24 Jan
2004
24 Jan
'04
6:58 a.m.
Hallo,
I'm considering starting to DJ again, but this time not with vinyl as
I used to, but with a Linux laptop playing netaudio. Now as
more-and-more net labels start to use a Creative Commons license that
prohibits commercial use as described here:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode I wonder,
if playing tracks licensed as this in a club/pub where I will be payed
(badly) for my DJ-ing is commercial use? I fear, it is, and that thus
my netaudio DJ-ing is doomed unless I break the license hoping noone
will see it.
And a related question: If I would do a radio feature on net audio,
which I would be payed for writing introductory texts and recording
this speech, would this be commercial use, even if this would run on a
public radio without any kind of advertising or money making on the
station's side?
Of course I would follow other license requirements like attribution
and such.
ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
24 Jan
24 Jan
7:26 a.m.
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
I'm considering starting to DJ again, but this time not with vinyl as
I used to, but with a Linux laptop playing netaudio. Now as
more-and-more net labels start to use a Creative Commons license that
prohibits commercial use as described here:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode I wonder,
if playing tracks licensed as this in a club/pub where I will be payed
(badly) for my DJ-ing is commercial use? I fear, it is, and that thus
my netaudio DJ-ing is doomed unless I break the license hoping noone
will see it.
And a related question: If I would do a radio feature on net audio,
which I would be payed for writing introductory texts and recording
this speech, would this be commercial use, even if this would run on a
public radio without any kind of advertising or money making on the
station's side?
Of course I would follow other license requirements like attribution
and such.
ciao
hi Frank,
as you're based in Germany it might be helpful for you to get in touch
with Christiane Asschenfeldt, who is coordinating the international
porting of Creative Commons - her details are on this page:
http://creativecommons.org/projects/international/. i believe there is a
German porting in discussion too, but it isnt yet mentioned on the page.
yes, public performance in a commercial setting (where you get paid) is
commercial use. the net audio project sounds like more of a grey area.
but take heart - not all of us Creative Commons advocates use the
non-commercial license. i license my work with the CC equivalent of
Libre licensing - the Attribution-Share-Alike license - which permits
commercial copying. i dont know if my strange psychic soundscapes are
quite what you're after though ;)...
hth,
best,
m~ / iriXx
--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin
|\ _,,,---,,_
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL
.::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.
8:02 a.m.
Hallo,
iriXx hat gesagt: // iriXx wrote:
as you're based in Germany it might be helpful for
you to get in touch
with Christiane Asschenfeldt, who is coordinating the international
porting of Creative Commons - her details are on this page:
http://creativecommons.org/projects/international/. i believe there is a
German porting in discussion too, but it isnt yet mentioned on the page.
I'd prefer to get in contact with netlabels to remove the
non-commercial clause from their releases. ;)
yes, public performance in a commercial setting (where
you get paid)
But I will only get, I guess, below 50 Euro for a night there. :( And
of course free drinks. Free as in beer. But I know, non-commercial or
not doesn't depend on the amount of money you "make".
When dj-ing vinyl it was interesting to note, that several of the
german electronic 12-inch labels intentionally asked their artists,
that they released their music "GEMA-free". GEMA is a German
copyright asociation for music, which collects money
from DJs, radios, dance bands etc. and distributes it to musicans and
composers.
Well, with those GEMA-free techno 12"es all you had to do to be
allowed to play a dance track in a club was to buy that vinyl. After
that you wouldn't have to ask if you're allowed to DJ these tracks,
this was the self-evident thing to do with a 12".
It seems to me, that netlabels today miss something important, the
elders did know, when they now release under a "free" (beer) CC
license, that turns out to be not free enought to allow hobby dj's to
play their tracks.
But I wonder, if this section here:
"You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3
above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed
toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."
could be used to my advantage: I don't "primarily intend" to make
money by playing netaudio in public. I have a day job and such, this
is a hobby. (Still, staying up all night in a smoke-filled room and
such *is* work, as well).
is commercial use. the net audio project sounds like
more of a grey
area. but take heart - not all of us Creative Commons advocates use
the non-commercial license. i license my work with the CC equivalent
of Libre licensing - the Attribution-Share-Alike license - which
permits commercial copying. i dont know if my strange psychic
soundscapes are quite what you're after though ;)...
I could very well be: I intend to play experimental stuff, which isn't
played that much by other DJs. (It's more a pub setting I'm directing
at, not actually a club).
Ah, what the heck: As no-one knows the tracks I'm gonna play I may as
well just use Pd to create noise myself and tell the audience, that
this was some hip Korean underground stuff originally released on
cassette tape 1987. ;)
ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
26 Jan
26 Jan
9:23 a.m.
Whee! let's OT!
On Saturday 24 January 2004 11:59 am, Frank Barknecht wrote:
But I will only get, I guess, below 50 Euro for a
night there. :( And
of course free drinks. Free as in beer. But I know, non-commercial or
not doesn't depend on the amount of money you "make".
When dj-ing vinyl it was interesting to note, that several of the
german electronic 12-inch labels intentionally asked their artists,
that they released their music "GEMA-free". GEMA is a German
copyright asociation for music, which collects money
from DJs, radios, dance bands etc. and distributes it to musicans and
composers.
That sounds like a bit of a 'blag' on the part of the labels IMnsHO.
On Saturday 24 January 2004 12:09 pm, Mark Constable wrote:
But in this case Frank is not _necessarilly_ getting
paid for the music
itself but for his services as a DJ, so to me, this kind of usage is a
lighter shade of grey and certainly not black or white commercial usage.
I don't agree. A DJ with no tracks to play is an unemployed sound engineer.
Part of a DJ's service is selecting the tracks.
On Saturday 24 January 2004 3:18 pm, Mark Constable wrote:
These days, creating music is so ubiquitous that
it's more of a
priviledge for the artist to get their music exposed, at all,
Mark, you must live in a world where composer, artist and producer are all
one. Usually what happens is that the production industry gets all the money,
spends the artist's portion on hotel bills and advertising and juggles the
composer's part between different factions of lawyers. Royalty collection
agencies exist to try and make sure composers don't die in poverty.
I know I should be grateful for every little crumb I get, every little crap
floorspot I'm allowed. This month I managed to save up enough (out of a
windfall royalty payment, I might add) to buy a CD burner so now, for the
first time in my life I own my own means of production, although the covers
won't be up to much until I can afford a new printer. go figure.
Uh, someone said maybe now we can all be musicians. Yes, of course we can all
be musicians, artists, writers, designers, programmers whatever we want. I'd
like to live rent-free, grow all my own food and use natural power supplies
too as well as be able to buy my kid cool christmas presents. Unfortunately
I've spent the last 23 years of my life obsessed with music and my skills in
other areas aren't so well developed.
Frank, I guess it's up to the artist to license their recordings appropriately
according to how they want them to be released. Unfortunately most artists
probably aren't that aware of the issues. I know that my understanding is
fairly sketchy :-). In this case, getting in touch with the labels and asking
to be licensed for what you do is probably the right thing to do. In practice
that's going to be a rather time-consuming thing for you to do.
On Sunday 25 January 2004 11:47 am, Edward Barrow wrote:
I would have
thought that it should be possible to make a CC-type licence that was
compatible with the collective management of the performance rights,
while leaving the door open for adaptation/evolution/derivation of new
works inspired by/based on/copied from the original.
From the POV of an artist, if you're making lotsa
money from playing my stuff
(e.g.) then I'd want a cut. If you're just
getting free beer I still want you
to play my stuff. My current strategy is to release what would have been
'singles' for 'free' (as in I still hold the copyright & I'm still
entitled
to royalties, but I'm not charging _you_ for it). I don't know if GEMA works
the same as PRS, here it's the Venue that coughs up the Royalties based on
the playlists that the artists *always* give them :-] The artists get paid to
perform (sometimes). All the above is, of course, hypothetical ;-).
