We’ve been following the story of the ASCAP letter for a while and getting reaction from groups mentioned. Today, we’ve received comments from Public Knowledge.
Last week, ASCAP sent letters to all of their members asking them to donate to a fund that would go to lobbying activities. The letters said that groups like Creative Commons, EFF and Public Knowledge are working to undermine their copyright to promote copyleft. That sparked quite a lot of negative response towards ASCAP.
We’ve already had the privilege of speaking to Creative Commons and the EFF on the issue. Both organizations have said that ASCAP represented them very poorly in the letter.
Today, we’ve received comments from Public Knowledge (or PK), the last organization actually named in the ASCAP letter.
“It’s obvious that the characterization of Public Knowledge is false” Art Brodsky, a spokesperson from Public Knowledge told ZeroPaid. Brodsky said, “Public Knowledge advocates for balanced copyright and an open Internet the empowers creators and the public. What we oppose are overreaching policies proposed by large corporate copyright holders that punish lawful users of technology and copyrighted works.”
Indeed, there is a difference between advocating for a more liberal approach towards copyright in response to a digital age and wanting to undermine people’s copyrighted material.
Brodsky also told ZeroPaid, “We have taken artist-centric positions on a number of critical copyright issues which have sometimes put us at odds with some of its copyright reform colleagues. For example, PK has pushed for a level-playing field in the payment of performance royalties, advocated for changes to the law that would make it easier for online music services to license content from music publishers, leading to greater legal use of music and greater compensation for artists.”
Brodsky’s last comment was particularly interesting: “Finally, and oddly enough, we have emphasized the central role that performance rights organizations like ASCAP could play in a digital world and have praised them for their ability to keep accurate records of who owns what copyright. So frankly, we’re more puzzled by this attack than anything.”
It is troubling to see organizations such as ASCAP spread such misinformation in the first place. It doesn’t take much to do any research on them because a lot of information about organizations such as Creative Commons, Public Knowledge and EFF are publicly available online. After reading some of the comments from ASCAP members including the one sent sent to us by the EFF, you can really get the sense that a number of ASCAP members appear to be much more savvy than the original author of the ASCAP letter. It’s as if whatever the letters intention was, it backfired both internally (amongst members) and externally (in the public). The question is, what did ASCAP hope to really accomplish in all of this anyway?
Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at [email protected].
