ZeroPaid.com » creative commons

Portugal to Outlaw Creative Commons?

Jared Moya — Mon, 09 May 2011 08:48:08 +0000

Country's Socialist Party plans to introduce proposal that would make artist compensation an "inalienable and non-renunciable" right.

Portugal's Socialist Party appears to be on the verge of introducing legislation that would put economic rights on par with moral rights. Just as one can't renounce the right to freedom of speech or association here in the US, the proposal would prohibit artists from giving up their right to compensation for their work. The proposed Law of Private Copying, as announced by the country's Minister of Culture, calls for a number of "innovations," including:

1. Broadening the application of levies on digital devices and media, in addition to analog devices and media, following thus the reality of the technology market, in addition to adopting a wording that guarantees a better adaptation to future technological developments.
2. Establishment of the indispensable and inalienable nature of the compensation of authors and artists, thereby contributing to a greater and more effective protection for creators and cultural creation

It's the latter so-called "innovation" that should be the cause for concern. It turns art into a commodity that can't be freely shared even if the artists chooses to. The specific text of the legislation reads:

Article 3, point 1 - The authors have the right to the perception of a compensation equitable for the reproduction of written works, in paper or similar support, for instance microfilm, photocopy, digitalization or other processes of similar nature. [...] Article 5 (Inalienability and non-renunciability) - The equitable compensation of authors, artists, interpreters or executives is inalienable and non-renunciable, being null any other contractual clause in contrary.

It would mean that artists couldn't allow others to freely share or remix their work with attribution even if they wanted to. How does this benefit artists since artists can freely choose to release content under a Creative Commons license in the first place? Telling artists that they can't give away their work hardly benefits artists any more than it does society. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

CRIA, Why Canada Can’t Have Nice Things Like Pandora

Drew Wilson — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:09:40 +0000

If you ever wanted the real story on why innovative music services cannot exist in Canada, you couldn't ask for a more modern story then Pandora's relationship with Canada.

Pandora is a music service that was launched in 2005. It was a service that helped music fans find more music in line with the kinds of music that they were interested in. It was also one of the new ways users didn't have to rely on p2p to sample new kinds of music that they never heard of. In fact, I gave it a spin at around 2006 and found out about an artist known as TeeBee - an artist more inline with my electronica taste in music and figured that this was a very promising service. The major record labels became involved shortly after. The good news was that the major entertainment industry seems to have a well used policy when it came to new innovation in entertainment that could help the industry move into a more modern time and stands to earn the industry millions in revenue. The bad news was that policy appears to be: ban it, block it, and kill it with fire. In 2007, the party was over as the entertainment industry used local American laws to crack down on the service and forced the company to block anyone outside of the US from using the service. The only people able to use the service now were either American or those who were savvy enough to use a proxy thanks to IP restrictions. As a result, many who might have used the service simply reverted to other forms of music acquisition - either going back to p2p or to services that offer independent content. It was clear back in 2007 that labels demanding huge royalty rates was a deal breaker anywhere outside of the US. Fast forward a full 3 years later to 2010. Pandora is still not in Canada and the service blocks potential Canadian interest. The reason? "astronomical" royalty fees Tim Westergren, founder of Pandora said.

"Radio delivered over AM/FM in Canada pays a rate of 2.1 per cent of revenue," Westergren writes. "In other words, the Canadian music labels are demanding that radio delivered over a mobile phone via the internet pay over 20 times what radio delivered over AM/FM pays."

Effectively, CRIA record labels blocked Pandora from entering Canada - the same record labels that said that companies wouldn't enter Canada because of copyright laws being not what they (major record labels) want them to be. In the mean time, over the years, artists hoping to be heard through services like Pandora are completely out of luck if they want to reach a worldwide audience. If an artist wanted to promote themselves, Pandora is no longer the best method thanks to the actions of the record labels - the artists now have to look elsewhere. In short, CRIA saw this innovative service that could benefit the industry, grabbed it by the scruff of the neck and tossed it out of Canada screaming, "Don't come back!" So where is CRIA in all of this? After censoring artists featured on Pandora from people outside the US, they must have an answer to all of this. We learned that Pandora actually does have an explanation:

Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, cited widespread illegal music downloading in Canada as the real reason why services like Pandora wouldn’t want to come here. “Why would you spend a lot of money trying to build a service in Canada when Canadians take so much without paying for it?” he said.

So, in other words, CRIA wants to block attractive alternatives to p2p from entering Canada until some magical improbable law would stop it first. A standard chicken and egg approach really. Services are starting up to address the gaps in the market that p2p fills and the only reason they are attractive to customers is because its a viable alternative to p2p in the first place. The record labels simply say that because p2p exists in the first place, these same services that do offer an alternative to p2p cannot set foot in to the country. In other words, with p2p, there are no services allowed in Canada. Without p2p, such services probably wouldn't exist in the first place. Many have already dubbed CRIAs explanation as the "blame the public" approach. Some observers suggested that the fact that Canada doesn't have Pandora means that Canada is left out of the 21st century music party. I would disagree to that sentiment because other services do exist that Canadians can use. There is CBC radio 3, Magnatune, Jamendo, ArtistServer, SoundClick, Section Z, Newgrounds Audio Portal (my personal favorite), OpSound, CCMixter, the FMA, Overclocked, the eMule Content Database and the Canadian Pirate Party's CAPT to name a number of sites that offer music to a worldwide audience. So really, there is no reason to wait for Pandora when there are oceans worth of free music services out there available to Canadians if Canadians wanted to listen to something they haven't heard of before. In fact, sites like the ones above are a fantastic way to protest what the labels have done to Pandora - listening to music they have absolutely no control over. So really, maybe Canada can't have nice things like Pandora because CRIA stonewalled the service. That doesn't mean Canadians can't listen to alternative services - services that do not benefit the major record labels to be exact. You don't always get what you want (i.e. Pandora), but sometimes, you get what you need. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Exclusive: Creative Commons Monitoring Czech Copyright Developments

Drew Wilson — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:51:06 +0000

Last Thursday, we broke the story that the Czech government was drafting a copyright bill that would legally gut the usability of Creative Commons. Since then, we've asked Creative Commons what their view on the situation was.

It's becoming the draft copyright bill heard around the world. The draft suggests that the government is preparing a bill that would require anyone wanting to take out a Creative Commons license to first submit their work to a copyright collective. After that, the creator has to prove that their work is authentic. Only then would they be permitted, under the draft legislation, to license their work under Creative Commons. This sort of limitation would legally gut Creative Commons. Many are now arguing that if such a limitation is put in place, then all works should have this limitation including copyrighted material. Someone on Slashdot suggested that this move is a violation of the Berne Convention, citing the following explanation from Wikipedia:

Under the Convention, copyrights for creative works are automatically in force upon their creation without being asserted or declared. An author need not “register” or “apply for” a copyright in countries adhering to the Convention. As soon as a work is “fixed”, that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work and to any derivative works, unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them or until the copyright expires. Foreign authors are given the same rights and privileges to copyrighted material as domestic authors in any country that signed the Convention.

With all this discussion, surely Creative Commons has taken notice. We spoke to Diane Peters, a spokesperson for Creative Commons who confirmed, "We have been watching this development." "As we understand it," Peters told ZeroPaid, "the situation is that there are several changes proposed to improve the current situation with respect to CC. There are other parts of the proposal that may be troublesome (were they to be adopted), such as the general royalties included in the price of copying machines and media, but these are a burden for everyone, not just CC licensed works." For reference, an English review of the leaked draft of the bill can be found here. There's been some suggestion that the bill would be passed without a problem, but as Peters told us, passage of the bill isn't a sure thing. Peters told ZeroPaid, "We understand that the new Minister has suspended movement on the bill to address some of these issues, and it will be rediscussed later this year." It will, no doubt, be interesting to see how this legislation develops. Will some of the more controversial provisions be axed before it is officially tabled? Only time will tell. "We will continue to monitor the situation" Peters said. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Czech Gov’t Drafting Copyright Bill to Legally Gut Creative Commons, Chop Creators Royalties By Nearly Half

Drew Wilson — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:41:22 +0000

If you ever thought that no one would ever actually legally attack Creative Commons and, if they did, you'd hear about it, consider this the article you "hear about it". A draft copyright bill from the Czech Republic has leaked online and it may be one of the most disturbing copyright bills ever created.

