At the moment i’m exploring possibilities of making the tunes i make free in Europe to spaces that don’t have a licensing agreement with local rights organization for “live” performance.
Why did i join ASCAP, when my works were free? a song was used in a major film, rather than joining with an exclusive contract for use of works, i went with ASCAP. ASCAP and BMI contract are non-exclusive.
Anyway: Its possible to license what “you” create freely and be a member of ASCAP, however i don’t see that any creative commons license presented to ASCAP would be recognized (unless backed up in conjunction with the artist) with info ASCAP ask for.
Here is what ASCAP ask for from the artist..
“when performing your songs in an unlicensed venue send myself the following details: the name and address of the venue, the length of the license and the song titles included in the license.”
The problems with ASCAP for artists out of the US, i have found so far are.. ASCAP offer no legal advice.. If you want to collect all your royalties, you have to make a company, as the royalty is divided up 50 to writer and 50 to publisher. This is not the way the system is in Europe or Australia.
When artists make what they create free and don’t join ASCAP/BMI and what they create is used in a commercial context, a fee is being paid. Its a weird situation, sure if your works are not in the system then the rights organizations have no means to collect, yet if they are being used, how does that make the situation?
also: If you have a co-write partners that have made songs under exclusive conditions, it further complicates the situation. As its not just upto those co-writers, its also upto the rights organization, and also any publisher that they might be affiliated with.
Hope this post helps out somehow..
also.. note, when i say free, i mean free in the context as me being able to negotiate my public performance rights with-out a third party such as OSA, APRA, ASCAP, SABAM being involved. In the context of small tea house, a direct license works.
post on CC forum & new idea
October 20, 2008 by jamyoung
link to post
The NC license looks to be a better license for software developers and artists that don’t want their songs, code or graphic being used in a commercial way. It seems strange for me that Buma/stemra, coda & APRA have gone for these licenses within their system. Artists that join these organizations give exclusive permissions for the use of their copyright to these organizations. This means the NC license is not able to flex or move at all. In the US the CC license can flex as artists with ASCAP and BMI have not signed exclusive contracts. Most artists that sign with a rights organization outside the US probably don’t know that the contract they have with their rights organization is exclusive, most artists in the US probably don’t know that the contract they sign is non-exclusive. As the contract is non-exclusive in the US, artists can join ASCAP via the net. As what difference is it if the artists is a member or not, they still have their exclusive right.
It seems clear from recent mails with rights organization AKM, that the non-exclusive right of an artist that has issued the right for their media to be used via ASCAP/bmi, is unable to translate outside the US on any level. This in turn means that the commons license as far as audio works licensed by artists that are members of ASCAP or BMI are only able to go as far as the boarders of the US, from the information i have so far.
AKM write:::
your “case” has been discussed thoroughly. Our position is that in reference to the reciprocal representation agreement AKM has concluded with ASCAP we have the right to license the right of public performance of your musical works. No evidence is shown in the IPI-database that your membership agreement with ASCAP excludes live-performances. Given the fact that the membership agreement between ASCAP and its members is on a non-exclusive basis you too have the right to license the right of public performance of your musical works.
Our contracting partner is ASCAP. As long as we do not have a written information from ASCAP that we shall no longer license live-performances or public performances as a whole of your musical works we will proceed as before. So, please contact your contracting partner ASCAP:::
If all rights organization (outside the US) stand on the same ground as AKM its hard to know (yet if its upto a board run via corporations, its probably yes), what does that tell the artist that puts a creative commons license on their songs, be it non-commercial or commercial?
The other consideration that the audio creator might want to take into view is that no law exists (that i know of), that defines commercial or non-commercial. The rights organization have the ability to decide what a non-commercial or commercial use is, yet as the rights organizations voting system, is built in such a way that the more an artist or publisher gets the more power the artist or publisher has, this ultimately means that a definition of non-commercial or commercial is going to be created in favor of the corporation affiliated NGO’s or the artists, that get the most revenues.
