Posts Tagged ‘license’

the end of the internet in sight C61

June 22, 2008

Here’s some stuff to love about the new bill, C-61::

-$500 per downloaded song
-No Fair Use rights for remix culture
-$20,000 for uploading content (youtube anyone?)

wow what does c-61 mean? dealing in music is going to be like dealing in illegal drugs in Canada and i spose APRA ( Australian rights organization) is going to follow on par with this, well at least be throwing stones laced with dollars at something to make this happen.

imagine this, people could be pulled over, with the music going. “excuse me, do you have a license to play that music?” . travel to the future.

…a new machine is able to detect if the music that you listen to at home has been bought or not (like a random breath test for alcohol).

what the past did not understand, you see was this. when you digest music that has not been bought and fully paid for, your brain gives off a different signal, due to the way the hairs on your body dance. music laced with different incorporated rhythms made peoples body hairs do different things and science noticed this and found a way to capitalize on it.

people said that this machine was impossible to invent. they were wrong though, it was possible. music science people were able to train these small body hairs to move in different ways when exposed to tunes radiated at different frequencies. hipnotic unbreakable ear injected unconscious hair dance code. the whole thing came out of no-where, no-one expected it and when it arrived most of the world was put in prison.

All music that evolved out of the prisons of the future was said to be of the same source and therefor owned by that source via the crime committed, as people could not afford to listen to quality music, most went straight back to prison when released, as prison was the only place people could listen to and make music. many were put straight into prison for humming that fab song at a party without having a license to do so. free culture was outlawed, 90 percent of the worlds population was shipped off to space colonies that had not been found for braking copyright law.

The world lived happily ever after.

Knut Krywinski from Bergen

March 21, 2008

Knut Krywinski talks about cultural landscapes, some might find this not such a flash topic. Yet its really important that people understand how all this works, cultural landscapes are being destroyed in Europe due to the global food market. The environment simply does not have the ability to adapt, man no-longer has a personal relationship with the land, what does this mean, what is the effect? Knut has created this film independently. http://www.fieldsofdemeter.org

Not sure if the film is going to go out under a creative commons license. After speaking to Knut it seemed like he was looking for a creative commons license, only he had not heard of the license yet. I hope that the film does go out under at least a creative commons non-commercials non-derivative license (CC NC ND) wait and see? although Norway is yet to get the license off to a start yet.

I just bumped into Knut at the cafe in hostel where i was staying, the sound in the background does not make the clip so great and yeah i have to learn more about lighting.

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.

open as in

January 31, 2008

thoughts on how open-source is kind of tribal.

Stories may have been attributed for a while, yet most things would have formed some kind of common knowledge. Yet the knowledge might have had levels of access. Tribes might have stayed mostly in the same areas of Australia (from what i was told), the language of the north is said to be different to that of the south. Over time the tribes probably knew just about everything there was to know about the place they roamed/lived, and that knowledge would have belonged to the tribe, yet how can we really know how the koori people of Australia lived ? explorers prior to the first fleet might have brought sickness.

No one owns the dreamtime. plenty of great stories that the tribes tell (are these open source?). I spose its hard for a culture that has been so abused to open up though. One story is how the gods got angry a long time ago and turned this tree upside down. Boab tree. cool pic

the koori people see god as being in everything ( i heard) where as the christian sees god as only being in the christian (is that right?). I’ve heard koori’s also believe that everything from white man comes from beneath the ground. They are kind of right these days with that, with all the oil, metal and stuff that makes up the world, that binds our society together.

I kind of figure that Koori (koori is a better used word than aboriginal as aboriginal was a forced term) culture is open (or at least was among the tribes long ago) It would be interesting to collect stories and license them with an open license.

APRA create conditions to suit their needs

January 30, 2008

Although i can find many artists to agree to copy and paste on my myspace “i support reforms for APRA” (with very little effort) not one alternative radio station that I am aware of has mentioned issue’s that relate to APRA and Creative Commons. I have contacted many alternative and public radio stations around Australia to raise the issue, with no result. I started to wonder why, the issue of creative commons licenses and rights organizations is quite interesting for artists and public.

PBS is a radio station based in Fitzroy Melbourne that uses mostly alternative music content. PBS are able to stream content globally under the license fee they pay. PBS possibly get much of the revenue to run their organization through subscriptions from abroad. If PBS started to collect content from artists that were not members of APRA, under something similar to the ownterms contract idea at this link, http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/contract-2 (to lower operating costs and introduce new media to their listeners) APRA who have a monopoly would see this as a threat.

APRA are easily able to manipulate market conditions. APRA create conditions that force “self published” artists to join a network of rights organizations so that media can use that content (without the artist being a member of APRA the media is not legally able to use that artists content) APRA supply content at one price. APRA want recognize Creative Commons licenses. Creative Commons licenses provide a legal platform for use of self published content without the rights organization.

I’m not sure how APRA work out how much users of content pay to be able to stream content, as APRA do not list prices for use of content on their website. Does this create unfair conditions for business? The market is not able to use other content in conjunction with APRA’s content to the users advantage. Its quite simple for content to be tagged and identified as a different media. New technology means that media and creators of media need to be able to innovate. APRA’s blanket license prevents innovation to occur from both the creators and users perspective.

Without all price variables for use of content being listed in an easy and understandable way online, how can users be sure they are being treated on equal terms? How are artists able to judge if they want their content provided at this price? If i had a venue or was running an event i would want the details of how the price for use of content is construction. I would want security that my competitors were paying the same price. Listing the variables used to calculate prices for use of content on APRA’s website (however complex they may be) seems like something the business community would want. A regular audit by the ACCC would ensure consumer comfort. Under the current conditions it appears that APRA are able to create conditions that suit the board.

APRA are able to lock use of non APRA content out of the market and their is clear evidence that they do this. I’m quite sure that I am not the first person to bring these issue’s up with the ACCC, what i want to know is why the ACCC continues to allow APRA to maintain their license in such unfair conditions. Members of the business community are simply not able to go against the rights organization because they stand to loose so much.

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.

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?

blanket license suffocation, care of APRA

November 28, 2007

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.

article in progress “Some reasons why artists don’t use CC license”.

October 3, 2007

Most artists when they get started on their path mostly seem interested in distribution of ideas, rather than revenue. I spoke to a blues guitar player recently, when talking about money and music. “The music is free, what your paying for is the strings, the amp, the petrol and all the rest of it; but the music its free”. Its not easy for some artists to license their art with a CC license, Creative Commons is difficult to explain to an artists having a hard time. The void within the publishing system creates a magnet to almost every idea, creative commons is the only . I’m convinced that CC creates a better flow of culture within culture, yet getting that message through is not easy.

License:
The most effective distribution tool (i reckon) is an open license, yet for a commercial organization to use an open license can create problems. Recently virgin mobile in Australia used images, licensed with an open license without a model release. This resulted in legal action against virgin mobile and creative commons by the person that licensed their image using a creative commons open license. If the person using a license can sue the organization that creates the license, what is the future of that license ?

Publishing:
The publishers have created difficult circumstances for “self publishing” artist with new ideas. As publishing industries grow smaller, exploitation of the “self published artist” grows. Organization have sprung up all over the net that offer artists the opportunity to get through the wall at a cost. Its easy for an artist with little understanding of the publishing industry to be sucked into this system. Even when artists create ideas compatible with contemporary ideas, unless publishing industries have nurtured these ideas the ability to distribute the idea is not easy. One of my favourite artists “beck”, was related to the business when he started out. Publishing good ideas has less to do with the idea and more to do with who you know, even with


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 100 other followers