[advocacy] Open/Free/Personal music licenses

[Moritz Grimm]

Daniel James wrote:
> > The
> > least they want from me is a 2-years-exclusive right on the tune,
> > though. What now? It's already released under this open music
> > license, where I gave away rights for free. The label wants ALL
> > rights.
> You should never sign all rights over to a label. You need their CD
> pressing and distribution (plus maybe publicity) in return for a fair
> cut of the CD price, not a Faustian pact. If the label insists that
> your music should not be downloaded from the internet, they are
> dinosaurs and best avoided.

Unfortunately, this seems to be common practive. When you're not good
(commercially viable + productive) enough, and you are not interesting
for a "real" contract, it's still possible to sell the one or the other
tune. Those per-song-contracts usually make you lose all rights for at
least 2 years. After those 2 years, the exclusive rights of the lable
might revert to simple rights, or not. This depends on your contract.

HOW common this practice _really_ is, well, I don't have any exact
numbers. But if you look at the many 1-time "hits" of the many
1-time-artist that have one, maybe 2 singles or EPs wandering the Top500
of regional club charts ... go figure.

> > That's why for an artists it's not the music
> > that is valuable, but the rights he has about his works.
> That depends on the artist, but in the conventional system the artist
> signs their rights away, in any case.

Hm, how does it depend? Anyways, you can only sell things when there's a
demand for it. There's no demand to finance and promote artists, whose
music you may not use in any way you want, while there are artists
kissing your ass that would sell you everything from their rights to
their souls and grandmothers.

One would really have to be an exceptionally good artist in any way AND
talking to the right people ... I guess that's one of the few cases
where the artists might have something to say, actually.

That's why I think that a free music license must address both the
liberal, self-aware artists, as well as those who would do anything to
earn just a little bit with their music. The latter make it so difficult
for everyone else to get decent contracts, and those should be taken
"off-market".

> > Common artists
> > don't have the ressources to distribute their music to enough
> > end-users to make a living from it
> Until peer-to-peer...

Hm. So who's gonna pay a single cent to get my music from a commercial
peer-to-peer network while dozens of free networks share my song, too?

Besides, there are better ways to get known on the Internet than being
buried in a huge shitload of music files at a peer-to-peer network. A
nice little website where you can show off some style, plus some
advertising at one of the many free music portals or whatever will give
you more hits than not being able to be found at all.

> > The
> > only problem I see is the conflict between free redistribution on
> > the Internet and being able to make money on CDs.
> CD's have many advantadges to the music lover - I still buy them,
> don't you?

Sure I do, especially all those 256kbps mp3s that sound like a result of
CD->mp3->wma->mp3->mp3->cd->mp3 transcoding make me find CDs invaluable.
On the other hand, it's not important what I think of it, it's the label
that considers to give me money that matter. If they think that even a
128kbps MP2 file makes not enough difference to a CD already, if they'd
accept it at all, what then? Or if they have a crappy deal with MS? I
wouldn't expect too much interest in rational arguments on a label's
side while their lobby spreads scare stories en masse every day.

> > This wouldn't be
> > a problem if I had an own label and kept all my rights in-house,
> > but as soon as 3rd parties get involved it's an issue.
> The middleman needs the artist more than the artist needs the
> middleman.

Are artists (making entertainment music, for example) really that rare
and wanted? I am pretty sure that the middlemen have many to choose
from, and if one doesn't fit because of silly opinions about his rights,
the next one will do it.

> > The conclusion is that my terms and conditions of use are totally
> > restricted. I reserve ALL rights, all I allow is that people
> > download my tunes from my website and nowhere else, don't
> > redistribute it, etc.
> Redistribution is the crucial issue. 'secure' formats are designed to
> frustrate it, Ogg Vorbis encourages it via portability and good audio
> quality.

Hm. For me, OGG Vorbis is neutral concerning redistribution - the best
thing about it is that it takes a monetary load off artists shoulders
((in)directly) and keeps everyone's opportunities open... blah, we all
know that. :)

But I wouldn't recommend to promote it as the ultimate music swapping
tool. Certain people might get it wrong and make Vorbis look like the
tool of the devil himself. OGG Vorbis is a container, no more, and no
less. It's good and free, and this is what matters, not what others
think of fancy "security" functionality.

> > I am sure my listeners don't care much about
> > those restrictions and give my tunes to their friends or share it
> > otherwise when they like it.
> So why not give that activity your blessing? It's saving you
> bandwidth.

Because of all those what-if reasons I mentioned above ... maybe also
from the slight paranoia my father (he studied law) gave me. See, I have
no idea whether I am alone with that feeling, but I need that for some
reason. It's a psychological thing. My music is important to ME in the
first place, and it must not be exploited by anyone besides me or
someone I choose. My music is something very personal, and also I think
that although it is sometimes "not nice" to listen to my music (yeeeh,
manic depression r00lz ;P), I find it pretty good. I need that (maybe)
fake feeling of being protected from people that abuse my music for
money, for promoting child porn or racist websites ... whatever. It's
pretty diffuse and I can hardly explain it. This "need" for security
should not be underestimated, and properly addressed by licenses.

First, the needs of the artist must be dealt with, then it's time to see
what liberties and rights can be granted to the public.

Next point is, I really doubt that there will ever be an open music
license that fits all needs. Even with open-source software, multiple
variants are needed. Be it BSD, GPL, LGPL or other flavors. There must
be multiple open music licenses that all have a certain purpose. Artists
should be able to understand, without a law degree, what impact it has
on THEM (e.g. regarding their planning in the future, with practical
examples). There's this Green, Yellow, Red and Rainbow License thing,
but there's this reservation I have. It's because I can't imagine the
impact on my relation to my music.

Hm, interesting. It seems that the biggest part of the problem is my
very own lack of understanding. Assumed that I share my feelings and
half-knowledge with others, some colorful "open music licenses for
dummies" explanation with useful examples, based on a solid base of
international copyright law, would be of great value for those I believe
you and others are targeting with your license(s).

> Downloading your tracks now...

Let me know what you think :)

Moritz


-- 
_______________________________________________________________________
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
deserve   neither   liberty   or   security"  -  Benjamin   Franklin

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'advocacy-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.