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

Re: CC Non-waivable Compulsory License Scheme



Francesco Poli wrote:

> What is not clear to me is: if "Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes"
> are absurd things such as sort-of-taxes on virgin media (recordable CDs,
> DVDs, ...), why does the clause included in CC-v3.0 licenses talk about
> the right to collect royalties "for any exercise by You of the rights
> granted under this License" ?
> 
> |      i. Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes. In those
> |         jurisdictions in which the right to collect royalties through
> |         any statutory or compulsory licensing scheme cannot be
> |         waived, the Licensor reserves the exclusive right to collect
> |         such royalties for any exercise by You of the rights granted
> |         under this License;
> 
> I fail to see any connection between buying a CD-R(W) and exercising the
> rights granted under the license...
> Hence I cannot understand how can those "Non-waivable Compulsory License
> Schemes" be things like sort-of-taxes on virgin media.

This is simply how Creative Commons Netherlands explicitly describes it
on their website:
http://creativecommons.nl/2007/07/31/nieuw-versie-30-van-de-licenties/

Use Babelfish, along with these corrections:
The first subheader is "Specific clauses concerning collective
rightsmanagement organisations".

The first bullet says:

> Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes (for example home copies [the
> thing I explained in my previous mail). Because [Dutch]
> copyright[law] does not permit author to distantiate from [waive,
> transfer] these rights, the [CC] licenses clearly state that the
> author retains these right for both commercial and non-commercial
> use.

How I can collect these royalties, even for free work?

- I make a MP3 of me singing some song, and distribute it under a CC
license.
- Now that I done that, I register myself as rights holder of the
neighbouring rights at
https://secure.sena.nl/senaregwizard/UI/WizardBasic.aspx?culture=en-GB
(Depending on the type of work, I register at specific organisations:
Stemra, LIRA, SENA, NVPI, VEVAM, Beeldrecht, Burafo, Norma, or SEKAM --
strangely NONE of these are specifically for software authors yet!)
- Someone downloads my work, and burns it on CD.
- This person uses a blank CD, which has a € 0.14 fee.
- It is so hideous my work appears all over the place (people like to
make fun of others). More people pay the € 0.14 fee per CD.
- Stichting thuiskopie (association for collection of home copy fees),
receives € 8.1 mln for blank CDs sold each year (the actual number is
declining).
- SONT (Association for Negotiation of Prices for home copies fees - yes
there is a seperate association for that!) hires a bureau to do
marketing research.
- Marketing research shows that 82% of all burned CD's contains audio
- 82% of € 8.1 mln goes to Audio-related rights associations. Of this
amount 40% goes to authors, 30% to performers, and 30% to producers.
- Thus SENA (society for distributing fees collected for neighbouring
rights for music performers) receives 30% of 82% of 8.1 (= ~€ 2mln), for
just blank CDs. They receive additional money from other "fees". E.g.
fees from public broadcasters who broadcasted my song.
- SENA does some marketing research too, and acknowledge my song is real
popular. I get my share of this 2 mln. Probably € 0.0000001 with my
singing capabilities.

Nothing can be done to stop this € 0.14 fee. I can waive my money by not
registering at SENA, but that simply means this € 0.0000001 is
distributed among other artists. *it still is collected*. This right to
collect € 0.0000001 is non-waivable. Or in CC legal lingo: I retain the
exclusive right to collect such royalties. It simply says that I don't
transfer this right for you to claim the € 0.0000001.

That's all there is too it.

If you really don't like this non-waivable rights, complain with the
politics. I actually suspect they listen, remove the rights, and in the
mean time disallow making home copies and thus promote further DRM
restrictions.

As author, I follow this interpretation of the CC. As user, I follow
this interpretation of the CC license. I suspect that in the case of a
conflict, a judge will follow this interpretation of the CC license.

If you still don't like it, by all means use your own license.


Actually, you could do like the FSF: fight the system by using their own
methods. There is nothing that can stop Debian from registering as a
rights society, and as such could become a society to collect these
non-waivable fees on behalf of the (open-source) software authors.


Regards,
Freek



Reply to: