Posts Tagged ‘creative’

.mp3 .wav .ogg for Top Of The Hill Jamison Young

September 1, 2008

Top Of The Hill large mp3 11.4 meg

Top Of The Hill By Jamison Young 50.3 meg .wav file

Top Of The Hill 4.7 meg ogg file

link to all large mp3′s

link to all ogg files

link to all .wav files

This song is licensed under creative commons attribution license 2.5 BY license in Australia. link to license

Attribute my website http://www.jamyoung.net and the creator Jamison Young when using the song where possible.

for a smaller mp3 file goto my website

Complicate, liberate, confused by the call
Into the forest where the angels waking
Like the birds in the trees
I only wish we could catch the first plane out of here

Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon

The stars are UFO’s, all eyes neon globes
Everything is watching him
He’s the centre of the dream
The birds are talking to him
Hey, he just worked out telepathy

Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon

Into the stars, back through the sun
Top of the hill where the angels fly
Into the sun, back through the stars
Top of the hill where the angels fly

Terminate the terminal 
We all live so we can fly
That true destination 
Where’s the ticket, anyhow

Take drugs, climb that hill
See the world, a different point of view
Burn the future
Burn a past
Fall into the abyss of that ugly mask

Keep on calling, keep on calling
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on calling, keep on calling
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on calling, keep on calling
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on calling, keep on calling
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on calling, keep on calling
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on calling, keep on calling
Little road maps on the moon

Into the stars, back through the sun
Top of the hill where the angels fly
Into the sun, back through the stars
Top of the hill where the angels fly

Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon
Keep on drivin’, keep on drivin’
Little road maps on the moon

.mp3 .wav .ogg file for Cold World Jamison Young

September 1, 2008

Cold World Jamison Young large mp3 8.3 meg

Cold World By Jamison Young 36.6 meg .wav file

Cold World 3.3 meg ogg file

link to all large mp3′s

link to all ogg files</a

link to all .wav files

This song is licensed under creative commons attribution license 2.5 BY license in Australia. link to license

Attribute my website http://www.jamyoung.net and the creator Jamison Young when using the song where possible.

for a smaller mp3 file goto my website

There’s no point in sinking that ship
When it’s the only way to get away
What they say, they don’t mean
It’s not fair to kill that dream
What they say

There’s no point, it can’t change
Build another world on mars the same
What’s the point
No super man, no profit
No rainbow serpent, no rocket
No picture, no angel
No underground city gonna save you
So what’s the point

No overseas, no internet
Gonna change your face to fit the set
What’s the point
No lover, no flower
No magazine, no paper
No electronic device
Ever gonna replace your life
What’s the point
What’s the point
There’s no point in being so cool in a cold world
There’s no point in being so cool in a cold world

In my face, in my life I can tell
It’s not gonna change
No amount of money
Gonna change the way to fit the set
No love, no hate gonna bring me down
Flat line living on a cloud
There’s no point in being so cool in a cold world (x8)

.mp3 .wav .ogg file for Memories Child Jamison Young

September 1, 2008

Memories Child Jamison Young large mp3 11.5 meg

Memories Child By Jamison Young 50.9 meg .wav file

Memories Child 4.2 meg ogg file

link to all large mp3′s

link to all ogg files</a

link to all .wav files

This song was used in the x-files movie “i want to believe”.

This song is licensed under creative commons attribution license 2.5 BY license in Australia. link to license

Attribute my website http://www.jamyoung.net and the creator Jamison Young when using the song where possible.

for a smaller mp3 file goto my website

To settle down and stop my movin’
Cuddle the sky, a rock to earth
And memories child
Memories child

All alone without a friend
Under the stars in the desert so nice
And memories child
Memories child

In the space where this world’s not real
To be true and not just a part of them
Aye memories child
Memories child

The desert’s growing and the sea is rising
In a thousand years it might just be
Memories child

Hold onto face, it just slides
Hold onto me I just fade
The beauty stretched and then replaced
The innocence lost and then remade
Inside my world it’s an under under cover
And underneath that there’s another double
Hold onto face, it just slides
Hold onto me I just fade

To settle down and stop my movin’
Cuddle the sky, a rock to earth
Memories child
Memories child

All alone without a friend
Under the stars in the desert so nice
And memories child
Memories child

Hold onto face, it just slides
Hold onto me I just fade
The beauty stretched and then replaced
The innocence lost and then remade
Inside my world it’s an under under cover
And underneath that there’s another double
Hold onto face, it just slides
Hold onto me I just fade
Hold onto face, it just slides
Hold onto me I just fade

.mp3 .wav .ogg file for Crush Jamison Young

September 1, 2008

Crush Jamison Young large mp3 8.1 meg

Crush by Jamison Young 35.8 meg .wav file

Crush 3.3 meg .ogg File

link to all large mp3′s

link to all ogg files</a

link to all .wav files

This song is licensed under creative commons attribution license 2.5 BY license in Australia. link to license

Attribute my website http://www.jamyoung.net and the creator Jamison Young when using the song where possible.

for a smaller mp3 file goto my website

You don’t have to crush me
You don’t have to put me down
You don’t have to be the way you are
I know that it’s hard
Things are never what they seem
As life goes on things might change
I hope I change my ways

You say that I’m selfish, it’s me I aim to please
I have no heart and I do not care
There’s no one else just me
You don’t have to crush me
You don’t have to put me down
You don’t have to be the way you are

You’ve judged and tried me ten times over
And you told me that I’m cheap
You’ve said that I should get a life
Get a life, just leave

You don’t have to crush me
You don’t have to put me down
You don’t have to crush me
You don’t have to put me down
You don’t have to crush
You don’t have to put me down
You don’t have to
You don’t have to put me down

I know that there’s no point in fighting
Fighting with you
I don’t want to let you bring me down again

I’d like to see you happy but it seems
You’re bent on crushing me
Crushing me
Crushing me
It’s the day after you burnt me and
The smoke still hasn’t cleared
I don’t know what to say
You brought a man to tears

You don’t have to crush me
You don’t have to put me down
You don’t have to crush me (x7)
Crush me (x3)

are these apples and carrots?

April 26, 2008

I have been looking at the non-commercial commercial use issue for a bit with creative commons, for me its a fault within the license. the non commercial license stands to benefit the larger corporations that only pay the majors when content is used. the way i see a non-commercial license is different to someone who works in software. people that make software often want to generate more income for themselves by the way they license what they create. people that make art for the most (from my view) just want people to experience that art. a lot of people that make art, don’t want that art surrounded by google banners. a similar way to look at it might be, some people don’t want to sit on a park bench next to river where the bench is sponsored by a corporation.

Its easier when things are made that fit in with a corrupt system, its hard to build anything that does not fit in with the engine already constructed. For me its going to be interesting if creative commons supports the solar energy space vessel, or the regular fuel motor. At this point it looks like creative commons are going with the slightly more efficient regular fuel motor.

Even if the world has not caught upto the machine, it does not mean that the machine can’t be built. If you build something else that cancels the possibility of that machine, how is the future going to judge that machine, if conditions get worse because of that machine.

i have been watching DR who lately.

Both these uses bellow (*-) currently look to be non-commercial uses through the view of the CC license (often). I notice a lot of video clips have used creative commons non-commercial licensed content within the clip, where they have not created the music content and uploaded that content to sites that have google banners. Two clips that have used my tunes under the creative commons BY license, yet both clips contain other tunes licensed with non-commercial licensed content. Clip A Clip B

The problem for me is that few artists use the BY creative commons license, yet it seems Non-Commercial works of all kind are being used in BY conditions. I’m not sure if this is because of bad information or this is the intention of the license.

read CC non-commercial guidelines here

*-Songwriter makes song and puts that song on their website with a non-commercial creative commons licenses. Video maker finds the song and makes a video using the songwriters song. Video maker puts the video onto a web service that generates its income through advertising revenue. In the terms and conditions that the video maker agrees to when they upload that video to that web service. The video maker agrees that no royalty shall be paid to the video maker when the web service uses the video makers video in conjunction with advertising.

*-Songwriter makes song and uploads the song to a web service that splits proceeds from the advertising revenue received 50/50 between the song and the web service. Songwriter licenses the song using a non-commercial creative commons license on that website. A performer hears the song and records their version of that song, the performer then uploads that version of the song to the same site under the same license. Revenues are split 50/50 with the performer and the web-service.

Are these uses non-commercial?

I sent the above questions out to the creative commons community mailing list

I received this comment when i posted the question to the CC mailing list from Lloyd.

“You can use this so long as in doing so *you* aren’t trying to make money from it”

This response via the same mailing list from Nic.