This in turn means that creative commons has to bend to the wills of the corporations and governmental institutions rather than the artists. No artists or regular publisher is on the board of creative commons or icommons and i do feel that creative commons has understood the situation as i do now for some time.
The artist who is signed with ASCAP does have the right to defend her or his right to issue a license in the court of law, if they have signed a non-exclusive contract with a rights organization. Consider though, as non-commercial is not defined and share alike easily mis-understood, this means that a license that allows commercial use with attribution is probably the better choice for the artist that wants to stay self publishing.
From this view it seems joining ASCAP and defending the space/media that the artist issues the license 2, is a smart way to go. http://www.setlist.CC
I’m not a lawyer, so maybe i have it a little mixed up. Yet getting things mixed up might open up some other ways, that don’t just help the corporations, government and NGO’s.
Because you asked us in public on Facebook to act illegal for you re. to book non GEMA venues in Germany and because you don’t agree with the GEMA conditions and law, we decided to dismissial with immediate effect the booking contract…
You clearly demanded us criminal actions, at least, in public. We don’t agree to work with artists which bring agents and venues in bad situations like you do, we don’t agree to work with artists which work against (German) GEMA “law”, so try to bring us in bad situations.
conclusion… In Germany its a criminal action to sing a song in a public space without paying Gema, well at least from the bookers point of view. In fact the booker in Germany thinks that if you play a show in a space where you don’t pay gema, that they can no-longer be your booker. Now imagine if i said to someone having a conversation in a pub, hey mate, you want to talk to that person you have to pay me this much per minuet. Gema must be stopped!
the songs are me with some words and the guitar. the songs belong to everyone and if someone says that they don’t then that would be kind of strange, as i was just walking down the street and the wind blew on the tree and i had this idea. Could have happend to anyone. I decided to put a creative commons license on my live performance. The license is legal the venue can choose to use the license if they like or not, so can the public that visit the concert. I reckon its a great idea and good promo for me. Ultimately it would be best to CC zero the live show, yet that is in the pipe line.
Now i know that i have broken copyright law by printing the message above (and bellow) without the permission of the booker and i don’t normally do that (i have left the name out). yet the reason i have put the message is cause it would be great if the booker would sue me for printing the email on the blog. Cause at least when the court might charg me, they would have to read the message i copied to the court and the court is also some kind of public space right? never realized facebook was public, yet for a German booker it is.
Zou talks about art and the rights organization Sabam
-You’re an Australian living in Europe, why did you make the move, its all beaches why spend a winter here?
I moved from Australia about four years ago, and i’m mostly based in Prague. I made the move because i wanted to be performing more tunes rather than just a guy with a recording. I lived mainly in the inner city of Sydney and out of a 150 potential spaces to perform tunes, music happens in about two. The scene is not that much different in Europe, yet more cities, more people, and a better understanding of what art means, makes life more interesting. We have it good in Australia, more space, less people, yet its not really that great a place for someone a little off-beat. Its a great inspiration, yet hard to figure out a way to connect that inspiration.
-Recently you had a song go out in the now showing x-files film “i want to believe”, how did this happen and what does it all mean for you?
The director of the film Chris Carter found out about the song and Beatpick licensed the recording to fox. I was shocked to find out about it. The use of the song in the film has changed a lot of things for me, an industry that has left me out of things for so long has taken an interest. That’s not a bad thing, yet i’m still not sure how to react. Its going to take time to re-adjust and i’m in no hurry.
-What creative commons license do you use and why do you use that license?
I use a creative commons license that allows commercial use, i use this license as it offers more flexibility to the user than a non-commercial license. Consider though that although a song might have gone out as part of a major film production, look into the commercial avenues where artists can have their music used and gain a revenue and I don’t see many “self published” works being used. Mostly the rights organizations issue blanket licenses, for the use of content that is owned by publishers. The system is set up in favor of the publisher not the artist. To me it seems its best to license content with as little restrictions as possible, as there are already a heap of restrictions in place as things are.
