But then when you look at what’s happened with royalty rates and internet v radio broadcasting in the US, it’s hard to have any sympathy for organisations that think that the internet radio stations should pay a higher rate than terrestrial broadcasters.

I have occasionally made a bit of money from music but accept that you have to give away a certain amount of it for free to generate interest but I can understand whhy there is a degree of reticence over effectively handing over your livelihood for nothing because the audience want it for free. It’s a shame that reporting/collecting societies have been so slow to adapt to the changing landscape.

ASCAP, in the US, published a Bill of Rights and a position paper (PDF) which address the issue of Music Copyright in the Digital Age.

On the issues of the Commons, in the addendum they caution:

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: QUESTIONING THE “COMMONS”

10 Things Every Music Creator Should Know

For songwriters, lyricists or composers who want their art to be their life and
livelihood, it’s critically important to get beyond the hype and “hipness” of
licensing alternatives, and to look dispassionately at the choices on the table.

Among the “copyright alternatives,” the Creative Commons licenses are styled
as being friendly and easy to use. To submit a work to be governed under a
Creative Commons license, creators click on symbols and icons for attribution,
“share alike” or noncommercial uses, and then upload a digital copy of the work.

“Simpler” does
not equal “better”
- particularly
when it comes to
protecting long
established rights
that make creative
professions viable

While the process appears simple, the meaning of these symbols can be
misleading to a creator. Even if he or she takes the time to access what Creative
Commons calls the “human readable” terms and conditions of the license, will
that creator fully understand to what he or she is consenting?

Before committing to a CC license, songwriters or other music creators should
consider these 10 important legal issues:

All the CC licenses
are “irrevocable” -
meaning they
cannot be changed
or revoked.
There is no
support for rights
enforcement
under the Creative
Commons system.

» 1. Irrevocability – All the CC licenses are “irrevocable” – meaning they cannot
be changed or revoked. Once you place a work under a CC license, the
meta-data travels with the digital version of your work – forever. This
provision conflicts with a creator’s absolute right under the U.S. Copyright
Act to end any license or contract regarding a creator’s work after 35 years
(generally speaking), no matter what the license or contract says. This
right of termination can be very valuable, particularly if a work “breaks
through,” but there is no apparent way to exercise your termination rights
under a CC license.

» 2. Waiving Royalties – Most CC licenses ask creators to waive the ability to
collect royalties – including from public performance rights. Such a waiver
illustrates that these licenses are for people who do not make a living
primarily from their creative work. For example, academics and scientists
enjoy salaried positions, with health care and often with university or
subsidized housing. Independent songwriters and composers have no
such luxuries.

» 3. Confusions Over “Noncommercial Use” – Many CC licenses are for “noncommercial
use.” While this would seem to preclude a creator’s work
from being unfairly exploited for monetary gain, a problem immediately
arises: there is no definition of “noncommercial use” under the U.S.
Copyright Act. Though there are a few narrow exemptions for “noncommercial
performances,” all other uses of creative works should be
licensed, either by the creator or otherwise licensed by reason of a compulsory
license. Even “non-commercial” PBS and NPR pay license fees
for their right to perform music in their broadcasts and on their web sites.
To further complicate matters, CC licenses define peer-to-peer file sharing
as “noncommercial” – a position with which the United States
Supreme Court has disagreed and is otherwise at odds with U.S. law.

» 4. No Support for Rights Enforcement – There is no support for rights enforcement
under the Creative Commons system. There is no larger organization,
like an ASCAP, to enforce the scope of creators’ rights under these
licenses. Creators are on their own when, for example, the boundaries of
a non-commercial CC license are breached, and the creator finds out the
work is being exploited for compensation by another. Creators who have
not obtained a U.S. Copyright Registration for a CC licensed work will also
find out that they have no standing to even sue in a U.S. Court, and thus,
are left with few realistic options for recourse.

» 5. Potential Global Conflicts – CC licenses are global, which can complicate a
creator’s ability to enforce his or her rights when those rights are violated.
Normally a work’s creator can control the geographic territory in which a
work is used – or appoint representatives to do so. For example, ASCAP
relies on a global network of Performing Rights Organizations to license
and collect royalties for performances of ASCAP members’ works in other
countries. The global nature of the Creative Commons system can interfere
with the support and income offered by these types of existing rights
infrastructures.

» 6. Non-Exclusivity – CC licenses are “nonexclusive,” which means that the
work’s creator will have no future ability to enter into exclusive deals for a
work licensed under the Creative Commons system. In the entertainment
industry, producers may want exclusive rights to use, for example, a
musical work as the signature theme for a television show or an advertisement.
Such an opportunity could be lost to the creator of a work
licensed under a CC license.

