if you visit this link, you can see some info about the use of the song in x-files film. i wrote this response bellow.
hello, its interesting to see all this here. i want to make the point about the use of my song and ASCAP.
“Licensor will not collect, whether individually or via a performance rights society, royalties for Your communication to the public, broadcast, public performance or public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work.”
What’s good about the CC BY license 2.5 is that it allows commercial use of content for “you” or “your” work. Keep in mind for a blanket to keep someone warm that blanket does not have holes in it. Publishers are in the ones that maintain the temperatures of those blankets. The CC BY license from my veiw is great sync licenses for artists, it also means if a venue/webservice uses all content under the CC BY license that the venue does not have to pay a bill to rights organizations for the use of that content.
These are good conditions for the self-publisher. Yet possibly upsetting for an established publishing industry.
Both Youtube and myspace might be considered commercial uses, from some points of view. Most artists want their content remixed and put with these services.
My thoughts are for now that artists that are not with a commercial publisher are best to put a creative commons license on their work that allows commercial use and join ASCAP. Its not the job of rights organizations to police attribution, it also seems logical that for someone to use a creative commons license they need to be sure that an artist is a member of ASCAP, as most of the rights organizations outside the US don’t list who their members are. So how can the user of CC content be sure that a new name has not been created for the band or artist. And who knows the future of technology with music and the web.
What i don’t agree with about both Jamendo and Beatpick is that they are based in Europe/UK, its not possible for content of artists with rights organization outside the US to be with these services. It seems only possible for artists to be with ASCAP and use a creative commons license. Both Beatoick, Jamendo or Magnitune don’t list this on their sites. Why not? Why is creative commons not letting artists that find out about the license know about this?
The ASCAP bill of rights states.
“We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.”
“We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.”
No other rights organization that i know of allows member artists to do this.
http://www.jamoon.org blog
http://www.jamyoung.net download the tunes free
this is a machine that delivers content to many cafes and venue spaces around the Netherlands. What makes this system more evil than the regular content that comes via Buma/stemra is that if i go into the space that has this system, they are not able to play my cd. Although they have cd player the player only plays content that is coded for that system. The reality of this system seems that the venue pays a lower license fee to play content only out of this streaming network. The system is linked to a central provider.
This system is a loose loose system for Europe. On one hand the large publishers and labels are not getting revenues that previously was available when more recordings and cd’s and dvd’s were pressed. The result is that prices for use of content for public performance has increased. A good example form Australia is a local bondi gym. The gym used to pay a license fee of 1500 dollars per year. APRA the rights organization in Australia put the price of content upto 5 dollars per member per year. This represented an increase in cost of 35000 dollars. So what does this all this mean. Well as the price of content goes up for use of all content, spaces are going to turn to these black boxs that shall pay 100 percent popular content. Imagine that if an artist brings a cd into this venue that venue is not able to play it as it does not have a license to do so. Scary future.
We met at Waterhole (venue in Amsterdam). Hein was watching some of his friends performing covers. It seems the only gig a self published artist can get in Amsterdam is playing content owned by a publisher or playing in a competition for free.
You can find out more info about Hein Japp and the band he performs with @
Talks about a commercial, non-commercial, creative commons, rights organizations, myspace and youtube.
On last tour to Belgium I was able to meet up with Paul Keller from CC.nl .
Questions sent out to CC mailing list: even if a site is set up as a non-profit is it fair that they run google adds with content licensed under a non-commercial license? I understand that often the non-profit makes very little from the adds, yet how do creators view this use? Are most artists ok about that art being associated with any product that google choose for ever and not participating in any part of that revenue? If a creative commons non-commercial use did not allow any kind of associated advertising, would the license work better? Is there a demand for a non-commercial license that does not allow advertising?
its interesting that last.fm are now collecting royalties for self published artists not with rights organizations. This really shows where things might be headed. With all the abuse that CC get from the rights organization, i wonder why CC should help them integrate the license. If the rights organizations are forced to adapt the license without CC, then they have to use the legal framework of the license as it is. In Australia APRA is already wanting government radio/schools to be excluded. Thats the kind of pressure that they are putting on CC au. My view is that unless the rights organization adapt the license under terms of a non-commercial use that the CC community agree is a non-commercial use, then CC should not help the rights organizations in any way.
Belgium copyright law makes the composer of a song the exclusive owner of that song and SABAM collects royalties on behalf of that owner. SABAM is an organization that has a monopoly on royalty collection in Belgium. The conditions that the board of SABAM maintain effect the way that members and non members deal with all forms of media. If you join SABAM you give SABAM the rights to your musical and artistic voice. SABAM do not protect creative works of its members from theft. (theft as in someone taking your music and calling the tune theirs) SABAM’s job is to collect royalties for the use of its members content where ever SABAM can. Very much more than most of what is collected by SABAM goes to labels & publishers outside of Belgium. When an artist gives up their music and artistic voice to a rights organization the artist gives up the right for a venue to use that content without SABAM’s permission. This means the price for the use of the “self published” content is the same as that of “well published” content. By joining SABAM your making your content less attractive to grass routes venues and spaces. Don’t join SABAM, SABAM works best for artists signed to a publisher or label. Consider licensing your content with a Creative Commons license and maintaining the rights to your musical voice.
SABAM provide content at one price, this means that published content is used by media almost all the time. 95 percent of SABAM members are self published artists however rights are exercised to benefit corporations like universal music.
Consider also: of the 121 million dollars that SABAM collects for use of universal musics content, 100 million goes to those that own the rights . This compared to rights organizations APRA in Australia that is able collect royalties for a fee’s for around 5 percent. Artists also do not have to pay a fee to join APRA in Australia. What makes it so expensive to collect and distribute a royalty in Belgium?
Recently i read that SABAM want to put a ban on the availability of peer 2 peer file sharing software to the people of Belgium. Organizations like Jamendo however are able to use this technology to help artists distribute their art. It seems Belgium artists are not able to distribute what they create because SABAM price all content at one price. It seems unfair that SABAM shall try to ban this form of P2P distribution.
Consider: Technology allows us all to create new media at home without the use of a regular publishing system. It seems natural that these changes in technology are going to decrease revenues for some corporations. Can the law adapt to have an understanding of new technology? What is next form of technology to be ban in Belgium? blank DVD’s, regulate all online hard drives. Where did it start? where does it end? Is this about control of information or financial gain for corporations, or both. How do the people of Belgium gain from the introduction of this law? How much of that 100 million dollars that is to be paid to universal music is going to people that are still alive that created this content. Is this the future “we” or you as the reader of what i say here want. Are you going to do anything about this?
“We” being the people without a commercial or (non-commercial !!!) publisher. The basic difference between the rights organization in the US ASCAP and SABAM, is that SABAM and its European partners get artists to sign exclusive contracts for the right to use their copyright content, where as ASCAP have artists sign non-exclusive contracts. With changes in technology it makes sense that all contracts now are non-exclusive. Media needs to rebuild, artists need to be business people.
Currently the media in Australia including JJJ basically use only published content. Media is given no incentive to use works licensed with creative commons, this is due to the blanket license system that APRA issue to all forms of media; including live venues. APRA do not offer artists the ability to license back. This means artists not with APRA can’t license direct to media as they choose. The arts council don’t even encourage use of creative commons licensed works, even though its public money that is funding the creation of the works. All the problems point to APRA. APRA also have the right to refuse an artist joining their organization if they have used a creative commons license, creative commons licenses are in conflict with the APRA contract.