-Do you think this could be the first major released film to use a song that is also licensed with a creative commons license?
I hope so. Its interesting to consider all the people in the past that gave their songs up, many maybe taken or given away in the hope of getting a name for themselves, or some songs maybe just in the hope that people would get it. The thing i really appreciate about a Creative Commons license that allows commercial use, is that a regular publisher could possibly use a song that is licensed with a creative commons license, yet probably wouldn’t as someone else could use that song as well. This might be the reason why publishers are putting bad vibes out about Creative Commons.
-How did you hear about Jamendo?
I found out about creative commons through an open source guy in Vienna, at first i was skeptical about Creative Commons, it took me a while to even get what open source meant. Then i struggled with understanding my situation. In the heat of the moment i told APRA in Australia to cancel my membership, at the same time i went along to the Icommons isummit in Croatia. I sat on the plane next to the CEO of Jamendo with a project.
-You joined ASCAP to collect for the use, are you worried about not being included in any revenues from the film?
I can’t see much reason for a self publishing artist to join with any rights organization, unless they are sure they are going to collect something. Sure its a family of artists, yet its a family of artists that is represented mostly by the artists and publishers that collect the most revenue. As soon as an artist joins a rights organization other than ASCAP or BMI it seems that they are removing themselves from the market place. Self published artists look to be better off with ASCAP and publishers in Europe might even be better to transfer their artists memberships to ASCAP/ harry fox. Less equals more. Most publishers and labels based in Europe are using Myspace anyway. I’m still trying to figure it all out, yet it seems this way.
I was not so worried about not collecting revenues through the screen actors guild as I did not write the song for the film. Its just the way it works and i can’t change that. I respect competition and the right for the artist to be able to choose. I’m told a small residual is paid when the song gets to TV though.
Consider though, artists, web services, film makers and the consumer are left in the cold as a result of how the rights organizations look after their authors copyright outside the US. Its just not fair. For me its important that people get to hear the song, looking for ways for people to get the song I’ve gone active against the system. I’m not sure if one side is better than the other, it seem as if both sides don’t care much for the art though.
James King from Sunshine concert talks about SABAM, SABAM basically put a block on culture and artists being able to work on any reasonable terms without a publisher. European/Australian culture is being decimated as a result of the inequality of the media system in Europe and media system in the US.
In the US the entertainment industry is driven by efficient market condtions. In Europe the rights organizations make sure everyone is paid equally, as a result all the Belgium culture is controlled by the government, and the commercial media dominated by the US/california. Europe has no market for the use of media. Myspace don’t pay for the use of content, yet small venues and up and coming web services providers have to always pay.
In the US Cdbaby does not have to pay for the right to stream music from artists with rights organizations outside the US (even though the rights organizations could do a take down by law). In Europe every person that has to sell music, has to play for even a 10 second sound clip of an artists music that is with a rights organizations. A belgium server that tries to create a contract like myspace has, they are going to be sued in a flash.
Big music services like IODA, The Orcahrd, i-tunes, all based in the US are getting a free ride for the cost of content, or US bands are getting exposure outside the US, because they can give sound clips away for free use.
The US media has no competition from anywhere else, unless the government can fund it, make a movie in Europe, que up for a cultural fund. with the cost for use of content going up outside the US because artists like Madonna are not able to collect through selling cds anymore and her empire needs to be fed, the media is more more easily dominated via the US. Global distribution points have been bought up by the major players. If these rights organizations are not deregulated, what happens next?
Its not the big corporations fault, their job is to make the most amount they can for their shareholders. With no sub-culture in the arts industry combined with torrents creating a free situation for use of what is created. What is the future of entertainment? 1984.
The answer is not to stop piracy, from my view its in the deregulation of the rights organizations outside the US like SABAM. The media needs fresh competition. Members of ASCAP and BMI can use a creative commons license, artists that are members of rights organizations not within the US can’t use a creative commons license.