» 7. The Issue of Co-Creators – CC licenses can cause complications for works
created by more than one individual. Under the U.S. Copyright Act, unless
they have a written agreement otherwise, each “co-creator” has the right
to license the work on a non-exclusive basis without the consent of their
co-creator. Each co-creator’s responsibility is to ensure that the other cocreator
receives a share of profits. But what happens when a co-creator
places a work under a CC license? If a license eliminates the possibility
for payment on that work, and extends both globally and forever, the other
co-creator is essentially out of luck.

» 8. Lack of Distinction Between Types of Uses – CC licenses do not distinguish
between types of uses. A music creator’s submission of a work to a CC
license means that he or she allows the work to be performed, copied,
distributed or even synchronized to an audiovisual work. This can lead not
only to lost financial opportunity, but also a conflict of ideology. If a creator
gives up control over the use of his or her song, that song could end
up being synchronized with an audio-visual work that promotes a point of
view offensive to the creator and the creator will be without any remedy.

» 9. Prohibition of DRM – CC licenses prohibit use of digital rights management
(DRM). While use of DRM continues to change, it has been a core element
in today’s digital music arena. Preventing DRM from being applied to a
musical work can limit its use via certain distribution channels.

…there is no
“authentication”
as to whether the
true owner of a
piece of creative
content is the one
applying for the
CC license.

» 10. No “Authentication” When a Work Is Submitted – Even if a creator doesn’t
want to submit his or her work to a CC license, someone else can. How?
Because there is no “authentication” as to whether the true owner of a
piece of creative content is the one applying for the CC license. Any
person can go to the Creative Commons web site with a digital song file
or photograph, follow the instructions online and claim it as his or
her own and release a work, without the copyright holder’s consent, to
the “commons.”

For music creators, there are other considerations relative to Creative
Commons in addition to the list above.

For example, below is a note from the FAQ on the Creative Commons
Web site regarding how a CC license treats peer-to-peer file sharing under its
“noncommerical” provision:

One thing to note on the noncommercial provision: under current
U.S. law, file-sharing or the trading of works online is considered
a commercial use – even if no money changes hands. Because
we believe that file-sharing, used properly, is a powerful tool for
distribution and education, all Creative Commons licenses contain
a special exception for file-sharing. The trading of works online
is not a commercial use, under our documents, provided it is not
done for monetary gain.
(http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Questions_for_people_thinking_about_applying_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_their_work)*Fixed the URL – original incorrect

Creative Commons deems P2P file sharing and distribution a noncommercial
activity. And yet there has been debate and confusion in this area. For example,
is making and then distributing CDs of a track marked for noncommercial use
still noncommercial if the distributor charges for “shipping and handling”? If a
description of this same track is mined by Google Adwords to produce contextual
ads directly related to the song’s content, is such a use still noncommercial?

In its recent primer “7 Things You Should Know About…Creative Commons,”
online educational resource Educause highlights some of these areas of confusion:

Creative Commons is designed to be easy to use, but this
simplicity comes at the expense of clarity at the extremes -
determining what defines a commercial use or constitutes
acceptable attribution can be tricky. The “share alike” principle,
in particular, quickly runs up against difficult questions.

A review of existing content marked with Creative Commons licenses finds that
a vast majority of these licenses are Attribution / Noncommerical / No
Derivatives. This designation indicates that most people who are using the
system are doing so for promotional purposes – not to enable “remix” culture
by allowing others to make derivatives or build off their work.

Under U.S.
Copyright Law,
creators already
have the right to
waive their rights,
give their works
away for free or
permit the use
of their music
for sampling or
mash-ups.

Under U.S. Copyright Law, creators already have the right to waive their rights,
give their works away for free or permit the use of their music for sampling or
mash-ups, without necessarily giving up their ownership rights. They also have
the right to say “no” to licensing their works for uses with which they disagree,
on creative or other grounds.

So before making a choice to license away any right irrevocably, music
creators should fully understand the terms to which they are agreeing – and
the implications down the line.

Great questions!

Nice to see your time in the BBC hasn’t corrupted you into the group-think (yet)!

Hopefully you’ll get an answer or two – more than likely privately – and give some feedback on the thinking and maybe some of the future plans of the BBC.

Fingers crossed.

Liked The Streets, as ever.

to be able to dip back in and see iconic performances is not just a question but almost a requirement– who will forget Hendrix’s legendary ToTP performance- and the many others that have done the same?

As to whether it needs to be CC- lets take it in steps: getting the media online in a downloadable fashion that’ll last forever- it’ll not be about 7 days, but many many years. Remixing comes later.