One of the key aspects of Creative Commons is the ease to obtain a license. You just browse to the Creative Commons website, select the license you want by answering a few simple questions, and then you get a block of code you can paste on any HTML website you are building to tell everyone what you can and cannot do. This is one of many reasons Creative Commons is so successful. Now, it seems, the Czech Republic is working to end this practice altogether. According to a very disturbing report by Czech media site Piratske Noviny. A manually translated version to English is available here. The leaked draft of the copyright bill would put a whole new set of restrictions on public licensed materials (licenses include Creative Commons). Under the draft text, anyone who wants to use a public license must report to a copyright collective administrator. The administrator would then review the work in question and the creator would have to prove that he or she has created that work in the first place. Then, and only then, can a creator legally use a public license of their choice. It takes away a creators freedom of choice to license their work as they so choose - works they own the rights to in the first place. Things get exponentially more complicated with GNU licenses because there are numerous projects in existence today that are open collaborations with people all around the world. Public licenses are explicitly designed to not be given out on a moderated basis and now the government is intervening in all of this. EDRI managed to translate the relevant section of the draft:

The draft states that: "If a right holder not represented on the basis of the agreement expresses his will to exclude the effect of cumulative agreement while providing gratuitous license, the effect of cumulative agreement is excluded to the extent of provided license in respect to the collective administrator at the moment when the collecting administrator is provably notified of the provided license." That means that in order to achieve free distribution of copylefted work, the author has to notify the collecting society and he carries the burden of proof, that is, he has to prove that license has been provided, or if you like, the user of gratuitous license has to prove the collecting society has been notified, which is even harder. The amendment draft thus violates the declared support of public licenses.

If such a law were to take effect, then many people who want to conveniently get a public license for their work will simply opt to not get it because the government made it too difficult to obtain one. Another disturbing set of provisions is the legal mandating of chopping down authors royalty rates by nearly half. Libraries that lend copyrighted material apparently are able to collect money on behalf of content creators. Originally, all the money made was forwarded to the creators of the work. The new amendments will make it so authors only receive 60% of the royalties while the remaining 40% of the money will be funneled directly to publishers. I am not an expert on Czech Republic law, and I don't normally advocate contract law in this manner, but seriously, why can't there be contract law being put in play here rather than what is being seen here? If creators have a system that is better than 60%, why pass a law that mandates that creators have to reduce their royalty rates down to 60%? This move seems to be quite archaic. Overall, I am absolutely floored a government is even thinking about a copyright law like this. The question is whether or not the public backlash will prevent the government from tabling the law. If you understand the Czech language, the draft of the law is available here. [Via EDRI] ZeroPaid happily greets Richard Stallman. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Open Licensed Music Movement Gathers Momentum In Germany

Drew Wilson — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 03:38:07 +0000

Open licensed music isn't entirely new. Artists seeing the pitfalls of copyright isn't entirely new either. But what is interesting is to see a German music outlet distribute over 345,000 free songs in one month.

In some music circles, there is the well-founded argument that good music is actually a dime a dozen, the only thing that makes a difference is what is actively promoted thanks to the major record labels stranglehold on the various traditional channels to promote their music. Whether or not this is still holding true in Germany is unclear. What is clear is some impressive numbers coming out of one music service. What is clear is that the free music movement (free as in open license music such as Creative Commons) has been quietly rolling along online for the last several years, gradually gathering steam wherever possible. One sign that the open license movement is gathering steam was when ASCAP attacked Creative Commons not once, but twice. It certainly says a lot when a movement gets this kind of attention from such a well-known organization - even if the attacks against it seem to be ill-conceived. Over in Germany, there is a new sign that open licensed music such as Creative Commons licensed music is gathering momentum. According to German site, Darker Radio, the free music charts for August 2010 topped 345,000 downloads (Google translated). A vast majority of the songs appear to be available on Archive.org and Jamendo - both sites that distribute Creative Commons music. Jamendo is a service that allows users to download music for free under a Creative Commons license through file-sharing networks such as eDonkey2000 and BitTorrent. If the user likes it, they can pay for the music after to help support the artist. Questioning the values of copyright, not to mention the real purpose of copyright, has been a topic discussed in Germany for years. One artist, Der Plan, created a music video that sings how ideas are free and copyright is slavery while blowing up various icons of intellectual property protection back in 2004. The video has been somewhat iconic to the questioning of copyright since its release in Germany. In 2008, another German artist, Johannes Kreidler, composed a 33 second song mashing up over 70,000 songs. As part of German copyright law, a form had to be filled out for each and every sample used and sent to GEMA, a German copyright collective. He filled out each and every single one of the required forms and showed up at GEMAs doors with the whole truckload of papers. Video of the event (German dialogue only): The idea was to not only protest how sampling is handled, but also question the validity of copyright in an internet age. Personally, I think it's things like this that major corporations who profit handsomely off of mainstream artists are deathly afraid of - alternative methods of obtaining music that offers music they don't own or control. Questioning copyright is one thing, but if both artists and consumers start to think that copyright benefits neither artist nor consumer and work to cut the major record labels out of the equation, that has the potential to really impact labels who refuse to use alternative business models. This is not to say something like this happens overnight because many large movements take time to build up. Still, it is interesting to see how much the open license movement has grown over the years in different countries around the world. [Hat tip: Gulli] Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

ASCAP Continues Its War on Free Culture

Drew Wilson — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:47:19 +0000

Last month, ASCAP issued a letter hoping to collect donations to fight the copyleft movement. After severe backlash both externally and internally for saying that organizations like Creative Commons, EFF, and Public Knowledge is anti-copyright, you'd think that ASCAP would simply drop the matter. Amazingly, you'd be wrong for thinking that.

Let's recap. Last month, ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) issued a letter seeking campaign contributions. Nothing wrong with that, but their announcement of what they were going to do with the money is what caused a huge uproar. “At this moment,” the letter said, “we are facing our biggest challenge ever. Many forces including Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology companies with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote “Copyleft” in order to undermine our “Copyright.” They say they are advocates of consumer rights, but the truth in these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our music. Their mission is to spread the word that our music should be free.” Many members expressed astonishment, disappointment and anger since a number of them use Creative Commons to help distribute their work. Some sent letters to voice their disapproval of the move, others responded by donating to the targeted organizations and some even went through the extreme measure of ending their membership with ASCAP. To say ASCAP got a black eye over the incident would be an understatement. In response to the letter, Creative Commons spoke to ZeroPaid saying that Creative Commons is not about undermining other people's copyright and clarified that Creative Commons is copyright licenses that artists can freely choose. Shortly after, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) told ZeroPaid that ASCAP was misrepresenting the EFF. The EFF even passed along a letter written by an ASCAP member saying that he is donating to the EFF in response to the ASCAP letter. That same member also did a fascinating study on issues such as the state of music today. Public Knowledge also spoke to ZeroPaid and, like the other organizations, said that ASCAP is not representing Public Knowledge correctly. Shortly after, the NMPA pulled a similar stunt on similar organizations, furthering what has been deemed as misrepresentations of the organizations in question. Since then, Lawrence Lessig weighed in saying pretty much what Creative Commons already told us, but he added to what was already said. "This isn't the first time that ASCAP has misrepresented the objectives of our organization. But could we make it the last? We have no objection to collecting societies: They too were an innovative and voluntary solution (in America at least) to a challenging copyright problem created by new technologies. And I at least am confident that collecting societies will be a part of the copyright landscape forever." Lessig said in an editorial. "So here's my challenge," Lessig added, "ASCAP President Paul Williams: Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate. I'm a big fan of yours, and If you'll grant me the permission, I'd even be willing to sing one of your songs (or not) if you'll accept my challenge of a debate. We could ask the New York Public Library to host the event. I am willing to do whatever I can to accommodate your schedule." You'd think that, by this point, ASCAP would at least admit an error in judgment of some sort, cut their losses and move on. On the contrary, ASCAP apparently continued it's crusade against the copyleft movement. ASCAP, along with President and Chairman, Paul Williams, have responded. ASCAP said, "Anti-copyright crusaders are currently engaged in a publicity campaign to discredit ASCAP's efforts to defend the copyrights of our professional songwriter and composer members." This is certainly relieving. After all, I could have sworn it was ASCAP doing all the work to discredit ASCAP this whole time. "The copyleft movement has encouraged a culture of disrespect for copyright by defending corporate and individual infringers; undermining every effort to provide more effective protection," the statement continues, "no matter how limited or reasonable; promoting a reduction in copyright protection; supporting the dismantling of our rights through the courts; and questioning the basic premise that the tidal wave of infringements and unlicensed uses online hurts creators." I think it's safe to say that this is just willful ignorance at this point. ASCAP could have read the statements issued by any of the organizations on this matter or done some basic research. Unfortunately, they seem to keep saying that the copyleft movement is the same as copyright infringement - no matter what the evidence and responses suggest. As for Williams, he had his own choice words on the matter. He responded to Lessigs challenge to a debate by saying, "I don’t believe a debate with Lawrence Lessig will serve that purpose." "I am well aware of those "copyleft" mouthpieces who take a highly critical view of ASCAP's efforts to protect our members' rights." Williams continued. He wrote, "That will not change ASCAP's commitment to doing so. ASCAP exists for one purpose -- fair payment to music creators for the use of their music by businesses and others who seek to attract viewers and customers. ASCAP has long welcomed and licensed new technological means of performing its members works, seeking only reasonable fees for those performances. Our members have every right to give their music away for free if they choose, but they should not be forced to do so." I know Williams isn't really relying on evidence, but I have to ask, which artist was forced to use a Creative Commons license anyway? Was there an incident at some point where file-sharers kidnapped an artist and forced that artist to adopt a Creative Commons license at gun point or something? I've never, as a Creative Commons user, ever heard of anything even remotely like this in my entire life. If this really happened where an artist was forced, against their will, to adopt a Creative Commons license, I'd like to be pointed to this. Williams even took things a step further by writing, "What I find most fascinating is that those who purport to support a climate of free culture work so hard to silence opposing points of view. They will not silence me." So, somehow, a debate is a promotion for censorship? I'm, ironically, speechless. What exactly has transpired to allow such lunacy to take place? Even if it wasn't Lessig Williams is referring to, who is censoring ASCAP on these matters? This organization is campaigning against a tool artists can use as an aid for free speech. When challenged to a debate on the matter, ASCAP argues that a debate is censorship. It's the kind of logic that is exhibited by people having a chair short of a dinette set. [Via /.] Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Copyright War Escalates With NMPA Joining ASCAPs Attack on Free Culture

