Jon, I agree 100%

Seriously, I am very grateful because there's a lot of people that work very hard behind the scenes doing all the menial work, inquiries and more including assisting members.

There's so much to learn, to understand. They are there to assist and of course a lot of information is right there online, in reports, news, opportunities, and of course the annual financial reports and statements.

-

My restaurant friend went to see a music lawyer in Nashville, TN, USA.  This is her summation:
 

---

 
I saw that attorney on Thur and basically he said there really wasn't much I could do.
 
I asked him about having bands sign releases and he said I could do that but basically all it would mean was that I could file suit against the band if they didn't play original, copyrighted music.
 
But I would prevent the PROs from fining me. He said that if the original music they did wasn't copyrighted than it was open to dirivative interpretation which is commonly what the PROs will claim. So basically all original music has to be copyrighted and under a collective commons type agreement.
 
He said all this has been the result of downloaded mp3s.  Its the PROs response to their inability to make profits from traditional copyright infringment and an inability to realistically collect from illegal downloading. Its all about their making the dollar without any thought as to what the consequeces of this will be for new talent.
 
There are a couple groups trying to fight it (including collective commons) but as of now they don't seem to have the money or the lobbiests to really take on the PROs. And my attorney was right in that they have never lost a suit. Basically what he said that their financial resources outpower most small & med sized businesses. That's why they are being so aggressive targeting them. So they win or will break you in the fight just to make an example out of you.
 
According to this guy the profits for the PROs are much better now than they have ever been. This stategy is makng them a lot of money at the expense of the talent they are supposed to be protecting. They have so many muscians on their services that they have became a monster with little to no concern for any of the musicians they are supposed to be representing.  He said that most musicians on their contract will never see a penny from them but they will still use the fact that they have contracted with them to make money for themselves. (READ . . . THE POINT OF THIS THREAD)
 
He beleives its wrong and misguided. But its going to take musicians and groups like collective commons to change anything and frankly their not even getting paid so they don't have the money to fight them either. That's basically it. They pretty much have it all tied up.

---

 
Based upon the red, highlited text above, my associate in the UK and I are developing a web resource service for musicians, that will list them if they have licensed their work under Creative Commons.  This will make these musicians INFINITELY more appealing than those that haven't - in the long run - once this raping and pillaging has sunk in.  We are going to include a section for a downloadable/printable release form, which will begin the protection process for the venues, but it will also assure them that the bands that are playing DO have their works licensed under CC.  We haven't figured out all the details yet.  But as soon as this is available, we're going to be marketing it to Venues/Radio, etc.
 
I will be posting more information as it becomes available, including a link for our website when it becomes available.
 
Stay tuned.

Hello Mike,

There are different levels of a CC license, firstly.  Here is from the CC site:

With a Creative Commons license, you keep your copyright but allow people to copy and distribute your work provided they give you credit — and only on the conditions you specify here. For those new to Creative Commons licensing, we've prepared a list of things to think about. If you want to offer your work with no conditions or you want to certify a work as public domain, choose one of our public domain tools.

Attribution
You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.





Allow commercial uses of your work?

Yes

No

Allow modifications of your work?

Yes

Yes, as long as others share alike

No

Jurisdiction of your license
International Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada Chile China Mainland Colombia Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Ecuador Finland France Germany Greece Guatemala Hong Kong Hungary India Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Macedonia Malaysia Malta Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Romania Serbia Singapore Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand UK: England & Wales UK: Scotland United States Vietnam


So you can pick what level of license you want.  If you don't want people to be able to sell or make money from your work, obviously, you choose NO.  But they can give it away for free to friends, play it on their radio stations, or play it in their place of business.

If you don't want them to remix or do anything like that to your work, you can choose the one below, etc. etc.

By LICENSING your work, you protect your customers from being hassled down the road.  The COPYRIGHT protects you as an artist, preventing people from claiming your work is theirs.  That's why you want to have both.

So as you can see, it's not a "give it all away" license.  You're not "giving anything away".  For the most part, if somebody obtained your work it was purchased at some point by SOMEBODY down the road.  In my opinion, if somebody wants to use my CD's and play them until they wear out, for whatever reason, it's THEIRS.  I know by the CC license that somebody can't sell it and make money from it.  Because I didn't allow this by way of the license type I chose.  Of course, there will be those that will try to make money, and thieves will be thieves.  But nobody can do anything about those people anyway.  It's the honest people I want to protect, and I want people to be able to listen to music without FEAR. Does this make sense?  I suggest you dig around (anyone that's interested) and do some homeworkp; some of those links above are clickable.  I plan on contacting the folks down there and hopefully I and my UK friend can work directly WITH them in conjunction with our service we're going to offer.  Even if it's linking to one another.

post edited by spindlebox - 2010/09/11 21:14:20

No one mentioned this earlier but often times the same person who threatens to turn you in to the P.R.O.s is also poised to set you up with a fancy Muzak all-in-one turnkey package.

