The media companies seem to be investing an awful lot into protecting a horribly outdated business model rather than using that technology to increase value on their wares.

DRM, DVD zoning etc. The suggestion of buying media online which could be played a limited number of times. Music that can not be used on your mp3 player because it’s not x brand mp3 player etc.

It seems ludicrous that these media companies can create their own situation (i.e. create more restrictive formats and conditions to using the media and asking us to pay more for it) and then cry foul!

Alternatively they could be looking for ways to add value to that media (rather than taking it away), resulting in happier customers, resulting in less people giving ‘em the finger and downloading the media for free.

There was a great comment up there – if Creative Commons is based upon Copyright, then their objection is based on how people use copyright. I can’t imagine this movement could possibly gain any traction.

I wish the EFF, Creative Commons and Public Knowledge supported
copyleft. One of the six Creative Commons licenses is a copyleft
license, but aside from that, those organizations don’t give
any particular support to copyleft.

See gnu.org/copyleft and gnu.org/licenses for more info.

Does the evidence support the weakness of CC? And if it does, much as the GNU software license has been tested due to misappropriation, can we focus on eliminating that as a weakness, or perhaps providing resources that help CC-licensing users to /effectively/ protect their works from misappropriation? Is there a technology solution or “design pattern” for managing CC works online and a low-effort method of enforcement via legal channel?

I think we advocates of copyleft licensing policies would be well served to do that. If these resources exist, and I haven’t done the homework to find them, I’d like to hear that here as well – because then we’d all be better informed.

I wonder what Jonathan Coulton and Paul & Storm will have to say about this bit of news.

It’s definitely a testament to years and years of hard work and deep thinking that these organizations could come to be seen as a “threat” by a multi-billion dollar organization that’s so successful their ENTIRE BUSINESS MODEL IS FEDERALLY LEGISLATED.

As a musicians, PRO’s are a con I refuse to participate in. It’s not good for music and it’s DEFINITELY not good for culture.

If bars, coffee shops, stores and clubs are playing my music, GOOD. I don’t need a couple bucks from them … if anything I need to send them a “Thank You” letter.

Heheh, I notice the letter is hosted at twitpic.com which immediately sends you a cookie with an expiry date of December 20-freakin’-50.

I guess twitpic thinks ASCAP wont shut them down too soon for hosting their letters.

If it wasn’t for the life + 70 year monopolies these companies were granted on intellectual property, they would have been able to learn ways of adapting to the changing market place; they could have known how to compete by developing some new ideas and services.

Instead, their isolation has rendered them more-or-less useless, a corporate dodo, with no sense or survival abilities.

I hope every one of my creative-commons licenced works helps to drive them to extinction.

Or, you know, make something I actually want, sell it at a price I find reasonable, presented in a format I find acceptable…

Considering fear based appeals seriously is what much of America is reduced to at least during some point during each day. Appeal to reason certainly doesn’t seem to get results or even pop up on the cultural radar screen. We have such a culture of fear it’s not even about generating new fear to get results. Just providing a target cloaked in “other” suffices with nebulous sketches of reason so people are threatened by the jabberwocks and bandersnatchs from their own minds.

How to break a cycle of Fear? I don’t know but to quote Warren Devon, “Send lawyers guns and money”

As far as the TV… that one seems a stretch. Yeah, a Gary Glitter track comes up during a broadcast of some sports game, but does your random bar need to pay the royalties? How ’bout the idiots at the arena?

Since Creative Commons is esentially a set of liberal licenses that are based on copyright, is ASSCAP essentially attempting to dictate how artists should license their copyrighted creations?

ASSCAP are either flat-out lying or perilously psychotic if they’re saying that the CC movement is about making everyone give away their creations for free, or in saying that these groups (CC, EFF, et al) ‘do not want to pay for [ASSCAP member's] music’. It would be a foolish and uninformed ASSCAP member who believed such nonsense.

No, not kidding. We get all these letters from those guys, show them the “Next big thing” where people can donate money to help “Defend the biggest companies” and have a promise of royalties received if they drop money now to help pay for lawyers and stuff:-)

The big companies killed the “Made in the USA” movement in the 90s by having one media ad after another boast how useless that was, having made in China stuff get a “Label” in a brutal Puerto Rican sweatshop. A trick like this is only fair…

I work in the marketing department of a large regional arts body here in the UK and we are making business decisions based on the sort of philosophy ASCAP is trying to stifle over in the US. And I know we aren’t the only ones. Time to move on.

http://theexperiments.com

It’s bonehead moves like this that led us to give it away for free in the first place. So, for at least one artist, RIAA lawsuits and ASSCRAP posturing is having the opposite effect they intended.

A little file sharing never hurt anyone. However, one look at where the world is going with copyright enforcement and it’s clear that there is going to be a major crackdown. People might have to (gasp!) go over to a friends house to swap music and movies.

The real solution would be for collecting societies to embrace CC-NC licenses and enforce them, *reasonably*. Currently the collecting societies are just plain hostile towards any licensing agreement other than “all rights reserved” and they’re busy creating a lose-lose model for everyone.

If I have to decide between collecting royalties for airplay and letting girl-scouts sing my song around a campfire without being threatened with lawyers, then I’ll waive my rights to collect royalties for airplay.

People are so used to the gushing benefits of free software that they take it for granted and not bothering to understand the reason it exists is at its core an ideological belief that knowledge wants to be free because knowledge makes you free.

Wait till its taken away, then see what happen. It wont be fun.

Thank you for openly lying to your members. While it may fool some of your more gullible and slow-witted members, many the smart ones will realize that copyright absolutists are fundamentally dishonest. And that’s great — you keep your dumbest members on your side, we’ll gladly welcome your smarter members.

And congratulations on successfully framing copyright piracy an act of civil disobedience, e.g. “I’m not gonna give those bastards any of my money for them to use in their campaign to limit citizens rights.” It’s not quite as effective as the old “sue your customers” plan, a “lobby to restrict your customers’ rights” is the next best thing.

Way to look out for your members’ interests, ASCAP!

the basic problem is that corporations know there is no way a single person can afford to drag them to court over one tune or one photo, in the same way that a big kid know a small one alone stand no chance so he can push the little kid around all he likes.