Drew Wilson — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 05:37:52 +0000

The now infamous ASCAP letter, where ASCAP attacked Creative Commons, EFF and Public Knowledge allegedly for undermining their copyright, has generated no shortage of controversy. Was it a one-off incident that was poorly worded? Apparently not.

There's apparently a growing war between rights holders and consumer groups in the US. Already, ASCAP sent a letter to its members saying that organizations like Creative Commons, Public Knowledge and EFF is undermining their copyright. Creative Commons, the EFF and Public Knowledge all said that the comments by ASCAP were incorrect and false. At this point, some might be thinking that maybe the ASCAP comments were a simple misguided comment that went a little too far and somehow managed to see the light of day by accident. After all, it is a little absurd to say that Creative Commons sole purpose is to undermine someone else's copyright because it's merely a license creators can use while distributing their work. That shadow of doubt was recently thrown out the window by another organization that shadowed ASCAPs comments. During our discussion with Public Knowledge, Art Brodsky also informed us of another organization that was attacking consumer groups. The transcript of a speech by the CEO of the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), David Israelite, has been posted on BillBoard. In his speech, he basically fired similar shots as seen in the ASCAP letter. Israelite said, "there is a growing enemy that does not have respect for copyright at all. And this is a very different enemy." He said, "When the U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO] released a study in April on the economic impact of intellectual property piracy, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the Consumer Electronics Assn. and the Computer and Communications Industry Assn. took out a full-page ad in newspapers around Washington, D.C. "Content industry piracy claims are bogus," the ad read. "For years, claims of huge losses from digital piracy have been used to justify harsh restrictions on innovators and consumers . . . They have harmed our competitiveness, hampered legitimate businesses and impeded innovation."" "These four groups have an extremist," Israelite added, "radical anti-copyright agenda. They all have an economic interest in the theft of our music or paying little to nothing for it. [And] they are intellectually dishonest in how they approach these fights." Remarkably, he put forth a top ten list of stances he deems as "extreme":

No. 10: They support changing the law to reduce damages for copyright infringement. No. 9: They support the elimination of statutory damages for secondary copyright infringement. No. 8: They favor rolling back copyright extension; in some cases, radically. No. 7: They favor the elimination of the songwriter and publisher rights for server, cache and buffer copies. No. 6: They oppose efforts to obtain the identities of individuals engaged in massive copyright infringement. No. 5: They support extreme versions of orphan works legislation. No. 4: They have filed legal briefs supporting anti-copyright positions of Grokster, Napster, LimeWire, Cablevision, Google, YouTube and Verizon. No. 3: They oppose graduated-response protection for copyright owners. No. 2: They oppose treaties that support copyright enforcement like the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. No. 1: They actually argue that illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic helps the economy and doesn't hurt songwriters.

It's amazing how far these comments go. Firstly, the GAO also questioned the validity. Just read this comment for example:

“Efforts to estimate losses involve assumptions such as the rate at which consumers would substitute counterfeit for legitimate products, which can have enormous impacts on the resulting estimates,” it says in the report. “Because of the significant differences in types of counterfeited and pirated goods and industries involved, no single method can be used to develop estimates. Each method has limitations, and most experts observed that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts. ”

It wasn't just the EFF, Public Knowledge and other consumer groups that were questioning the validity of various statistics put forth by organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA, but it was the American government itself questioning these statistics when it came to losses due to piracy because it was very difficult to really quantify any economic impact in the first place. Maybe these groups questioned the 1 download means 1 lost sale theory because it is a legitimately flawed way of looking at this - and the NMPA had the nerve to call these consumer groups dishonest in all of this. Added to this, how can one simply ignore all the press releases and "education campaigns" organizations like the MPAA and RIAA have done over the years and decry consumer groups for taking a full-page ad anyway? Isn't that a case of pot calling the kettle black in that respect or is this a case of these organizations being upset that the tables have turned on them? There is, however, one important distinction between the ASCAP letter and the NMPA remarks: the NMPA remarks does not roll in Creative Commons with the other groups according to the transcript. Does that mean they do or do not feel the same way towards Creative Commons? Impossible to say definitively speaking. Public Knowledge (PK), unsurprisingly, took exception to being called a radical anti-copyright extremist and commented on this development on their blog. PK says on their blog, "anybody who has spent more than 5 minutes on our website or talking to our staff knows that these things are not true - Public Knowledge advocates for balanced copyright and an open Internet that 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. We have taken artist-centric positions on a number of critical copyright issues which have put us at odds with some of our copyright reform colleagues." PK also says, "I’d like to highlight what I have been hearing from artists big and small over the past several months (including during two trips to Los Angeles) and what ASCAP most certainly knows by now as many of its members rebel against its appeal: despite artists’ legitimate concerns about how much easier it is for their works to be infringed in an Internet age, they are uncomfortable with the constant drive by the movie studios, record studios and music publishers to find new and better ways to punish people and limit their access to copyrighted works. Artists just want to be compensated. Period. They want an open Internet, and believe (as we do) that network-level copyright filtering and throwing people off the Internet based on 3 allegations of copyright infringement (“3 strikes”) are antithetical to this goal. They don’t like digital rights management or other technological locks, either in software or hardware, that limit their fans enjoyment of their works." "But despite the clear preference for compensation over punishment, groups that claim to represent artists like ASCAP continue, like their big corporate colleagues, to advocate for the latter, and seem completely bereft of ideas for promoting the former. Why? Probably because the old business model suits them just fine: they collect millions of dollars of royalties on behalf of captive musicians and (mostly) pay them. In a digital world, Do It Yourself is the mantra, with Creative Commons being one of the tools that allows artists to do so. Where does that leave middlemen like ASCAP? Nowhere." It's absolutely surreal that this war is even happening, let alone escalating to this point. It seems that consumer groups are doing a better job of looking out for artists than organizations that claim to be doing the same. How did we get to the point where consumer rights group now have to also defend the artists interests against the interests of organizations that are suppose to collect royalties for rights holders? Is this the peak of this stunning war or is it going to escalate from here? Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Public Knowledge Weighs in on ASCAP Letter

Drew Wilson — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:31:32 +0000

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 drew@zeropaid.com.

EFF Comments on the ASCAP Letter

Drew Wilson — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:47:13 +0000

Ever since the story broke that ASCAP was accusing organizations like Creative Commons, EFF and Public Knowledge, of undermining copyright, it set off a firestorm both in creative circles, copyright observation circles and even amongst ASCAP members. Now, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) has weighed in.

We reported last week on how ASCAP sent a letter to its members urging them to contribute to a lobbying fund. If it was just asking members to contribute to their fund, it wouldn't really be much of a story. It's what ASCAP said to encourage members that has caused so much controversy: “At this moment,” the letter said, “we are facing our biggest challenge ever. Many forces including Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology companies with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote “Copyleft” in order to undermine our “Copyright.” They say they are advocates of consumer rights, but the truth in these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our music. Their mission is to spread the word that our music should be free.” The letter also said, “This is why your help now is vital. We fear that our opponents are influencing Congress against the interests of music creators. If their views are allowed to gain strength, music creators will find it harder and harder to make a living as traditional media shifts to online and wireless services. We all know what will happen next: the music will dry up, and the ultimate loser will be the music consumer.” The language has already did not sit well with many including original recipients. Creative Commons, one of the organizations that was singled out in the letter already responded through ZeroPaid on Friday. “It’s very sad that ASCAP is falsely claiming that Creative Commons works to undermine copyright” Steuer told ZeroPaid. He explained, “Creative Commons licenses are copyright licenses – plain and simple, without copyright, these tools don’t even work." Stueuer also told ZeroPaid that tens of thousands of creators "including acts like Nine Inch Nails, the Beastie Boys, David Byrne, Radiohead, and Snoop Dogg" use Creative Commons licenses. The EFFs Response Rebecca Jeschke, a spokesperson from the EFF today spoke to ZeroPaid on the letter. Jescke told ZeroPaid, "we don't think that ASCAP characterized EFF and its work accurately. We believe that artists should be compensated for their work, and one proposal we have for that is Voluntary Collective Licensing." The EFF's proposed Voluntary Collective Licensing is an interesting proposal. From their page:

The concept is simple: the music industry forms several "collecting societies," which then offer file-sharing music fans the opportunity to "get legit" in exchange for a reasonable regular payment, say a total of $5-10 per month (after all, services like Rhapsody sell all-you-can-eat music for around $10 per month, so we know the rate should be below that). So long as they pay, the fans are free to keep doing what they are going to do anyway—share the music they love using whatever software they like on whatever computer platform they prefer—without fear of lawsuits. The money collected gets divided among rights-holders based on the popularity of their music. In exchange, file-sharing music fans will be free to download and share whatever they like, using whatever software works best for them. The more people share, the more money goes to rights-holders. The more competition in applications, the more rapid the innovation and improvement. The more freedom to fans to publish what they care about, the deeper the catalog

Jeschke also told ZeroPaid, "At EFF our goal is to preserve balance and ensure that the Internet and digital technologies continue to empower people as consumers and creators. We're gratified that so many ASCAP members understand this." In addition, Jeschke forwarded us a paper by an EFF member, L Peter Deutsch entitled "Music Copyrights: Cui Bono?" (Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license) which made numerous interesting points about all of this. One particularly interesting point was some comments on a Pew Survey of artists:

The larger of the two surveys, by the Pew Foundation, polled approximately 2,800 selfselected American musicians (Madden 2004). The Pew surveys (a group of 3) claim to be "the first largescale study that looks at artists’ and musicians’ use of the [I]nternet and their views on copyright" (ibid., 11). The specific survey relevant to the present paper queried 2,755 musicians "recruited via email notices sent to members of various music organizations, through announcements on those organizations’ Web sites and through flyers distributed at several musicians’ conferences" (ibid., 33). (While this is a predominantly selfselected group, there is no evidence that this skewed the results in any particular direction.) Of these musicians, "94% say they are songwriters, 90% say they are musical performers and 46% say they consider themselves music publishers (in addition to being either a songwriter, performer or both)" (ibid.). The first theme that emerges from the Pew survey is that musicians are quite tolerant of many activities that the publishing corporations label "piracy" and that fall into gray areas with respect to current understanding of "fair use." Nearly all feel that making a copy of music for one's personal use whether from a broadcast, a recording, the Internet, or a book is allowable (ibid., 37), and they split nearly evenly on whether making a copy of a CD or a movie for a friend should be allowed. (However, nearly all feel that selling copies of copyrighted material should be prohibited.) Similarly, strong pluralities feel that making samples of their work available for free downloading has helped their careers; but they are evenly divided on whether filesharing services benefit or hurt them. The most successful of the polled musicians (the "Success Stories") have more conservative views on these issues, but even they are far more tolerant than the big producers. For example, only 35% of the Success Stories say that filesharing services are generally bad for artists. Similarly, a significant plurality (but not a majority) 9 feel that making even personal copies of copyrighted material should be forbidden. Despite these generally liberal attitudes, twothirds of the polled musicians say that copyright holders should have "complete control over a piece of art once it is produced" (ibid., 36). We will return to this surprising datum in the final discussion. However, while "61% of those in this sample believe that current copyright laws do a good job of protecting artists’ rights, [...] 59% also say that copyright laws do more to protect those who sell art than to protect the artists themselves," the latter echoing the comments in (Greenfield and Osborn 2004). Finally, musicians, even the Success Stories, do not generally support the actions by the RIAA, which has been prominent and aggressive in pursuing what it calls illegal copying. 60% of all the musicians polled, and even 43% of the Success Stories, think that the RIAA's campaign against online music sharers will not ultimately benefit musicians and songwriters (Madden, 48). The only identified group that believe the RIAA's campaign will benefit music creators are the 138 (5%) of the polled musicians who say that their careers have "only been hurt" by free downloading, and even in this group, only 68% support the RIAA (ibid.). One of the most interesting aspects of the Pew survey is its direct comparisons between musicians and the general public on these issues (Madden, 4244). One might expect musicians to be less likely than the public to condone activities such as recording a personal copy of a TV show or burning a copy of a music CD for a friend, but the survey found the opposite. For example, 90% of polled musicians, and 73% of general artists, agree that copying music from a CD you own to your own computer should be legal, but only 66% of the general public agree (Madden, 44). However, the differences were generally not large.