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.
*-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”
Talking to Indra from a family based in Antwerp that run events in the lounge room for local artists. Although the doors are open to the public they do not do any advertising through any off line channels. The result is that they get a great bunch of people to listen to artists from the community. Although the event is free and most of the artists that play music are not with any form of publishing, SABAM have the right (by law) to fine AMPER elders for use of music. SABAM view all use of music content as commercial. The events have become so popular that well known artists within the Belgium arts scene that are with cultural/commercial publishers see this as an event that they want to perform at. The over regulation of the scene by organizations like SABAM not only effect artists at a grass routes level. They effect artists that are at higher up the food chain. The reality is that the board of the SABAM wants to see more karaoke/cultural music than anything else, as they represent shareholders of corporations or cultural funds. SO what about PUNK culture? The only way that this can change is through these monopoly organizations being forced into deregulation by the authorities run by the government. The Belgium government is quite aware of the corruption within the system, however they want force change. Partly because so many non-profits are funded. Why are the funded? because of the over regulation. What to do? This same or similar situation exists in all of the developed world except in the US, in the US artists are able to work out agreements as they choose and remain with BMI ASCAP rights organizations. One solution would be to change the way that the common law is structured. Yet i’m still trying to get my head around that.
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.
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?
Recently i was in Belgium, home of rights organization SABAM. It seems that the cost for use of music content is going up via the rights organizations, yet the interest in self published content is going down.
Venues funded by the government are often promoting published and label acts, while self published artists and bands are being asked to perform no cost. This funding combined with a strict regulation for use of music content by the rights organizations, make things not so easy for the self publishing artist. What to do?
The contract ideas bellow might give venues an incentive to play music from self publishing bands and artists that are in contact with that physical space.
1)-Contract that the artist signs to tell the venue that the artist is not with rights organization and shall perform only original content at the venue.
2)-Contract that the artist signs that allows the venue to use the recorded music of that artist in that venue free of charge. It would be up to the artist to let the venue know if in the future the artist joined a rights organization.
Myspace and youtube do not pay for use of the artists or bands content, yet venues do. Venues are not beaming soap commercials above performers heads during the show.
Recently i was in Belgium, home of rights organization SABAM. I spoke to both venue owners/promoters and artists about SABAM. It seems that the cost for use of musical content is going up (via the rights organizations), yet interest in quality “self published” content via commercial and non-commercial media streams is going down.
Culturally funded venues/festival/theaters in Europe are promoting published and label acts mostly. Self Published acts are often asked by culturally funded spaces to perform at no cost. This bureaucracy of cultural funding combined with a strict regulation of music rights, makes it mostly impossible for “self published” artists to get exposure in Europe. Cultural funding is creating conditions that often ensure “self published” artists join rights organizations when possibly they don’t have to. What to do ?
Could Creative Commons create contracts that help “self published” artists and venues/spaces? The two contract ideas bellow might give venues an incentive to play music from bands/artists that were in direct contact with that space. It could also give physical spaces an incentive to invite bands to tour when they created new music.
1)-Contract that the artist signs to tell the venue that the artist is not with rights organization and shall perform only original content (that the artist her or himself created) at the venue on that particular night.
2)-Contract that the artist signs that allows the venue to use the recorded music of that artist in venue free of charge. It would be the obligation of the artist to let the venue know if in the future the artist joins a rights organization. The rights organizations might in the future provide a list of artist’s that are registered with a rights organization(s)
Myspace & youtube do not pay for use of the artists or bands content, yet venues & spaces mostly are (even when the artist is not with a rights organization). Venues mostly are not beaming soap commercials above performers heads as they perform their tunes. Physical spaces might welcome the opportunity to be able to collect works that the venue could use free of charge. Many artists would give their content freely to a venue that would give them the opportunity of a paid performance combined with regular exposure in that space.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