On Monday 26 January 2004 8:58 am, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
GEMA is preventing us from
paying musical dues to the jazz giants by collecting totally
out-of-proportion financial ones. and these are flat rates, i.e. they
don't reach the original artist, but are collected and then distributed
by a very opaque scheme *after* the gema administration has fed from it.
Hmm, maybe PRS does this a little better. I kow composers & musicians who do
receive regular (if not large) payments from them.
Other stuff I release on CD and it costs money. And I'm not averse to
receiving royalties either :-).
There's a considerable grey-area between the wording and enforcement of any
license/contract, which in practice means that many things are in fact
possible so long as you don't take the piss.
Frank, If you did limit yourself to only playing 'libre' music, perhaps it
would force artists into licensing their music appropriately. (?)
just my 0.02 of a euro
tim hall
10:49 a.m.
A DJ with no tracks to play is an unemployed sound
engineer.
Maybe even not that. But to put it another way, an artist not sampled
and remixed by DJs is a forgotten artist? Many of the best DJs also
produce their own tracks.
I think we all agree that what money goes into the music industry
isn't very evenly distributed at the moment. I'm all in favour of
paying artists so they can continue making music, but with the
current system it seems the vast majority don't make a living out of
it, even if they do have a recording deal. A tiny minority make a
great deal of money.
I think the libre software community has plenty of ideas which would
be of benefit to musicians generally - just throwing in a few here:
release early release often
be clear about copyright
acknowledge your sources
freedom in licences
work together without egos
Cheers
Daniel
11:09 a.m.
work together without egos
But I don't want to become the hole in a donut. :)
Can I interest you in a one time license fee, direct
from artist, that allows you to spin the licensed
music forever without further compensation?
Ron
Cheers
Daniel
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
11:38 a.m.
Can I interest you in a one time license fee, direct
from artist, that allows you to spin the licensed
music forever without further compensation?
That's something like how underground 12" vinyl works, or used to
work, in the UK. When back street shops packed with 'white label'
vinyl started appearing in our area around 1990, on the back of Acid
House and latter drum n' bass, the 12"s cost about 5 pounds. This
compared to maybe 2.49 or 2.99 for a 12" from a major label.
They can't have been MCPS members because the records rarely had
proper credits on them, so I'd guess the musicians were taking a
straight cut of that fiver. The records were made explicitly for
DJ'ing.
Cheers
Daniel
1:32 p.m.
R Parker wrote:
Isn't that a file downloaded from gnutella? No, I'm sorry it was the
album I bought from a music store.
What every muso wants is a license that says. "You are free to
distribute this and play it in a commercial setting but if you make any
money out of it that is taxable then your govt should give me some of
the revenue because I made it possible for them to make a lot more money
than they give me."
Unfortunately we can't trust governments to play fair so we will almost
always loose out.
So now the question is who is willing to pay their taxes? I guess 99% of
the musos I know don't want to.
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org/LAU/guide/ - The Linux Audio Users guide
Http://www.djcj.org/gigs/ - Gigs guide Korea
========================================
Apparently upon the beginning of the barrage, the donkey broke
discipline and panicked, toppling the cart. At that point, the rockets
disconnected from the timer, leaving them strewn around the street.
Tethered to the now toppled cart, the donkey was unable to escape before
the arrival of U.S. troops.
United Press International
Rockets on donkeys hit major Baghdad sites
By P. MITCHELL PROTHERO
Published 11/21/2003 11:13 AM
work together
without egos
But I don't want to become the hole in a donut. :)
Can I interest you in a one time license fee, direct
from artist, that allows you to spin the licensed
music forever without further compensation?
24 Jan
24 Jan
8:13 a.m.
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:22 pm, iriXx wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
>I'm considering starting to DJ again, but this time not with vinyl as
>I used to, but with a Linux laptop playing netaudio. Now as
>more-and-more net labels start to use a Creative Commons license that
>prohibits commercial use as described here:
>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode I wonder,
>if playing tracks licensed as this in a club/pub where I will be payed
>(badly) for my DJ-ing is commercial use? I fear, it is, and that thus
>my netaudio DJ-ing is doomed unless I break the license hoping noone
>will see it.
>
>And a related question: If I would do a radio feature on net audio,
>which I would be payed for writing introductory texts and recording
>this speech, would this be commercial use, even if this would run on a
>public radio without any kind of advertising or money making on the
>station's side?
>
>Of course I would follow other license requirements like attribution
>and such.
Excellent questions Frank.
yes, public performance in a commercial setting (where
you get paid) is
commercial use. the net audio project sounds like more of a grey area.
But in this case Frank is not _necessarilly_ getting paid for the music
itself but for his services as a DJ, so to me, this kind of usage is a
lighter shade of grey and certainly not black or white commercial usage.
I believe the spirit of the non-commercial clause is to prevent people
from (re)selling the music directly... as in putting it on a CD and
offering that CD for sale. It could be argued that Frank is getting
paid for his time and service to project the music to the audience
which could be positively in the interests of the CC copywrite holders
by expanding the exposure of their CC licensed material.
I'd lean towards arguing that DJ-ing is NOT commercial usage.
Perhaps the CC licenses need another option to indicate that performance
with attribution is OK (to clarify and cover these situations) ?
--markc
10:01 a.m.
Hallo,
Mark Constable hat gesagt: // Mark Constable wrote:
But in this case Frank is not _necessarilly_ getting
paid for the music
itself but for his services as a DJ, so to me, this kind of usage is a
lighter shade of grey and certainly not black or white commercial usage.
Well, at least in the commercial audio work, you have to pay a musican
or composer for performing his/her music. I was playing dance music in
a band some years ago with a dedicated commercial approach, and we had
to list all music we played an evening for the GEMA and had pay for
being allowed to play them. But this music had another license, which
explicitly wasn't intended to promote "commons".
ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
11:24 a.m.
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:58 pm, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Mark Constable hat gesagt: // Mark Constable wrote:
Yeah but that's "old world" crud that helps keeps bookkeepers and
lawyers in business. Perhaps in the days of expensive paper music
manuscript and vinyl this auditing procedure had some vaildity but
these days where the penny per beat ratio is so low it's obnoxious
(to me) that these archaic payment restrictions still exist at all.
But in this case Frank is not _necessarilly_
getting paid for the music
itself but for his services as a DJ, so to me, this kind of usage is a
lighter shade of grey and certainly not black or white commercial usage.
Well, at least in the commercial audio work, you have to pay a musican
or composer for performing his/her music. I was playing dance music in
a band some years ago with a dedicated commercial approach, and we had
to list all music we played an evening for the GEMA and had pay for
being allowed to play them. But this music had another license, which
explicitly wasn't intended to promote "commons".
Exactly, and I would like to think part of the "new world" game is
to spread the exposure of this musical commons, not to tie it up
and inhibit it with an artifical non-musical bureaucracy of paper
work shufflers that have nothing to do with either the creation
or the presentation of said music.
These days, creating music is so ubiquitous that it's more of a
priviledge for the artist to get their music exposed, at all,
rather than a priviledge for the listener to partake of the artists
work, or at least it's becoming moreso (again, in my view).
I still put "commercial use of music tracks" squarely in the realm
of direct sales of the product itself and not the associated payment
for any person or service that "performs" the work. If not then this
conversation will drift towards alternate payment methods for music
in the commons and that would be just as obnoxious as the current
system. That "obnoxous bureaucratic system" already exists for those
who want direct payment for their works of art... I don't see how
these restrictions apply to music, or art in general, in the commons.
I would like to think the point of music in the commons is that
there are no inhibitions or restrictions to people hearing it !
--markc
12:11 p.m.
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 15:18, Mark Constable wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:58 pm, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Up to a point....
I think if you adopt these arguments, you also have to have an answer to
the question "how will professional musicians be paid?" - or be prepared
to make the case for a world where all musicians rely on the day job to
pay the rent.
That's not to say that the old-style model can survive without
adaptation in the new environment.
But I for one don't have a problem with a share of the money paid by
punters on the door of the disco going to the people who made the music,
both the DJ and to musicians back up the "sample chain". This is what
GEMA and other "old-world" collecting societies try to achieve, with a
varying degree of success. Usually the venue pays a fee to the
collecting society, which then distributes the money amongst musicians
according to arcane statistical formulae to which Frank's record-keeping
exercise will have contributed.
How to achieve all this fairly and efficiently is a big open question. I
don't think even GEMA would seriously claim that their methods are
perfect.
- Edward
Mark Constable hat gesagt: // Mark Constable
wrote:
Yeah but that's "old world" crud that helps keeps bookkeepers and
lawyers in business. Perhaps in the days of expensive paper music
manuscript and vinyl this auditing procedure had some vaildity but
these days where the penny per beat ratio is so low it's obnoxious
(to me) that these archaic payment restrictions still exist at all.
But in this case Frank is not _necessarilly_
getting paid for the music
itself but for his services as a DJ, so to me, this kind of usage is a
lighter shade of grey and certainly not black or white commercial usage.
Well, at least in the commercial audio work, you have to pay a musican
or composer for performing his/her music. I was playing dance music in
a band some years ago with a dedicated commercial approach, and we had
to list all music we played an evening for the GEMA and had pay for
being allowed to play them. But this music had another license, which
explicitly wasn't intended to promote "commons".
Exactly, and I would like to think part of the "new world" game is
to spread the exposure of this musical commons, not to tie it up
and inhibit it with an artifical non-musical bureaucracy of paper
work shufflers that have nothing to do with either the creation
or the presentation of said music.
These days, creating music is so ubiquitous that it's more of a
priviledge for the artist to get their music exposed, at all,
rather than a priviledge for the listener to partake of the artists
work, or at least it's becoming moreso (again, in my view).
I still put "commercial use of music tracks" squarely in the realm
of direct sales of the product itself and not the associated payment
for any person or service that "performs" the work. If not then this
conversation will drift towards alternate payment methods for music
in the commons and that would be just as obnoxious as the current
system. That "obnoxous bureaucratic system" already exists for those
who want direct payment for their works of art... I don't see how
these restrictions apply to music, or art in general, in the commons.
I would like to think the point of music in the commons is that
there are no inhibitions or restrictions to people hearing it !
25 Jan
25 Jan
4:08 a.m.
Edward Barrow wrote / a écrit:
Side-men, studio musicians (good!) paid by the sell of cds (cds sell well you know,
contrary to what the US musical industry tell us), live gigs.
I just hope that live music get the rewards it deserves, more than "boxed music"
(cd) .
I pay for live gigs and I try to do it the more often that I can.
Here is my very wild way of thinking:
One-shot programmer + 600$ per cd = one-shot biz-star + 25$ per cd
Please take note, every musician I know rely on day job for a living, even those who
licensed their work to the unfair GEMA (I believe GEMA is the same as SACEM in France).
How many musicians do you personnaly know that have a decent pay from GEMA?
Anyway, all the wishes to GEMA and friends as long as I'm permitted to play the chords
I love.
And although not a lot, I'm paid for doing it :)
regards
GuyCLO~
I think if you
adopt these arguments, you also have to have an
answer to
the question "how will professional musicians be paid?" -
26 Jan
26 Jan
5:02 a.m.
[this is a rant on GEMA, the german equivalent to ASCAP in the u.s.]
Edward Barrow wrote:
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 15:18, Mark Constable wrote:
their methods are not only imperfect, they are horribly inadequate. not
only that they still cling to the most stupid of categorisations, Ernste
(serious) and Unterhaltungsmusik (entertaining music), they totally fail
to deal with the current changes in what comprises a "work of art".
example: i play jazz gigs occasionally with a friend. of course we play
a few standards. you want to give the audience some familiar stuff. now
even playing two standards in an otherwise all-originals set in a
location with 80 people and a very moderate entrance fee will cost you
about EUR 150,- GEMA fees. and this is fscking improvised music!
now try to negotiate decent payment for yourself when the pub owner has
to fork out almost as much to GEMA.
morale of story: ever since the GEMA has been sending people around to
enforce fees, there have been no more garage band concerts and no gigs
for local musicians in my home town. we work around the problem by
simply not playing standards any more - GEMA is preventing us from
paying musical dues to the jazz giants by collecting totally
out-of-proportion financial ones. and these are flat rates, i.e. they
don't reach the original artist, but are collected and then distributed
by a very opaque scheme *after* the gema administration has fed from it.
all they succeed in is making the big guys richer, secure their jobs and
screw over the ones that make music for the love of it.
if only "copy killed music"[1] and sent the whole bunch of bigots that
are the music industry where they belong: in the dole queue.
grumble.
jörn
[1] the name of a pathetic campaign by the german phono association that
has so far totally failed to live up to its promises.
--
"I never use EQ, never, never, never. I previously used to use mic
positioning but I've even given up on that too."
- Jezar on http://www.audiomelody.com
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Kurfürstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany
http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server)
http://www.linuxaudiodev.org (Linux Audio Developers)
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:58 pm, Frank Barknecht
wrote:
Up to a point....
I think if you adopt these arguments, you also have to have an answer to
the question "how will professional musicians be paid?" - or be prepared
to make the case for a world where all musicians rely on the day job to
pay the rent.
That's not to say that the old-style model can survive without
adaptation in the new environment.
But I for one don't have a problem with a share of the money paid by
punters on the door of the disco going to the people who made the music,
both the DJ and to musicians back up the "sample chain". This is what
GEMA and other "old-world" collecting societies try to achieve, with a
varying degree of success. Usually the venue pays a fee to the
collecting society, which then distributes the money amongst musicians
according to arcane statistical formulae to which Frank's record-keeping
exercise will have contributed.
How to achieve all this fairly and efficiently is a big open question. I
don't think even GEMA would seriously claim that their methods are
perfect. Well, at least in the commercial audio work, you
have to pay a musican
or composer for performing his/her music. I was playing dance music in
a band some years ago with a dedicated commercial approach, and we had
to list all music we played an evening for the GEMA and had pay for
being allowed to play them.
Yeah but that's "old world" crud that helps keeps bookkeepers and
lawyers in business. Perhaps in the days of expensive paper music
manuscript and vinyl this auditing procedure had some vaildity but
these days where the penny per beat ratio is so low it's obnoxious
(to me) that these archaic payment restrictions still exist at all.
But this music had another license, which
explicitly wasn't intended to promote "commons".
Exactly, and I would like to think part of the "new world" game is
to spread the exposure of this musical commons, not to tie it up
and inhibit it with an artifical non-musical bureaucracy of paper
work shufflers that have nothing to do with either the creation
or the presentation of said music.
These days, creating music is so ubiquitous that it's more of a
priviledge for the artist to get their music exposed, at all,
rather than a priviledge for the listener to partake of the artists
work, or at least it's becoming moreso (again, in my view).