The same author also sent a scathing letter to ASCAP in direct response to the ASCAP letter:

Dear ASCAP, I have been a composer member of ASCAP for several years. I was disgusted by your grossly one-sided letter soliciting my contribution to your "Fund for the Arts." ASCAP has consistently misrepresented the purpose, the history, and the facts of copyright -- not to mention the mission and activities of Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and other public-interest organizations -- apparently in order to fatten its royalty stream deprive musicians of the ability to use each other's work, and prevent listeners from enjoying music to which the law and the history of copyright entitle them. I recently completed a research paper on music copyright that backed up my reading of this situation. I have sent a copy of this letter and your letter, and a contribution of $100 each, to Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, and EFF. Sincerely, L Peter Deutsch

Extra Thoughts What was fascinating about this is that it confirms what I've always felt about fellow artists opinion on the subject of file-sharing, copying and the tactics by incumbent industries: artists are people too and are going to be, at least at some point or another, going to be on the consumer side of things as well. Artists consume music (it's very hard to be an artist and not consume music really) just like consumers and are subject to rights any other consumer related issues. While major record labels might like to say that they are merely acting out of the interests of artists, there are many artists who do not share their views 100% of the time. Like consumers, there is varying opinion amongst artists on the subject of copyright as it relates to, for example, music. Not every artist out there, for example, feels that DRM (Digital Rights Management) is beneficial to music. I, personally, always felt that things like file-sharing are excellent marketing opportunities. I also have always felt that too much copyright (i.e. the excessive term for copyright and keeping valuable assets that artists can build off of out of the public domain) is a hindrance to artists. That is what makes things like Creative Commons so important because artists can choose what restrictions they can put on their work rather than choosing "all rights reserved" and "no rights reserved". Distribution mechanisms put in place should reflect the wide variety of stances creators have. To take some of those mechanisms away, from the perspective of those artists who choose those mechanisms, is a form of censorship. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Creative Commons Responds to ASCAP

Drew Wilson — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 02:25:33 +0000

Yesterday, we reported that ASCAP said that organizations like Creative Commons were undermining their copyrights. Today, we've received an official response from Creative Commons with regards to the letter writing campaign.

In the same article, we discussed how Creative Commons was, contrary to what ASCAP said, not about undermining anyone elses copyrighted material, but rather, giving artists an option that was not the Public Domain (no rights reserved) nor Copyright (all rights reserved). Eric Steuer, a Creative Commons spokesperson, thanked ZeroPaid for the earlier posting as being well-thought out and was happy to respond to ASCAPs letter. "It's very sad that ASCAP is falsely claiming that Creative Commons works to undermine copyright" Steuer told ZeroPaid. He explained, "Creative Commons licenses are copyright licenses - plain and simple, without copyright, these tools don't even work. CC licenses are legal tools that creators can use to offer certain usage rights to the public, while reserving other rights. Artists and record labels that want to make their music available to the public for certain uses, like noncommercial sharing or remixing, should consider using CC licenses. Artists and labels that want to reserve all of their copyright rights should absolutely not use CC licenses." It does make sense because Creative Commons is voluntary. The creator can choose whether or not to use Creative Commons or not. "Many tens of thousands of musicians, including acts like Nine Inch Nails, the Beastie Boys, David Byrne, Radiohead, and Snoop Dogg, have used Creative Commons licenses to share with the public. These musicians aren't looking to stop making money from their music. In fact," Steuer added, "many of the artists who use CC licenses are also members of collecting societies, including ASCAP. Incidentally, that's how we first heard about this email campaign - many musicians that support Creative Commons received the email and forwarded it to us. Some of them even included a donation to Creative Commons." A number of ASCAP members have already expressed disapproval for the language found in ASCAPs letter. Comments from ASCAP members can be found on BoingBoing and Mind the Gap to name two sources. Overall, though, ASCAPs attack on Creative Commons in their letter was a very bad error in judgment. One can hope ASCAP issues an apology over this. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.