[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs



Jason Spiro wrote:
> 2007/3/28, Andrew Donnellan <ajdlinux@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/28/07, Matthew Johnson <debian@matthew.ath.cx> wrote:
>> > Yes that's the contract you have to sign to be part of Teosto (which
>> you
>> > have
>> > to do if you ever want to make a living in Finland as a musician).
>>
>> Ouch. As was indicated earlier this seems standard for all performance
>> rights organisations.
> 
> Does that include performance rights organizations in the United
> States?  (I'm from Canada, and most of the pop music here is from U.S.
> artists.)

I used to think not, but now we have something called SoundExchange. The
more I read about it, the less I like it:

http://www.soundexchange.com/

Apparently, if you *haven't* signed with any collecting agencies, these
folks automatically get the right to collect royalties "for" you.

It is apparently an untested question whether an artist can explicitly
opt-out of this "right". This question has been asked a few times on
the cc-licenses mailing list, and I haven't yet seen a satisfactory
answer.

> Also, how about "podsafe" music (music liberally-enough licensed to be
> included in podcasts)?  Are small "indie" artists who haven't entered
> into contracts with such organizations the only ones who can release
> music under "podsafe" licensing terms such as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-NC-SA?

See above. They aren't safe either. The only thing that protects
podcasters, is that they are not subject to Sound Exchange royalty
collection (i.e. it's the person broadcasting, not the artist that
determines that exemption).

> If so: Are there any interest groups who are run lobbying campaigns
> against such strict rules?

There ought to be. I'm not sure who it is though.

The idea is not totally broken -- it's the inability to opt-out (or
waive fees for specific works) that makes it unethical, IMHO. As it
is, though, it stinks to high heaven -- it's one of the political
doublespeak moves where you create an organization ostensibly to
"protect" small interests, but the actual effect is calculated to
bury them.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock@AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com



Reply to: