright to give notice to others of
what they can
do with your work...others might be more clear about how
soundexchange
works...I have a contact there now, so will bring up when I
get a
chance...cheers

> It really came as a surprise to me that podcasting is
different
> from webcasting in that mandatory royalties are
collected on the
> latter, regardless of label affiliation or licensing
choices on the
> artists' behalf. It seems like I, as the music's
creator, should
> have the right to opt out of this scheme.
> Thanks,
> Eric Garner

I feel your pain. I think bring this up with soundexchange
(and
hopefully you'll get a reply ;) Please let us know here what
you find
out...

Jon

-- 
Jon Phillips

San Francisco, CA
USA PH 510.499.0894
jonrejon.org
http://www.rejon.org

MSN, AIM, Yahoo Chat: kidproto
Jabber Chat: rejongristle.org
IRC: rejonirc.freenode.net

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Phillips" <jonrejon.org>
To: <cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-community] CC music and webcasting


> On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 19:36 -0800, Eric Garner wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> >   I posted this question already in the
"licenses" discussion, but
> > just in case that wasn't the appropriate forum,
I'll post it here too:
> > In light of the new Soundexchange arrangement for
webcasting
> > royalties, I can see where many webcasts that are
able to stay
> > online might switch to music deemed 'podsafe'.
However, given
> > language in the DMCA that mandates royalty
collection on all
> > non-interactive delivery systems, it looks like
webcasters will
> > have to pay royalties on all music regardless of
label affiliation,
> > including CC-licensed music. In fact, the
Soundexchange
> > website indicates that independent musicians might
have money
> > already held on their behalf, but that they must
become
> > Soundexchange members in order to collect.
> >   This brings about the following questions:

> > 1) Is it possible for people who choose to produce
podsafe
> > music to opt out of the mandatory Soundexchange
royalty
> > collections so webcasters can freely use the
music?
>
> That is a good question for soundexchange actually.
Others might know
> here as well.

I had the same question a year or so ago when an internet
radio station
wanted to play a track I created.  It got so costly in terms
of their time
sorting it out, they dropped the idea.  The station have
since again
contacted me and asked about the situation with CC and sound
exchange, and
they'd be interested in playing a lot more CC music if it
meant ultimately
they could zero some timeslots in those extortionate pay per
listener feeds.

RAIN and other organisations are currently campaigning
against the royalty
rates, but I personally don't think they'll get much change,
literally.  So,
ironically CC music could get a way in if we can campaign to
have the
royalty removed, for those of us who want that....it could
help reduce the
costs to run indi-stations.

> > 2) If so, can a CC license act as a de facto
opt-out notice for
> > this purpose, or does a musician have to contact
> > Soundexchange and explicitly tell them each time
they introduce
> > a song with a podsafe, royalty-free intent?
>
> I'm not sure about this, but yet again think you should
put this burden
> onto them. In the end, the second you make a work, its
your copyright.
> The CC licenses use copyright to give notice to others
of what they can
> do with your work...others might be more clear about
how soundexchange
> works...I have a contact there now, so will bring up
when I get a
> chance...cheers

I agree.  We should contact Sound Exchange, but to be fair
to them there's a
bigger issue. There's the question of attribution, and
ownership.
Commercial recordings are cut and dry for SE, if XYZ
indi-band produce a
song then it's easy to collect or zero the royalty.  If a
song/track is
played from ccMixter source then it's a communal project,
often with 3 or
more contributors.  On ccMixter the last artist to
contribute has the
"handle" but it makes him/her no more of a
contributor than the other
previous two, if you get my drift.

In my conversations with the radio station previously, we
got into a long
discussion about attribution trees and listing somehow the
attribution
threads to ensure the spirit of the CC attribution license
was upheld.  I
know CC has done a lot of work with meta information
embedded into ID3 but
I'm not sure if there's a full attribution tree.....even
ccMixter doesn't
have that yet (you have to trace back through the samples to
see the
attribution - a bone of contention for some contributors).

I'm not even sure this is needed, but it would be a great
motivator for
contributors, and it would help the radio stations to feel
they're doing the
right thing by supporting the licenses to the full.

> > It really came as a surprise to me that podcasting
is different
> > from webcasting in that mandatory royalties are
collected on the
> > latter, regardless of label affiliation or
licensing choices on the
> > artists' behalf. It seems like I, as the music's
creator, should
> > have the right to opt out of this scheme.
> > Thanks,
> > Eric Garner
>
> I feel your pain. I think bring this up with
soundexchange (and
> hopefully you'll get a reply ;) Please let us know here
what you find
> out...
>

I didn't know podcasters got off lightly, maybe it's just a
matter of time
;)

Kevin (aka tacet :: ccMixter)

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