“Clearly not non-commercial”

“Not non-commercial, in breach of the licence”


Niaal works in the Bar at Vamoose and is in a band

March 16, 2008

Niaal works in the bar at Vamoose. Over the past 3 years performing in Venues around Norway.

Niaal Performs in

The low Frequency In Stereo

The Megaphonic Thrift

The Alexandria Quartet

http://www.rawmedia.tv 

David Venue owner in Bergen Norway

March 16, 2008

David run’s a venue called vamoose in Bergen. The venue is popular and is doing ok. Being a fan of live music Vamoose puts on a live act when it can. The reality is that the venue often looses money even when the band is playing for free. Stage space use and sound of artists means a night of live music can mean less money. Tono regulates the use of content in this venue even though much of the music comes through unpublished sources. David says that most bands would rather collect anything he pays to Tono direct from him. Myspace don’t pay for use of content, yet Vamoose does. Vamoose does not have soap commercial running over the artists head when they are playing their tunes to the public. What to do?

Ideas i have brought forward to the university of Oslo have been knocked back, as i have no proof that the projects i offer have a use in the community. I was not able to talk to students about ideas that relate technology and art. (you visit the projects at this link. Why? it would be un-ethical for me as my opinion is un-qualified. So the artist press kit idea gets shelved, intellectuals advise students what project they should do. The interesting thing is that few people within the intellectual community have much experience in the art world beyond a theory of understanding. Most universities promote types of art that have already been established in the media/publishing.

Every which way you loose, be sure to copyright everything and put it in a freezer and then present it as a paper and get a better salary. If your also able to merge a couple of those corrupt organization with your findings (TONO), better still and more points to you.

Anyway: excuse my cynical way here, meanwhile another person starts to write a song- cause they figured that song was better than the one they heard on the radio. They buy a guitar/amp, software for the computer, eventually an artist press kit, they sign their rights with a rights organization, they create a myspace, they try to tour out of their town, they can’t- no infa structure.

Who is going to build that infa structure. Lets wait and let myspace get around to doing that, rather than using any of that public money. The more advertising space the better, we like it best also when the artist gets none of that money that myspace get for the use of the artists content. That way the artist is sure to never be able to tour beyond the doors of her/his home, or if they do for sure its with an established publisher. We also like it that soon myspace are going to be selling stages to live venues with soap commercials above it. Yes mypsace sponsored by the rights organizations making sure that live music stays within the home for 99.9 percent of content created.

Now with the added bonus of knowing that a possibility to innovate did exist, however the idea did not have a PHD attached to it.

For sure if your good enough one of the major publishers is going to find you. Live performance skills are not needed with all this technology! Make sure you work on your online smile size, respect those building your cyber home. If we are all nice enough the walls of the future may not be all google adds.

http://www.rawmedia.tv

Frank from Antwerp

March 9, 2008

talking to frank about the artist creative commons and copyright. Visit franks page http://www.myspace.com/tmuziekdooscollectief

http://www.rawmedia.tv 

norway film maker

March 9, 2008

http://www.rawmedia.tv

is it worth standing in front of a bulldozer to save a tree?

March 5, 2008

jamteaCreative Commons are asking people for feedback on policy

CC/ iCommons is looking (from a distance) to be moving towards the corporations rather than the artist. Policy of iCommons is directed to those who create pools of content rather than users. The problem might be that most of the funds CC/iCommons get don’t come via individuals yet from larger corporations/organizations. CC has business people on the board. yet these people look at content from a business perspective not from that of an artist. From a far out view it looks like the same thing is going on a different plate.

who is going to decide what a non-commercial use is. The corporations or the people? The more people that use CC licenses the more important the organization is.

creative commons and rights organizations

February 14, 2008

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.

cultural folk or folk as in punk folk

January 31, 2008

response to person who thought decentralized folk is not a good idea.

what do you suggest- centralize the tunes- put ‘em on a shelf /i-tunes? pay to put your music on i-tunes and get people to pay for it- when 99 percent of what is consumed is owned by labels and the only people that pay for your music are your own fans that you develop at live gigs anyway?

cultural money supports the folk scene in most countries. take away the funding that controls the scene and the resource of the community might create the entertainment that is needed. that’s why its best for artists to pay bookers in Europe up front when they book live performance of shows, cause the scene is totally political. Almost every aspect of the music scene is funded. So punk and i see folk as being punk, is not able to happen while artists are judged on their ability to fill out forms rather than what they create. Yet once you
have bureaucracy in place, its not really possible to get rid of it. So i spose musical bureaucrats are always going to laugh at the idea of decentralized folk. look at u-tube! look at myspace, they don’t pay the rights organizations (osa) , look how successful they are when they use content for free.

canada rights organization

January 29, 2008

i read this at this link

In Canada the songs organization want to put a 60 dollar tax on every net connection and allow free file sharing. my response that seemed to have got lost in a huge ocean of response. My response was this.

what about art that people want to give away free. why would people pay for that? seems like a law not fair to artists not with labels and publishers. good law for the bureaucracy. what rights organizations tend to forget is that people are just not buying as much content as they used to. people are making more content at home. technology has changed yet the laws have stayed the same. these rights organizations were created for the publishers not the artists. with the net we don’t need them publishers or labels anymore.

we also don’t need them political people making decisions that make life better for corporations than people. what to do?

open real open or open as in your free to open this can when you buy it

January 19, 2008

In the last months I have had both my tunes and and photos used in projects because they were tunes/pics that were licensed under
creative commons open licenses. what i find interesting is that most
people license their content using NC (non commercial creative commons licenses). This means the pics and tunes can be only used in a non-commercial context. Non commercial and commercial are really gray areas. As we all know corporations are about lawyers (and .org’s as well). So no corporation is going to take open content that seriously (yet). They can’t be sure that the person did not just upload an unknowen indie band from next door or take someelses pic. So public domain stuff is high risk, creative commons is doing their best to change this. yet things can only ever be so secure. Rights organizations view everything as a commercial use (even the noise comming from your arse if they could!) that is why i see the a creative commons open license as being the way to go for now. Especially for artists that are not with a form of exclusive publishing. Attribution is the future form of creative currency ( i reckon). Non-commercial radio networks for the most are getting 100 percent of their content via small and large publishers, this want change while the small labels that are often funded by the government, via system of grants are being given money, because of the hungry arsses of the people in the rights organizations. its created an ears in pockets arts culture.

So an open license is a license for the people and also people with small business. Although some big business is using open licensed content, if they were to use that open content they are probably going to check up with you to use it. Also BY = attribution. what does this mean, well they have to attribute you for use. is that not what an artist wants. i’m not seeing car comercials with attribution, yet if they want to put you as the creator of the song in the commercial, then that is cool. yet when is that ever going to happen?

also SA (share alike) is it the way to go?

Its interesting that many wiki pages are listed under BY SA, (this means
attribution with share alike function) this means that to use the information from WIKI you have to share the content under the same license. I don’t (agree) with this much. I’ll give you an example
why. I want to sell my camera on ebay, its an old camera. I find some
info that is great through wiki on the camera. I use it, even if i
attribute the user of the license i am still in breech of copyright
law. Now if in the future wiki invent some kind of robot that enforces
the law. like the wiki share alike police. they could get your item
taken down. so really people don’t have access to the sum of all human
whatever. or maybe using selling your camera on ebay is a non-commercial use. Yet these things are always going to be strange

So be open

This is the wiki license at the moment

This is the creative commons BY SA license.

what is Icommons?

January 10, 2008

At this link find a description of how to build a bottom-up social movement. At this link find an article on how Icommons sees itself governed. At this link find a letter written by Mike Shaver Chief Evangelist at the Mozilla Corporation.

Mike Shaver writes:”Creative Commons has produced a set of licenses that helps not only software developers, but photographers, musicians, authors, bloggers, videographers, poets, DJs, painters , documenters, and journalists. This means that anyone who produces a creative work, which is virtually everyone on the planet, can share their work in ways that they choose.”

On this Icommons wiki you’ll see that a community governance is being drafted. There is no wiki asking the community to be involved in creating any kind of ideology that governs Icommons (yet?).

If you view this link find a call for the summit to more scientific. At this link you’ll find science has it own commons. At this link find an article that asks what is art to Icommons.

If the Icommons mission currently is “iCommons.org’s mission is to provide a valuable service to the global commons community by providing valuable information and networking tools to the social entrepreneurs that make up this movement.”

