From Creative Commons’ weblog:
The Netherlands is the first country to bring such a collaboration between a music copyright organization and Creative Commons, a move applauded by Lawrence Lessig, the founder and chairman of Creative Commons International, as “the first step towards more freedom of choice in the field of exploiting music works in the digital world.”
“Freedom of choice”?
Gosh. How laudable.
“Ambassadeur, wiz zese Ferrero Rocher you are really spoiling us!”
Thanks to CC, musicians can now have a free choice in deciding whether to prosecute their fans or let them share their music without such persecution. And so, at last, collection societies can now more easily recognise that some of their members may be a bit limp in the hang ‘em and flog ‘em department.
You see how subtly the sly sinuation slips in? That the manumission of freedom is rightfully given to the copyright holder – not their suffering fans who remain, just as before, shackled not to share and imprisoned if they do – unless of course, the musician they so adore deigns to grant them clemency, if the criminals they catch have made no attempt to profit from their copying.
Remember kids, not all freedom is good. It’s great from the slave owner’s perspective that they get the freedom of choice to decide whether to capitally punish escaped slaves, just let them off with a less severe warning, or even to set them free to reduce overheads during times of drought.
So, why the heck should anyone rejoice that the choice to prosecute is no longer in the hands of the collection society, but the musician?
Sank you professeur Lessig, for letting ze kind musician have ze freedom of choice to prosecute us instead of zeir evil record label. You are really spoiling us.
Let’s rejoice when no-one has the freedom to, let alone freedom of choice to, prosecute fans for sharing a musician’s published works.
So, what, if anything, has actually changed?
Yesterday:
Musicians can publish their music fully copyrighted and receive revenue via collection societies. Their fans share their music with impunity, but insignificant risk of jail terms.
Today:
Musicians can publish their music CC-NC and receive revenue via collection societies. Their fans share their music with impunity, but no risk of jail terms.
I don’t know who is most overjoyed by the news.
Here is my estimated breakdown of enjoyment:
- Creative Commons 60%
- Collection societies 30%
- Musicians 9%
- Those sharing the music and risking jail terms 1%
- Those who like the music 0%
- Those paying the collected fees 0%
As for economic impact, well, 0% really. Why on earth is it going to change?
- Musicians who still believe in copyright, but don’t really want to sue their fans, will continue as before.
- Musicians who wish their music to be promoted far and wide without let or hindrance will continue to do everything possible to escape the predations of record labels and collection societies.
Meanwhile, the board at Buma/Stemra has been persuaded that there are many musicians who continue to believe that bars and other commercial establishments should be prosecuted for promoting their work without paying for the privilege, even if they no longer think their fans should be.
Creative Commons continue to find mugs who still think copyright can be made to work if only it’s kind to kids, but cruel to commerce.
There is of course, no compromise. Either you believe in monopolies or you don’t.
The intermediate solution?
Nullification via licence, e.g. copyleft.
The inescapable conclusion?
ABOLITION.
A Better Allegory
Imagine in the movie Aliens, the adversary is actually publishers’ lucrative copyright legislation that infests human culture, admired by lone lawyers with dollars in their eyes who’d harness it for their own ends:
Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
Hudson: Fuckin’ A…
Burke: Ho-ho-hold on, hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.
Ripley: They can BILL me.
I, naturally, identify with Ripley, and suggest that Burke can be ably played by Lessig, with every other draconian publisher and their lawyers, the aliens. Let us not forget the innocent families already wiped out, or cocooned and still awaiting digestion by predatory litigation.
Auditions for Hudson’s part are invited from members of this audience.
It’s “ambassador”, not “monsieur”. If I ever go to a diplomatic reception and they don’t serve Ferrero Rocher I will be so disappointed…
Comment #000127 at
2007-08-24 17:21
by
Thanks Rob.
I have consequently decided to revise the article to use French honorifics respectively.
:)
One day, advertisers will publish the scripts to their adverts so that we don’t have to guess or attempt recollection from human memory.
Comment #000128 at
2007-08-24 17:45
by
Crosbie Fitch
From Creative Commons’ weblog:
The Netherlands is the first country to bring such a collaboration between a music copyright organization and Creative Commons, a move applauded by Lawrence Lessig, the founder and chairman of Creative Commons International, as “the first step towards more freedom of choice in the field of exploiting music works in the digital world.”
“Freedom of choice”?
Gosh. How laudable.
“Ambassadeur, wiz zese Ferrero Rocher you are really spoiling us!”
Thanks to CC, musicians can now have a free choice in deciding whether to prosecute their fans or let them share their music without such persecution. And so, at last, collection societies can now more easily recognise that some of their members may be a bit limp in the hang ‘em and flog ‘em department.
You see how subtly the sly sinuation slips in? That the manumission of freedom is rightfully given to the copyright holder – not their suffering fans who remain, just as before, shackled not to share and imprisoned if they do – unless of course, the musician they so adore deigns to grant them clemency, if the criminals they catch have made no attempt to profit from their copying.
Remember kids, not all freedom is good. It’s great from the slave owner’s perspective that they get the freedom of choice to decide whether to capitally punish escaped slaves, just let them off with a less severe warning, or even to set them free to reduce overheads during times of drought.
So, why the heck should anyone rejoice that the choice to prosecute is no longer in the hands of the collection society, but the musician?
Sank you professeur Lessig, for letting ze kind musician have ze freedom of choice to prosecute us instead of zeir evil record label. You are really spoiling us.
Let’s rejoice when no-one has the freedom to, let alone freedom of choice to, prosecute fans for sharing a musician’s published works.
So, what, if anything, has actually changed?
Yesterday:
Musicians can publish their music fully copyrighted and receive revenue via collection societies. Their fans share their music with impunity, but insignificant risk of jail terms.
Today:
Musicians can publish their music CC-NC and receive revenue via collection societies. Their fans share their music with impunity, but no risk of jail terms.
I don’t know who is most overjoyed by the news.
Here is my estimated breakdown of enjoyment:
As for economic impact, well, 0% really. Why on earth is it going to change?
Meanwhile, the board at Buma/Stemra has been persuaded that there are many musicians who continue to believe that bars and other commercial establishments should be prosecuted for promoting their work without paying for the privilege, even if they no longer think their fans should be.
Creative Commons continue to find mugs who still think copyright can be made to work if only it’s kind to kids, but cruel to commerce.
There is of course, no compromise. Either you believe in monopolies or you don’t.
The intermediate solution?
Nullification via licence, e.g. copyleft.
The inescapable conclusion?
ABOLITION.
A Better Allegory
Imagine in the movie Aliens, the adversary is actually publishers’ lucrative copyright legislation that infests human culture, admired by lone lawyers with dollars in their eyes who’d harness it for their own ends:
Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
Hudson: Fuckin’ A…
Burke: Ho-ho-hold on, hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.
Ripley: They can BILL me.
I, naturally, identify with Ripley, and suggest that Burke can be ably played by Lessig, with every other draconian publisher and their lawyers, the aliens. Let us not forget the innocent families already wiped out, or cocooned and still awaiting digestion by predatory litigation.
Auditions for Hudson’s part are invited from members of this audience.