I still put "commercial use of music tracks" squarely in the realm
of direct sales of the product itself and not the associated payment
for any person or service that "performs" the work. If not then this
conversation will drift towards alternate payment methods for music
in the commons and that would be just as obnoxious as the current
system. That "obnoxous bureaucratic system" already exists for those
who want direct payment for their works of art... I don't see how
these restrictions apply to music, or art in general, in the commons.
I would like to think the point of music in the commons is that
there are no inhibitions or restrictions to people hearing it !
7:19 a.m.
But I for one don't have a problem with a share of
the money paid
by punters on the door of the disco going to the people who made
the music, both the DJ and to musicians back up the "sample chain".
That's fine in principle, but in practice this requires either a high
degree of automation, or a layer of bureauracy which will inevitably
siphon off at least some of those resources. Ironically, being a
member of the 'royalties police', supposedly defending the interests
of musicians, is probably a more lucrative career than actually being
the average musician. I'll bet it offers a regular salary, and you
get to spend most of your working hours in bars...
This is what GEMA and other "old-world"
collecting societies try to
achieve, with a varying degree of success. Usually the venue pays
a fee to the collecting society, which then distributes the money
amongst musicians according to arcane statistical formulae to which
Frank's record-keeping exercise will have contributed.
So let's work out some estimated figures. The bar pays 100 euros
supposedly to compensate some (dead) jazz musicians, who during their
lifetime were unable to even pay their own rent, because they had
signed away their copyright to get a record deal, or were otherwise
screwed. The guy from the royalty society gets 50 euros towards his
salary, employer taxes and office expenses. That leaves 50 euros to
compensate musicians, in theory - but the money actually goes to
copyright holders, who may not be the original musicians who wrote
the track, or may not be musicians at all.
According to the statistical formula, this (jazz) bar must be playing
Britney Spears at least once a night, all year round. So the rights
holders on her music (whoever they are) get 1 euro. The royalty
society works its way down the top 50 grossing acts, handing out
euros.
At number 47 in the chart is The Clash, so in theory they get a
fraction of a euro because statistically, the bar must have played
London Calling at some point. But Joe Strummer is dead, and Paul
Simenon doesn't get anything either because he isn't listed as the
rights holder for that track. (Bass players, along with drummers,
rarely get writing credits).
Frank's own compositions, along with everyone else's, are
statistically insignificant in terms of gross revenue (sorry, Frank -
mine too) so he doesn't get anything back from that 100 euro, despite
the fact that he's the one doing the actual live music.
So how is the rights society helping the musicians here? I'm talking
about the musicians that actually need the money to go on making
music, not dead people, ex-managers, or individuals like Elton John
who can lose a few million dollars and not even notice.
How to achieve all this fairly and efficiently is a
big open
question.
True enough. From a band's point of view, the answer we've come up
with is that we don't play covers at all, and we don't play at venues
which demand covers - or worse - tribute shows. It's harder, but it's
better for your creativity...
As far as DJ'ing goes, I think the answer will be automated collection
of real-time statistics. A high position in a 'club chart' is likely
to be far more significant to an artist than the small amount of
money collected per artist.
I don't think even GEMA would seriously claim that
their
methods are perfect.
Perhaps not, but there are vested interests here. I predict that any
royalty collection society will be extremely hostile to libre music
licensing, as it represents a threat to their way of life. I've tried
discussing licensing issues with an MCPS representative, and the
response was like a brick wall.
Cheers
Daniel
10:07 a.m.
On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 11:16, Daniel James wrote:
But not, usually, when they're jumping - mostly it involves going round
bars, shops and hairdressers and anyone else who plays music in public,
trying to find the manager/owner, and getting them to sign the form and
pay for a sticker in the window.
The collecting societies publish their operating expenses and are always
under pressure to reduce them. But most have ratios well under 50%.
Yes, but that doesn't help you if the venue has already paid its annual
GEMA or PRS licence. It means you can lawfully play unlicensed venues.
As everywhere.
But I for one
don't have a problem with a share of the money paid
by punters on the door of the disco going to the people who made
the music, both the DJ and to musicians back up the "sample chain".
That's fine in principle, but in practice this requires either a high
degree of automation, or a layer of bureauracy which will inevitably
siphon off at least some of those resources. Ironically, being a
member of the 'royalties police', supposedly defending the interests
of musicians, is probably a more lucrative career than actually being
the average musician. I'll bet it offers a regular salary, and you
get to spend most of your working hours in bars... This is what
GEMA and other "old-world" collecting societies try to
achieve, with a varying degree of success. Usually the venue pays
a fee to the collecting society, which then distributes the money
amongst musicians according to arcane statistical formulae to which
Frank's record-keeping exercise will have contributed.
So let's work out some estimated figures. The bar pays 100 euros
supposedly to compensate some (dead) jazz musicians, who during their
lifetime were unable to even pay their own rent, because they had
signed away their copyright to get a record deal, or were otherwise
screwed. The guy from the royalty society gets 50 euros towards his
salary, employer taxes and office expenses. That leaves 50 euros to
compensate musicians, in theory - but the money actually goes to
copyright holders, who may not be the original musicians who wrote
the track, or may not be musicians at all.
This is true. But then again (veering further OT) the original copyright
holder was the composer, and when he sold the copyright, the price paid
by the purchaser was in expectation of future cash-flow. And in Germany,
the copyright can't be sold.
According to the statistical formula, this (jazz) bar
must be playing
Britney Spears at least once a night, all year round. So the rights
holders on her music (whoever they are) get 1 euro. The royalty
society works its way down the top 50 grossing acts, handing out
euros.
By far the biggest influence on distributions is radio-plays, because
the broadcasters pay by far the largest amount to the societies. Radio
stations' restricted playlists don't help.
At number 47 in the chart is The Clash, so in theory
they get a
fraction of a euro because statistically, the bar must have played
London Calling at some point. But Joe Strummer is dead, and Paul
Simenon doesn't get anything either because he isn't listed as the
rights holder for that track. (Bass players, along with drummers,
rarely get writing credits).
Frank's own compositions, along with everyone else's, are
statistically insignificant in terms of gross revenue (sorry, Frank -
mine too) so he doesn't get anything back from that 100 euro, despite
the fact that he's the one doing the actual live music.
This is true; see the radio playlist issue above. The system is weighted
against minority music.
So how is the rights society helping the musicians
here? I'm talking
about the musicians that actually need the money to go on making
music, not dead people, ex-managers, or individuals like Elton John
who can lose a few million dollars and not even notice.
The societies are collectives; musicians own and control them. But most
musicians just sign over the rights when they get their first tune
published and don't bother voting. (Bit like citizens at elections: if
you don't vote, you shouldn't be too surprised when you get the govt you
didn't vote for.)
How to achieve
all this fairly and efficiently is a big open
question.
True enough. From a band's point of view, the answer we've come up
with is that we don't play covers at all, and we don't play at venues
which demand covers - or worse - tribute shows. It's harder, but it's
better for your creativity... As far as DJ'ing goes, I think the answer will be
automated collection
of real-time statistics.
That's an awful lot of data matched, as you point out
earlier, to not a
lot of money. Sampling ( er.. statistical) saves the cost of universal
data collection. Radio station play logging is already automated - the
collecting societies have been investing in the technology for some time
now.
There is a compromise between accuracy and cost.
A high position in a 'club chart' is likely
to be far more significant to an artist than the small amount of
money collected per artist.
Anything that improves the present system is good. I just think the
better strategy is change from within rather than either tearing down
the old or attempting to create a new Utopia isolated from the old.
I don't
think even GEMA would seriously claim that their
methods are perfect.
Perhaps not, but there are vested interests here. I predict that any
royalty collection society will be extremely hostile to libre music
licensing, as it represents a threat to their way of life.
There will be resistance
to change. But "adapt or die" applies to them
as it does to the record companies and everyone else who does business
in this digital environment, and the collecting societies know this.
I've tried
discussing licensing issues with an MCPS representative, and the
response was like a brick wall.
Cheers
Daniel
10:34 a.m.
To throw a spanner in here. DJing is like any black market... If noone
you know cares then is it a crime?
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org/LAU/guide/ - The Linux Audio Users guide
Http://www.djcj.org/gigs/ - Gigs guide Korea
========================================
Apparently upon the beginning of the barrage, the donkey broke
discipline and panicked, toppling the cart. At that point, the rockets
disconnected from the timer, leaving them strewn around the street.
Tethered to the now toppled cart, the donkey was unable to escape before
the arrival of U.S. troops.
United Press International
Rockets on donkeys hit major Baghdad sites
By P. MITCHELL PROTHERO
Published 11/21/2003 11:13 AM
11:10 a.m.
Ironically,
being a member of the 'royalties police', supposedly
defending the interests of musicians, is probably a more
lucrative career than actually being the average musician. I'll
bet it offers a regular salary, and you get to spend most of your
working hours in bars...
But not, usually, when they're jumping - mostly it involves going
round bars, shops and hairdressers and anyone else who plays music
in public, trying to find the manager/owner, and getting them to
sign the form and pay for a sticker in the window. The collecting societies publish their operating
expenses and are
always under pressure to reduce them. But most have ratios well
under 50%.
Just a hypothetical example - I don't have any real figures on this.
I'd guess that it would be a significant overhead though, given that
a hairdresser won't be paying much.
the original
copyright holder was the composer, and when he sold the copyright,
the price paid by the purchaser was in expectation of future
cash-flow.
I don't think musicians have usually focused on copyright or licensing
issues until they realise they have been screwed. In the early days,
it's all about getting your record out.
And in Germany, the copyright can't be sold.
That's good news for Germans, but I was talking about dead Americans!
Plenty of famous UK bands from the 60's lost copyrights, including
the Beatles, Rolling Stones, and the Kinks.
By far the biggest influence on distributions is
radio-plays,
because the broadcasters pay by far the largest amount to the
societies. Radio stations' restricted playlists don't help.
I'm in total agreement with you here. What I don't understand is why
supposedly non-commercial public broadcasters like BBC Radio 1 have
commercial playlists - my best guess is that it helps guarantee label
co-operation when getting access to artists.
The system is
weighted against minority music.
Or to put it another way, against the majority of musicians...
The societies are collectives; musicians own and
control them.
Perhaps institutions eventually develop their own agenda. Maybe it's
that the highest grossing artists have things set up the way they
like, so why change them?
As far as
DJ'ing goes, I think the answer will be automated
collection of real-time statistics.
That's an awful lot of data matched, as you point out earlier, to
not a lot of money. Sampling ( er.. statistical) saves the cost of
universal data collection. Radio station play logging is already
automated - the collecting societies have been investing in the
technology for some time now.
Sure, but in a highly regulated radio market like the UK, the number
of DJs must exceed the number of radio stations by a large factor.
Anything that improves the present system is good. I
just think the
better strategy is change from within rather than either tearing
down the old or attempting to create a new Utopia isolated from the
old.
The problem with change from within is that if organisations like MCPS
are totally resistant to libre licensing, then it just won't happen
there. I'm very interested in discussing the issues with MCPS but the
reverse is not the case, judging by their responses to my emails and
phone calls. They've also got a grip on CD pressing plants in the UK,
who won't make a CD without an MCPS licence.
Cheers
Daniel
11:15 a.m.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:03 am, Edward Barrow wrote:
On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 11:16, Daniel James wrote:
> > But I for one don't have a problem with a share of the money paid
> > by punters on the door of the disco going to the people who made
> > the music, both the DJ and to musicians back up the "sample chain".
I do have a problem with this if the means to manage these funds
involves a bureacracy that has otherwise nothing to do with either
the creation or the appreciation of the music.
> That's fine in principle, but in practice
this requires either a high
> degree of automation, or a layer of bureauracy which will inevitably
> siphon off at least some of those resources. Ironically, being a
> member of the 'royalties police', supposedly defending the interests
> of musicians, is probably a more lucrative career than actually being
> the average musician. I'll bet it offers a regular salary, and you
> get to spend most of your working hours in bars...
I agree with Daniel. If the overheads of managing this stream of
income is too much then it's highly debatable whether it's worth
even factoring into anyones expectations of income stream.
But not, usually, when they're jumping - mostly it
involves going round
bars, shops and hairdressers and anyone else who plays music in public,
trying to find the manager/owner, and getting them to sign the form and
pay for a sticker in the window.
A hidious endeavour to begin with. The idea of storm troopers
threatening bars, shop and hairdressers to extract what will end
up being a totally insignificant amount of money for the MAJORITY
of smaller musos is something I personally want no part of. The
major musos, for which this system works, can probably get along
fine without the extra overhead-depleted income anyway.
I've spent some time looking for a license that excludes expectation
of royalty payments for public performances and so far none exist.
If no one is aware of any such license then I propose "yet another
license" to specifically allow royalty-free performance of material
and ask anyone else interested in this to make contact with me offlist
to craft such a license.
--markc
11:33 a.m.
I've spent some time looking for a license that
excludes
expectation of royalty payments for public performances and so far
none exist.
Try this:
http://mondodesigno.com/music/pml.html
For commercial use, you have to ask permission of the artist (this
could be through a representative of course). It's then up to the
artist if they want to charge a royalty or not.
Cheers
Daniel
12:14 p.m.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:29 am, Daniel James wrote:
http://mondodesigno.com/music/pml.html
For commercial use, you have to ask permission of the artist (this
could be through a representative of course). It's then up to the
artist if they want to charge a royalty or not.
Thanks for the link but this doesn't cut the mustard for me...
The licence doesn't prohibit music files being released on
CD compilations, or used in some other commercial context -
as long as the artist gives their consent, negotiating a
royalty where appropriate. In this age of email, it
shouldn't be difficult to track down the artist to ask them.
No way, too hit and miss to make timely contact with the
copyright holder. I want a license that explicitly allows
royalty-free performance and redistribution of (my) material
under three conditions...
. full attribution for the author/copyright holder
. derivative works only under the same license (GPLish)
. direct sale of the material has to be negotiated
I'll take the punt that the unencumbered reproduction of my
material, as long as my name is associated with it, will more
than make up for any debased fiscal payment managed thru a
3rd party that has nothing to do with myself or the listener.
Think free advertising and near zero marketting costs !
It's very close to this license but with some specific mention
of royalty free performance and redistribution...
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/
--markc
12:35 p.m.
Have you looked at the Open Music green, yellow, red, and rainbow
licenses?
http://openmusic.linuxtag.org/
Jan
On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 10:10, Mark Constable wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:29 am, Daniel James wrote:
http://mondodesigno.com/music/pml.html
For commercial use, you have to ask permission of the artist (this
could be through a representative of course). It's then up to the
artist if they want to charge a royalty or not.
Thanks for the link but this doesn't cut the mustard for me...
The licence doesn't prohibit music files being released on
CD compilations, or used in some other commercial context -
as long as the artist gives their consent, negotiating a
royalty where appropriate. In this age of email, it
shouldn't be difficult to track down the artist to ask them.
No way, too hit and miss to make timely contact with the
copyright holder. I want a license that explicitly allows
royalty-free performance and redistribution of (my) material
under three conditions...
. full attribution for the author/copyright holder
. derivative works only under the same license (GPLish)
. direct sale of the material has to be negotiated
I'll take the punt that the unencumbered reproduction of my
material, as long as my name is associated with it, will more
than make up for any debased fiscal payment managed thru a
3rd party that has nothing to do with myself or the listener.