How many social entrepreneurs within the Icommons community depend on using creative commons licenses to distribute their art/creativity? How many intellectuals/ creators/ artists define themselves as social entrepreneurs? What about the valuable information and networking tools for the people that Mike Shaver from Mozilla mentions?

According to an interview at this link link Ronaldo Lemos chairman of Icommons says. “Icommons is made for those connected to creative commons …..Icommons is the movement creative commons is the legal project”.

If creative commons is the legal project, why does creative commons not have a meeting that brings the lawyers together? If Science Commons is focused on the intellectauls within the movement…? Does’nt it makes sense for Icommons to bring the users of the licenses together as the main focus each year?

Is the creative commons movement made up by those that licenses their creativity with creative commons license or by those that create bureaucracy? According to the description of “how to build a bottom-up social movement”. Step 2 Appoint (not elect) members of the board and employees.

A festival that brought creators that used creative commons licenses and those that create platforms for that creativity could happen in many different parts of the world at different times of each year. Its a huge expense to fly people from all around the world to a remote part of Japan to gather and talk about free culture. Are plans in place to make this a carbon neutral event? How do those outside this movement view this? What of the non-professional/ part time/ full time artists & creators that have an interest in this movement?

Myspace or APRA who is more evil ?

December 12, 2007

This article was deleted from myspace twice by myspace. This is kind of strange, I don’t think the article is that radical.

Myspace or APRA who is more evil ?

If you put your profile up on Myspace and you don’t let people know about your music, then nothing much happens with your art. Maybe a random search will bring someone to your art, you have to publish your works to be successful on Myspace. In order for an artist to get known on Myspace you are going to spend a lot of time clicking on profiles or you are going to buy a bot program. You could get a fan to do this for you or you might pay someone.

It’s a difficult situation for the artist that wants commercial success through Myspace. When Myspace sold to News Corp none of the contributors within the system received any type of bonus. The bonus they got was that it would get bigger. Myspace gets its revenue from advertising and does not split any of this advertising revenue with artists, nor does it pay for the rights to use this content to any rights organization.

The contract that the artists agree to when they put their music on Myspace is in conflict with all collection societies outside the US, but Myspace has had no major legal problems as a result. Even artists that contribute to Myspace are bombarded within their own profile by banners. Sure you can take your music off Myspace and go back to some other form of publishing, yet most artists/musicians go with what seems to work.

Myspace doesn’t have to pay a fee to the collection society for the use of any material. A venue does, a radio station does; everyone else has to. One way of looking at Myspace is this: Myspace went into a bus, cut a door in the side of the bus, and started selling tickets to people coming onto the bus. Now if I did this I would be in court/jail straight away, yet if I knew the bus company and the driver of the bus, it might be easier. So the bus that is owned by the public (the contributing musicians who are members of the collecting societies outside the US) is now partly owned by Myspace; well at least that door is.

Who has been ripped off here? The artists were always upset that they could not publish without a publisher and Myspace has created a stream of exposure for them. The collection societies created a system where the price of content worked in favor of the artists that were published, so self-published artists are really happy that Myspace is here now. Maybe the bus is not necessary anymore, or maybe the artists have to build their own bus. Why did myspace accept music from artists with APRA ? Why has APRA not done anything about this ? Would be nice if myspace was for artists not with APRA, yet that would be a good reason not to join APRA ! and myspace would not be popular if it did not have popular art within its system.

How was myspace able to get away with using content without paying, any live venue would be within its rights to create its own contract with any artist, to use content for free. Does this mean the need for the rights organizations is no more ?

response to someone asking for more info about US rights to those outside the US.

My answer: The point is more that the myspace terms and conditions are in conflict with the rights organization artist conditions. A venue or online business in the UK can’t create a similar myspace contract (for artists with a rights organization). Yet business in the US can create this type of contract. Why? artists with rights organizations in the US are able deal with content as they choose and remain within the terms and conditions of the rights organization. A similar business to myspace based in the UK would have to pay the UK rights organizations for use of content. last.FM have to pay for use, they would love to have it all for free. More an issue of double standards.

Last FM Creative Commons

November 29, 2007

A couple of months back this thread started on a last FM’s forum. Today I noticed that last.fm in conjunction with Mozilla is sponsoring an event that celebrates five years of Creative Commons.

Now if an artist, label or publisher tags their song with the words Creative Commons, the song goes into the Creative Commons charts. Read this thread for more information. For now artists or net labels are not able to upload using any type of Creative Commons licenses; a Creative Commons chart within last.FM’s system is a good step forward.