Sales reps posing as thought police.

Right Mike,

But what you have to understand is, and I mentioned it earlier in this thread, that the PRO's use a percentage type basis for profits.  The small artists don't get anything, and the big artists get everything.  So, of course they will work with the PRO's.

This is the whole reason why they're getting militant now.  The blood has started to run, and like sharks, they're attracted to it.  And, they have people in high places on their side, and the money to fight.

The world has changed, and if you didn't get in when the going was good, and aren't working with a big label or somebody "in" the industry - you'd better take matters into your own hands, and make sure YOU have a voice about who can play your music and WHEN.

This is the spirit of being independent, a DIY artist.  This is what I personally am going to do, and I'm working to make this easier for everyone.  At least, those that are willing to listen.

mike_mccue


Thanks for the update Scott.

One thing that makes me curious... why do you have to use a creative commons license? Why can you not simply copyright your own original material and retain the rights for yourself? Why do you feel obliged to use creative commons give it all away license? Can't you retain your own personal copyrights and simply not license them thru a P.R.O.?

Just curious?

Is it based on an idea that unenforced copyrights present more liability to an artist than if the artists officially and proactively gives the rights away for free before it is stolen?

best regards,
mike

Yes you can hold your own copyrights on any music, literature, etc. The dirivative works interpretation being presented here is pure bulls**t. Another attempt at theft through intimidation. The problem is, noone has had the balls to file charges of fraud and attempted theft of intellectual property upon the agent who presented them with the complaint. The laws and guidlines for what constitutes plagurism and therefore infringement are much more precise. Ask yourself this, who owns the alphabet? Every thing ever written is a dirivative work of the alphabet. 

Crg

mike_mccue


Thanks for the update Scott.

One thing that makes me curious... why do you have to use a creative commons license? Why can you not simply copyright your own original material and retain the rights for yourself? Why do you feel obliged to use creative commons give it all away license? Can't you retain your own personal copyrights and simply not license them thru a P.R.O.?

Just curious?

Is it based on an idea that unenforced copyrights present more liability to an artist than if the artists officially and proactively gives the rights away for free before it is stolen?

best regards,
mike

Yes you can hold your own copyrights on any music, literature, etc. The dirivative works interpretation being presented here is pure bulls**t. Another attempt at theft through intimidation. The problem is, noone has had the balls to file charges of fraud and attempted theft of intellectual property upon the agent who presented them with the complaint. The laws and guidlines for what constitutes plagurism and therefore infringement are much more precise. Ask yourself this, who owns the alphabet? Every thing ever written is a dirivative work of the alphabet. 

Right, unfortunately, the PRO's have so much damn money, even those that have tried to fight them have failed miserably in court.  This is why they succeed.
 
My hope is, if enough artists take matters into OUR collective hands, and discontinue using the PRO's to do our work for us, then maybe there will be a change.  I won't hold my breath.  There us much ignorance and naïveté in our ranks, mostly due to not paying attention or listening.
 
In the meantime, I will (AND AM)- as an artist - planning to take responsibility for my OWN sales and marketing endeavors and plan on getting money through those avenues.  That's where the focus needs to be.  What's "out there" I'll consider a write off - because I would have never seen any cash for it anyway.  Again, 17 years of airplay and not a single penny.  I have nothing to lose, but everything to gain by making my music - "user friendly."
 
One important thing I AM doing, is putting along with my CC / Copyright statements on my material and websites, is that if "any uses other than what the license specifies is desired, to contact my label." and I provide a contact link.
 
It's very important to make sure your "customers" know very well, by way of access to this information about you, that you are safe.  I would put it on the FIRST page of your website.  Just a short statement of what you're doing.  Here's our site:  http://alicesweetalice.org/fr_asaofficialsite.cfm
 
Again, this is where the website we're planning will be a great resource.

Craig,
You know, I agree.  I changed that statement to "Performing Rights Organizations".  Not really to avoid inviting trouble, but naming names is not necessary here anyway.  Most people that are concerned, know what I'm talking about anyway.

While I don't foresee a need to use them for anything in future, it's best to avoid lighting fires where a cold shoulder is more than sufficient.

Whatever the reasons for their business practices, while this current situation is going on, I'll distance myself as much as possible, and make it easier and more attractive for other artists to do the same thing.

Lots more will be coming here as soon as I get those materials being sent to me by my friend, so stay tuned.

I think it depends on where the clips came from. If they are clips included with MC 6, I'm pretty sure they are royalty-free.
The same goes for most sample libraries.
If they're clips you cut out of a copyrighted song and used in your song, that is illegal without permission from the copyright holder. If you have money, they will come after you. Maybe even if you don't have money.
Lots of folks do cover tunes (including me) but most of us don't sell that stuff; we do it just for the enjoyment of playing a favorite song.