Think free advertising and near zero marketting costs !
It's very close to this license but with some specific mention
of royalty free performance and redistribution...
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/
--markc
2:04 p.m.
No way, too hit and miss to make timely contact with
the
copyright holder. I want a license that explicitly allows
royalty-free performance and redistribution of (my) material
My licence is in the public domain, so you are free to use it as the
basis for your own.
The problem I had with all existing licences is that they are far too
long, and so no-one would actually read them. If the GPL was one
paragraph more people would have read it before using the software. I
would guess that a tiny minority of libre software users have read
the GPL from start to finish.
We need poets, not lawyers, writing licences. If the licence can't be
printed around the perimeter of a CD in a readable type size, then
it's too long.
As for contacting copyright holders before commercial use, that gives
me the option to say no to something like a bit of my music being
used in a TV advert, for example. I might not approve of the
association with the product, or I might want a fair slice of the ad
agency's five million dollar fee...
If a DJ contacted me for permission that would be great - it would
also help build community between musicians.
Cheers
Daniel
2:38 p.m.
Hallo,
Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote:
If a DJ contacted me for permission that would be
great - it would
also help build community between musicians.
When I asked Sebastian of www.thinnerism.com about this, he wrote me
along the lines: "DJ-ing our music is okay, but please send us a
playlist."
ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
27 Jan
27 Jan
4:54 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 06:01:25PM +0000, Daniel James wrote:
If the GPL was one
paragraph more people would have read it before using the software. I
would guess that a tiny minority of libre software users have read
the GPL from start to finish.
It's small fry compared with many commercial EULA's.
We need poets, not lawyers, writing licences.
That's fine until push comes to shove and the licence gets tested in
court.....
If the licence can't be
printed around the perimeter of a CD in a readable type size, then
it's too long.
If only...
You could drop all the clauses in the GPL about money, which are only
there because people are inclined to compare it with shareware licences that
say you are not allowed to sell the software. You could also have a
2-part GPL, with one (short) part about copying the software and a
second part which 99% of users don't need to read, about modifying the
software.
As for contacting copyright holders before commercial
use, that gives
me the option to say no to something like a bit of my music being
used in a TV advert, for example. I might not approve of the
association with the product
There you're way out of the domain of the GPL, which explicitly forbids
any discrimination about how the software is *used*, and is only about
copying.
--
Anahata
anahata(a)treewind.co.uk Tel: 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk Mob: 07976 263827
28 Jan
28 Jan
7:21 a.m.
I
would guess that a tiny minority of libre software users have
read the GPL from start to finish.
It's small fry compared with many commercial EULA's. We need poets,
not lawyers, writing licences.
That's fine until push comes to shove and the licence gets tested
in court..... You
could also have a 2-part GPL, with one (short) part about copying
the software and a second part which 99% of users don't need to
read, about modifying the software.
That's a good idea. Let's see what GPL v3 brings.
As for
contacting copyright holders before commercial use, that
gives me the option to say no to something like a bit of my music
being used in a TV advert, for example. I might not approve of
the association with the product
There you're way out of the domain of the GPL, which explicitly
forbids any discrimination about how the software is *used*, and is
only about copying.
24 Jan
24 Jan
3:57 p.m.
Hi,
Mark, the following is my pre-coffee knee jerk
reaction to your proposals. I got a little pissed off
and irresponsible but feel my positions are worthy of
consideration. I can't apologize for my feelings.
Reguardless, I don't want what I stated to be directed
at you...when the field is dry, water it. My reactions
always suck but for some reason I have no aversion to
looking the part of a fool.
This would be a fine enough impetus for war if
musicians aren't its greatest victim. They are!
Yeah but that's "old world" crud that
helps keeps
bookkeepers and
lawyers in business. Perhaps in the days of
expensive paper music
manuscript and vinyl this auditing procedure had
some vaildity but
these days where the penny per beat ratio is so low
it's obnoxious
(to me) that these archaic payment restrictions
still exist at all.
I pay much more for bandwidth than I ever did for
sheet music and vinyl.
But this music
had another license, which
explicitly wasn't intended to promote "commons".
Exactly, and I would like to think part of the "new
world" game is
to spread the exposure of this musical commons, not
to tie it up
and inhibit it with an artifical non-musical
bureaucracy of paper
work shufflers that have nothing to do with either
the creation
or the presentation of said music. These days, creating music is so ubiquitous that
it's more of a
priviledge for the artist to get their music
exposed, at all,
rather than a priviledge for the listener to partake
of the artists
work, or at least it's becoming moreso (again, in my
view).
That doesn't feel much different than indentured
servitude. I saw the first commercial album produced
with Ardour in a juke box a couple days ago. I loved
it! I might go back and take a picture. The bar is a
neighborhood dump that's been in business since 1938.
Anyway, while producing that album the artist and I
went dumpster diving and shoplifting food together,
several times. The artist is a U.S. illegal alien whos
teeth are turning yellow and falling out. He's about
30 years old. Next time I see him, I'll tell him his
wrotten teeth are the price of priviledge.
That "obnoxous bureaucratic system" already
exists for those
who want direct payment for their works of art... I
don't see how
these restrictions apply to music, or art in
general, in the commons.
If we met drunk in a bar and you used the word
obnoxous in the above context, I'd give you the
beating of your life. Or, I'd force you to beat me.
I would like to think the point of music in the
commons is that
there are no inhibitions or restrictions to people
hearing it !
I see nothing but inhibitions and restrictions for
people to hear commons licensed music because artists
can't afford to finance the ideal you describe.
Discussing altnerative methods of payment isn't an
option because I'm hungry and need to eat. If you are
not or haven't experienced sustained years of poverty
and hunger as a result of being an artist, I don't
want you speaking for me.
--markc
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
5:17 p.m.
Hey Ron, try to be a bit less reserved, don't hold back, you'll get high
blood pressure :-D
Jan
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 13:54, R Parker wrote:
Hi,
Mark, the following is my pre-coffee knee jerk
reaction to your proposals. I got a little pissed off
and irresponsible but feel my positions are worthy of
consideration. I can't apologize for my feelings.
Reguardless, I don't want what I stated to be directed
at you...when the field is dry, water it. My reactions
always suck but for some reason I have no aversion to
looking the part of a fool.
This would be a fine enough impetus for war if
musicians aren't its greatest victim. They are!
Yeah but that's "old world" crud
that helps keeps
bookkeepers and
lawyers in business. Perhaps in the days of
expensive paper music
manuscript and vinyl this auditing procedure had
some vaildity but
these days where the penny per beat ratio is so low
it's obnoxious
(to me) that these archaic payment restrictions
still exist at all.
I pay much more for bandwidth than I ever did for
sheet music and vinyl.
But this
music had another license, which
explicitly wasn't intended to promote "commons".
Exactly, and I would like to think part of the "new
world" game is
to spread the exposure of this musical commons, not
to tie it up
and inhibit it with an artifical non-musical
bureaucracy of paper
work shufflers that have nothing to do with either
the creation
or the presentation of said music. These days, creating music is so ubiquitous that
it's more of a
priviledge for the artist to get their music
exposed, at all,
rather than a priviledge for the listener to partake
of the artists
work, or at least it's becoming moreso (again, in my
view).
That doesn't feel much different than indentured
servitude. I saw the first commercial album produced
with Ardour in a juke box a couple days ago. I loved
it! I might go back and take a picture. The bar is a
neighborhood dump that's been in business since 1938.
Anyway, while producing that album the artist and I
went dumpster diving and shoplifting food together,
several times. The artist is a U.S. illegal alien whos
teeth are turning yellow and falling out. He's about
30 years old. Next time I see him, I'll tell him his
wrotten teeth are the price of priviledge.
That "obnoxous bureaucratic system"
already
exists for those
who want direct payment for their works of art... I
don't see how
these restrictions apply to music, or art in
general, in the commons.
If we met drunk in a bar and you used the word
obnoxous in the above context, I'd give you the
beating of your life. Or, I'd force you to beat me.
I would like to think the point of music in the
commons is that
there are no inhibitions or restrictions to people
hearing it !
I see nothing but inhibitions and restrictions for
people to hear commons licensed music because artists
can't afford to finance the ideal you describe.
Discussing altnerative methods of payment isn't an
option because I'm hungry and need to eat. If you are
not or haven't experienced sustained years of poverty
and hunger as a result of being an artist, I don't
want you speaking for me.
--markc
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
6:19 p.m.
--- Jan Depner <eviltwin69(a)cableone.net> wrote:
Hey Ron, try to be a bit less reserved, don't
hold
back, you'll get high
blood pressure :-D
hehe; i am one of three of the band Three Dorks. I
speak out of turn. I want commons licensed potatos and
a chef (DJ) to prepare me cost-free meals. I am sick
of eating snow soup and having a sexless life.
ron
Jan
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 13:54, R Parker wrote:
"commons".
partake
produced
me.
artists
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
Hi,
Mark, the following is my pre-coffee knee jerk
reaction to your proposals. I got a little pissed
off
and irresponsible but feel my positions are
worthy
of
consideration. I can't apologize for my
feelings.
Reguardless, I don't want what I stated to be
directed
at you...when the field is dry, water it. My
reactions
always suck but for some reason I have no
aversion
to
looking the part of a fool.
> Yeah but that's "old world" crud that helps
keeps
> bookkeepers and
> lawyers in business. Perhaps in the days of
> expensive paper music
> manuscript and vinyl this auditing procedure had
> some vaildity but
> these days where the penny per beat ratio is so
low
it's
obnoxious
(to me) that these archaic payment restrictions
still exist at all.
I pay much more for bandwidth than I ever did for
sheet music and vinyl.
> > But this music had another license, which
> > explicitly wasn't intended to promote >
> Exactly, and I would like to think part of the
"new
> world" game is
> to spread the exposure of this musical commons,
not
> to tie it up
> and inhibit it with an artifical non-musical
> bureaucracy of paper
> work shufflers that have nothing to do with
either
the
creation
or the presentation of said music.
This would be a fine enough impetus for war if
musicians aren't its greatest victim. They are!
> These days, creating music is so ubiquitous that
> it's more of a
> priviledge for the artist to get their music
> exposed, at all,
> rather than a priviledge for the listener to > of the artists
> work, or at least it's becoming moreso (again,
in my
view).
That doesn't feel much different than indentured
servitude. I saw the first commercial album with Ardour in a juke box a couple days ago. I
loved
it! I might go back and take a picture. The bar
is
a
neighborhood dump that's been in business
since
1938.
Anyway, while producing that album the artist and
I
went dumpster diving and shoplifting food
together,
several times. The artist is a U.S. illegal alien
whos
teeth are turning yellow and falling out.
He's
about
30 years old. Next time I see him, I'll tell
him
his
wrotten teeth are the price of priviledge.
>That "obnoxous bureaucratic system" already
> exists for those
> who want direct payment for their works of
art... I
don't
see how
these restrictions apply to music, or art in
general, in the commons.
If we met drunk in a bar and you used the word
obnoxous in the above context, I'd give you the
beating of your life. Or, I'd force you to beat
> I would like to think the point of music in the
> commons is that
> there are no inhibitions or restrictions to
people
hearing
it !
I see nothing but inhibitions and restrictions for
people to hear commons licensed music because can't afford to finance the ideal you
describe.
Discussing altnerative methods of payment isn't an
option because I'm hungry and need to eat. If you
are
not or haven't experienced sustained years of
poverty
and hunger as a result of being an artist, I
don't
want you speaking for me.
Try it!
--markc
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool.
8:39 p.m.
On Saturday 24 January 2004 10:15 pm, R Parker wrote:
hehe; i am one of three of the band Three Dorks. I
speak out of turn. I want commons licensed potatos and
a chef (DJ) to prepare me cost-free meals. I am sick
of eating snow soup and having a sexless life.
I'm inclined to agree with you here Ron.
Mind you I'm not so pissed off - I do at least have loads of free software
that I can make music with and a computer I was given to play with it on.
thanks
tim hall
11:22 p.m.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:54 am, R Parker wrote:
If an artist is stupid enough to depend on some middleware
infrastructure to pay their way for them then they deserve
what they get... either way, good or bad. As if everyone
deserves to be a well paid "artist" just because they want
to be.
...
If we met drunk in a bar and you used the word
obnoxous in the above context, I'd give you the
beating of your life. Or, I'd force you to beat me.
Indeed we would. If you think for one moment I am happy about
any musical proceeds going towards the limos and cocaine habits
of those in control of most of the funds involved with the music
industry then you and I would be at loggerheads.
Yes, it's sad that the cost of the chlorine that goes towards
keeping up the swimming pools for the drummer of metalica would
probably feed you and a few african villages.
There are two ends to any piece of string.
I would like
to think the point of music in the
commons is that
there are no inhibitions or restrictions to people
hearing it !
I see nothing but inhibitions and restrictions for
people to hear commons licensed music because artists
can't afford to finance the ideal you describe. Discussing altnerative methods of payment isn't
an
option because I'm hungry and need to eat. If you are
not or haven't experienced sustained years of poverty
and hunger as a result of being an artist, I don't
want you speaking for me.
Sorry, you get to walk in your own shows. If you haven't released
your music under a open source license then I don't want you
speaking for me either. If you have, and are complaining about
not getting paid for giving up your copyrights to a record
company, then I still don't you speaking for me.
Where can I buy your music online, to help support music that
is produced with linux based software, wether I like your music
or not ? Can it compete with the ton of freely-distributable
music I download via irate.org ?
Back to the original topic... unless I have not looked hard
enough, it seems there needs to be a specific license to define
more precisely just what commercially associated exposure is
allowed for the CC, or similar, "non-commercial usage" clause.
--markc
11:42 p.m.
I agree with you, Mark. I'd love to see more detail about what exactly
"commercial uses" are. I am in a taiko group and am hoping to release my
(eventually) recorded songs under a CC license. I certainly don't want to use a
license that would stop somebody from DJing my music, but I don't know how I feel
about some company using it in their TV advertising or publishing it themselves and
selling the CD. Are those all of the same "commercial" nature?
I'm a bit shady on the term, "performance" as well. Is there a difference
between playing a recording of a piece, and re-performing the piece live with instruments
(perhaps making a score of the track and reading that while playing on one's own
instrument)?
Thank you all for the discussion, this is an exciting topic.
Kris Bergstrom
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:17:39PM +1000, Mark Constable wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:54 am, R Parker wrote:
If an artist is stupid enough to depend on some middleware
infrastructure to pay their way for them then they deserve
what they get... either way, good or bad. As if everyone
deserves to be a well paid "artist" just because they want
to be.
--
H5n9d0+5
...
If we met drunk in a bar and you used the word
obnoxous in the above context, I'd give you the
beating of your life. Or, I'd force you to beat me.
Indeed we would. If you think for one moment I am happy about
any musical proceeds going towards the limos and cocaine habits
of those in control of most of the funds involved with the music
industry then you and I would be at loggerheads.