How last FM works ?

Type in the name of your favorite artist… into the last FM search engine. You are then taken to a page that says “Now playing:… Similar Artists”. The first track you listen to is the artist you choose, then to similar artists, example. The user has the option of clicking on a heart button to say weather they like the track playing or not, by doing this you create your own play list. The next artists playing is a different artist and so on. Each band or artist playing has a buy link that the listener can visit. Last FM has no advertising brakes, this sets last.fm apart from all other forms of music radio media.

Last.fm’s revenue.

Last Fm’s revenue comes from banners and preferences given to content played.

Information from last.fm’s website.

* 100 impressions for $20.00
* 500 impressions for $100.00
* 1,000 impressions for $200.00
* 2,000 impressions for $400.00

Book a Powerplay campaign to target a set amount of radio plays for a track to a specific group of users. After you’ve run your Powerplay campaign, you will be able to access statistics of how your track has been received.

Pay and be heard.

Artist’s label’s and publisher’s are able to “pay and be heard” on last FM. In Australia it is illegal to “pay and be heard” on radio. Its the responsibility of a programmer to decide what is played and what is not. A publisher, artist or label is able to bring content to the station. Its upto the radio network to pay the programmer to do her or his job. Last FM may be just a little closer to the reality of the music business.

Rights for use of content?

Last.fm have to pay the rights organizations for use of content, last.fm does not ask the artist when they become a member of their service, if they are a member of a rights organization or not. This means last.fm most likely pay a blanket license fee for the use of content. When an artist not with a rights organization is being played on last.fm, last.fm still pay for use of that content. Its possible that a fair chunk of last.fm’s revenue goes towards paying rights organizations. How are the rights organizations going to react when Creative Commons content is played via last.fm in non-profit spaces. If these organization only play content from the CC last.FM charts they be in a situation where they would not have to pay for use of this content.

A self publishing artist using last FM, why?

The last.fm system looks to support the established publishing/label industry. The system gives the opportunity for un-known artists to tap into the fan bass of a well-known established artists with a similar style and possibly sell music through i-tunes, paypal, cdbaby, amazon…. For an artist to be heard beyond the community of people that she or he comes in direct contact with, seems to be an expensive process. Creative Commons charts could change this.

Free culture & rights organizations?

People like music without hearing advertisements. With wifi moving everywhere is last.fm going to last? As the last.fm system gets more and more popular, the cost for the use of content might go up. Listening to radio without having commercial brakes gives last.fm a competitive edge in the market place, this might be seen as un-fair. Are publishers, artists & labels (companies that use banners) going to bring in enough revenue to pay for the use of this content? Could last.fm be shut down by the right organizations?

Music business.

The music business looks to have turned from the exploitation of the public for revenue to that of the “self publishing” artist. The explosion in artistic content created, fueled by the net and an explosion in technology, makes the exploitation of unrealistic dreams a good business. Its good business for the music business to maintain low standards of content within the market. “Pay and be heard”, pay this and our festival might consider you for a performance. Pay 20 dollars for your song to be reviewed. Put three songs on an album written by famous artists so public might find your content on i-tunes. Where does free-culture fit into all this?

Bout time video

November 25, 2007

Although this song has images from both Europe and Australia, the song was written in Australia. For me this song partly represents a feeling of being trapped in a system that is destroying the environment and offers little/no community alternative. The wind technology pictures were taken from a bus on the Austrian boarder going into the the Czech Republic. The images of red earth were taken in Australia, many places in Australia have been cleared of trees and farmed with cattle, sheep or are used to grow grain.

The idea of the fence is something that would not be needed if people respected animals and were basically vegetarian. Much of the crops grown go towards feeding animals. When you eat your next steak/meat/chook (if you do) think of the land mass that could have trees on it as a result of the food you eat, then flick to the all the promotion of meat products via the media. The sense of you need meat to be healthy; yet at what cost is this health to the environment and is it really healthy? A thought of the live sheep export and then to think of the beings in the ocean. Sure your just one person in this world, yet every time you eat a living being your telling the person next to you that its ok to do this. People live healthy & haapy lives without having to eat meat. Eating living beings is a huge contributor to global warming, I don’t think Al Gore is vegetarian.

Media and Creative Commons.

Currently the media in Australia (including ABC JJJ) basically use published content. Also 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 their content as a member. This also means artists not with APRA can’t license content as they choose to these media outlets that deal with APRA (where is the incentive for media to use creative commons content under this system ?). The arts council don’t encourage use of creative commons licensed works, even though its public money that is funding the creation of these works. All the problems point to APRA. APRA also have the right to refuse an artist joining their organization if they have already licensed with a creative commons license. The creative commons licenses are in conflict with the APRA contract. What to do ?

Why I put this very lo-fi clip together ?

I watched the Bob Dylan film last night “i’m not there” and decided that folk music is not so dead. Its just maybe defined to much by publishing organizations. If things decentralize more and more then folk can/might re-invent itself or be what it was. Although for folk to be what it was would be a contradiction to folk. Folk is like a dirty word it seems sometime; if you tell people you sing folk music; some might think you work in a museum. Folk seems to be you your means and the world around you. Maybe everything is folk and folk has got a bad name cause rock stars ate all
the space that was folk. In the film Bob Dylan talks to Brian Jones and “says, oh your the guy from that covers band”. The rolling stones took folk to rock and rocked. Good covers band. The sad thing for now is that when people pass songs back and forth you can be sure a publisher is getting something. Is a centralized pop based system responsible for
giving folk music a bad name. Punk is folk as folk is punk.

The film inspired me to put this lo-fi clip together.

About the clip

The footage was taken using a samsung vp-d351
The footage was edited using final cut pro.
The footage was edited on a mac g4 1.2 ghz
The music was recorded using a hand held device Olympus VN-960pc, normally used for dictation.
The music was recorded at http://www.soundofmu.no on Sunday November 11th
The song/footage is licensed under any creative commons license you like.
Footage comes from Australia & Europe. Song written in Australia.

Buma Stemra Art Pirates

November 14, 2007

Recently I called up Buma/Stemra (Dutch collection society) to find out more information about the Creative Commons pilot project. Read the press release here. The project was initiated by the Creative Commons team in the Netherlands, this mail thread explains more.

What I understood after the conversation was this: its as difficult to change what a commercial use is for art licensed with Creative Commons licenses (for members of rights organizations) as it is to create a ‘license back situation’ for all artist members. From what I understand a license back situation would allow the artists to deal with their rights as they choose, yet still participate in the collecting system where the artist wanted to. The reason why Buma/Stemra would not create a license back situation (according to Buma/Stemra) is that it would cost its members to much and there would be nothing to collect if they did this anyway.

From what I understand Buma/Stemra see little difference between what a commercial use is for art licensed with a Creative Commons non-commercial license and art not licensed with one (for members that participate in the pilot). Buma/Stemra see almost everything as a commercial use. What is going to happen if in the future rights organizations adopt the NonCommercials Creative Commons license under the Buma/Stemra conditions? Would this give the rights organizations the ability to charge non-profit organizations for the use Creative Commons Non Commercial licensed works in that territory ? Consider also: even a small flow from one rights organization might effect the art developing via Creative Commons licensing.

A way around this problem might be to add a feature to the license that would let the user of the license know that the art was administered by a rights organization (Buma/Stemra, yes no). By doing so creating a new aspect to the licenses. In time the rights organizations might work towards a Non Commercial use that resembles the Creative Commons Non Commercial use. For the rights organizations to build a new system they would have to dismantle/rebuild the old one. What incentive is there for a board of directors that are involved mostly with large publishers to do this?

Buma/Stemra must have been extremely aware of their system when this pilot started and knew from the very moment that it started that the conditions of a commercial use could not be changed. Were the Creative Commons team in the Netherlands aware of this?

Why would Buma/Stemra treat online users of content any differently to off line users ? Consider also: If Buma/stemra do treat a Non Commercial use differently online, then what is the effect of creative commons licenses on spaces outside the net now and in the future (where the pilot might be introduced)? Is two separate conditions for the use of content a good future to grow up in?

If this pilot continues, users of Creative Commons licensed works and artists that license using Creative Commons licenses are going to be confused.

Who am I to make any assumptions about Buma/Stemra? Although I am from Australia and was previously a member of APRA. Over the last months I have had the opportunity to tour music through the Netherlands. In this time I was able to get feedback from venue owners on how Buma/Stemra deal with people.

Here’s an article with more thoughts on the Creative Commons Non-commercial use.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 100 other followers