Yes, it's sad that the cost of the chlorine that goes towards
keeping up the swimming pools for the drummer of metalica would
probably feed you and a few african villages.
There are two ends to any piece of string.
I would
like to think the point of music in the
commons is that
there are no inhibitions or restrictions to people
hearing it !
I see nothing but inhibitions and restrictions for
people to hear commons licensed music because artists
can't afford to finance the ideal you describe. Discussing altnerative methods of payment
isn't an
option because I'm hungry and need to eat. If you are
not or haven't experienced sustained years of poverty
and hunger as a result of being an artist, I don't
want you speaking for me.
Sorry, you get to walk in your own shows. If you haven't released
your music under a open source license then I don't want you
speaking for me either. If you have, and are complaining about
not getting paid for giving up your copyrights to a record
company, then I still don't you speaking for me.
Where can I buy your music online, to help support music that
is produced with linux based software, wether I like your music
or not ? Can it compete with the ton of freely-distributable
music I download via irate.org ?
Back to the original topic... unless I have not looked hard
enough, it seems there needs to be a specific license to define
more precisely just what commercially associated exposure is
allowed for the CC, or similar, "non-commercial usage" clause.
--markc
25 Jan
25 Jan
12:58 a.m.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:38 pm, linux-audio-user(a)k--b.org wrote:
I agree with you, Mark. I'd love to see more
detail about what exactly
"commercial uses" are. I am in a taiko group and am hoping to release my
(eventually) recorded songs under a CC license. I certainly don't want to
use a license that would stop somebody from DJing my music,
Same here. I would be honoured if others replayed my music.
but I don't
know how I feel about some company using it in their TV advertising or
publishing it themselves and selling the CD.
I think the issue here is false representation as the author
of the music. For me, "my music" being used in someone elses TV
ad falls into extra exposure, same as being played on radio/TV
without getting royalties, as long as the authorship is attributed
to me and whoever co-worked the piece. Someone selling my music
directly as their own is not on.
I specifically do not want any royalties for performance of my
material as long as there is a pool of common material out there
that I can reuse without paying royalties for... otherwise we
fall back into the laywer-food trap.
Are those all of the same "commercial"
nature?
Not to me but a lawyer or record company exec might try to define
the lot as commercial usage to maximise any profitability.
I'm a bit shady on the term,
"performance" as well.
Is there a difference between playing a recording of a piece, and
re-performing the piece live with instruments (perhaps making a score of
the track and reading that while playing on one's own instrument)?
Good point. There probably needs to be some kind of distinction
between traditional humanly played and recorded instruments versus
computer generated digital music. Playing a MIDI file on another
computer is a long way from rehearsing a score from another song.
Both may have required painstaking effort to create but one of
them does not require a great deal of expertise to reproduce.
Thank you all for the discussion, this is an exciting
topic.
It's not exactly "how do I get ALSA to work with a 2.6 kernel" but
it will become more of an issue as CC-like music gets produced with
linux (or any, but more likely on linux) based systems.
Perhaps we could come up with a "yet another" LAU/LAD license :)
Heh, it would be better to contact the Creative Commons folks and
see if there is a general need to expand their 3 broad licenses
to a 4th option that has more detail about possible commercial
reusage.
Personally, I am considering a GPL (Fitehouse maybe) license to
encourage and ensure that reuse of my material "forces" any
changes and adaptions back into the common pool... even if it's
reused in someone elses commercial context, that's Ok, as long
as they pass on the "source" of their changes and do not falsely
represent themselves as the original author.
--markc
3:36 a.m.
It's not exactly "how do I get ALSA to work
with a 2.6 kernel" but
it will become more of an issue as CC-like music gets produced with
linux (or any, but more likely on linux) based systems.
Indeed... if this discussion is too far off topic, I hope someone will say so.
Speaking of royalties, I called BMI and ASCAP a few weeks ago hoping to figure out if a
Creative Commons license is automatically incompatible with their models. They are
supposedly looking into it but I haven't heard back.
At first I thought that a CC-licensed song could not be included in BMI and ASCAP's
libraries, but the more I think about it, the less sure I am about that. I think this too
comes down to the question of what is "commercial use."
First a bit of background. For those of you familiar with BMI, ASCAP, etc, please skip
this paragraph. BMI and ASCAP attempt to manage royalties for all of their thousands of
artist members worldwide. Radio stations, theaters, and basically any venue that plays
music in a commercial setting pays a fee to BMI and/or ASCAP. BMI and ASCAP then divvy up
the total booty among their artists, based on radio samples and various reports. Some
people consider the companies to be defenders of artist, and some consider them to be
money-grubbing corporations making bank off of others' creativity.
Alongside their management of royalties, however, BMI and ASCAP also monitor the use of
music. They fiercely prosecute when they catch someone stealing another person's song
or using music without giving credit and/or royalties. While royalties are not of so much
interest to me, I might be excited about BMI and ASCAP looking out for my music.
Has anyone tried to register a song licensed under Creative Commons or similar
"free-er" license with BMI and ASCAP? I've emailed a contact at Creative
Commons but he didn't know the answer...
Thank you in advance for any input.
Kris Bergstrom
--
H5n9d0+5
7:51 a.m.
On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 07:32, linux-audio-user(a)k--b.org wrote:
I don't know what models BMI/ASCAP use. In the rest of the world, there
is only one such body per nation. They are concerned only with
performance rights; the other rights stay with the composer or publisher
(and may be managed by another society: so-called "mechanical rights" -
now there's an archaic term, from the era of the piano-roll - are
managed by MCPS in the UK and Harry Fox in the USA). I would have
thought that it should be possible to make a CC-type licence that was
compatible with the collective management of the performance rights,
while leaving the door open for adaptation/evolution/derivation of new
works inspired by/based on/copied from the original.
Edward
It's not
exactly "how do I get ALSA to work with a 2.6 kernel" but
it will become more of an issue as CC-like music gets produced with
linux (or any, but more likely on linux) based systems.
Indeed... if this discussion is too far off topic, I hope someone will say so.
Speaking of royalties, I called BMI and ASCAP a few weeks ago hoping to figure out if a
Creative Commons license is automatically incompatible with their models. They are
supposedly looking into it but I haven't heard back.
At first I thought that a CC-licensed song could not be included in BMI and ASCAP's
libraries, but the more I think about it, the less sure I am about that. I think this too
comes down to the question of what is "commercial use."
First a bit of background. For those of you familiar with BMI, ASCAP, etc, please skip
this paragraph. BMI and ASCAP attempt to manage royalties for all of their thousands of
artist members worldwide. Radio stations, theaters, and basically any venue that plays
music in a commercial setting pays a fee to BMI and/or ASCAP. BMI and ASCAP then divvy up
the total booty among their artists, based on radio samples and various reports. Some
people consider the companies to be defenders of artist, and some consider them to be
money-grubbing corporations making bank off of others' creativity.
Alongside their management of royalties, however, BMI and ASCAP also monitor the use of
music. They fiercely prosecute when they catch someone stealing another person's song
or using music without giving credit and/or royalties. While royalties are not of so much
interest to me, I might be excited about BMI and ASCAP looking out for my music.
Has anyone tried to register a song licensed under Creative Commons or similar
"free-er" license with BMI and ASCAP? I've emailed a contact at Creative
Commons but he didn't know the answer...
Thank you in advance for any input.
Kris Bergstrom
7609
days inactive
7613
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
35 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
Anahata -
Daniel James -
Edward Barrow -
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki -
Frank Barknecht -
Guy Daniel CLOTILDE -
iriXx -
Jan Depner -
Joern Nettingsmeier -
linux-audio-user＠k--b.org -
Mark Constable -
Patrick Shirkey -
R Parker -
tim hall