EFF, Public Knowledge And Creative Commons All Respond (Politely) To ASCAP's Misguided Attack
from the I-would-have-been-more-snarky dept
Following last week's bizarre decision by ASCAP to attack Creative Commons, Public Knowledge and EFF as part of its fundraising campaign, all three organizations have now responded, and done so with a bit of wonderment at why they were painted in such a misleading light.- Creative Commons responded in an interview with Zeropaid, noting how misguided and flat-out wrong it was for ASCAP to suggest that Creative Commons somehow undermines artists' rights, when it's always done exactly the opposite:
"It's very sad that ASCAP is falsely claiming that Creative Commons works to undermine copyright" Steuer told ZeroPaid. He explained, "Creative Commons licenses are copyright licenses -- plain and simple, without copyright, these tools don't even work. CC licenses are legal tools that creators can use to offer certain usage rights to the public, while reserving other rights. Artists and record labels that want to make their music available to the public for certain uses, like noncommercial sharing or remixing, should consider using CC licenses. Artists and labels that want to reserve all of their copyright rights should absolutely not use CC licenses."
It does make sense because Creative Commons is voluntary. The creator can choose whether or not to use Creative Commons or not.
"Many tens of thousands of musicians, including acts like Nine Inch Nails, the Beastie Boys, David Byrne, Radiohead, and Snoop Dogg, have used Creative Commons licenses to share with the public. These musicians aren't looking to stop making money from their music. In fact," Steuer added, "many of the artists who use CC licenses are also members of collecting societies, including ASCAP. Incidentally, that's how we first heard about this email campaign -- many musicians that support Creative Commons received the email and forwarded it to us. Some of them even included a donation to Creative Commons." - The EFF responded in an interview with CreateDigitalMusic.com, where it noted, amusingly, that the EFF's long-standing proposal on how to "fix" copyright law, actually is to set up an ASCAP-like system for digital music (this is something that I've long disagree with EFF about, by the way). So it seems pretty silly to claim that EFF is somehow trying to undermine ASCAP. It just takes issue when ASCAP takes a ridiculous stance like claiming that ringtones require a separate "public performance" license -- a position that is clearly at odds with the law.
"They imply in that letter that the EFF don't want artists to get paid for their work," says Rebecca Jeschke, EFF spokesperson. "For years, we've had a proposal for Voluntary Collective Licensing," she says, a scheme by which users of file sharing services could contribute to funds for artists. She says the EFF has been working on the issue since 2003. "We're interested in making sure that there's a balance, that copyright respects the rights of the creators but also innovators and speakers, and that [the doctrine of] fair use rights [a provision of US Copyright Law] are respected."
- Finally, Public Knowledge responded on its own website, in a response that is similar to the EFF's, pointing out that it clearly supports getting artists' paid, has no interest in undermining such rights, and has advocated models similar to ASCAP's:
Of course, anybody who has spent more than 5 minutes on our website or talking to our staff knows that these things are not true - Public Knowledge advocates for balanced copyright and an open Internet that empowers creators and the public. What we oppose are overreaching policies proposed by large corporate copyright holders that punish lawful users of technology and copyrighted works. We have taken artist-centric positions on a number of critical copyright issues which have put us at odds with some of our copyright reform colleagues. For example, PK has supported a level-playing field in the payment of performance royalties and called for (pdf) copyright holders to sue large scale peer-to-peer infringers directly, as opposed to holding innovators liable for the infringement of others. We have also advocated for changes to the law that would make it easier for online music services to license content from music publishers, leading to greater legal use of music and greater compensation for artists. Finally, and oddly enough, we have emphasized the central role that performance rights organizations like ASCAP could play in a digital world and have praised them for their ability to keep accurate records of who owns what copyright. So frankly, we're more puzzled by this attack than anything.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: attacks, copyright, culture, fundraising
Companies: ascap, creative commons, eff, public knowledge
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radical. Extreme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: choosing sides
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your factually challenged comments never cease to amuse.
How, please tell us, is Lessig "a part of EFF."
He's not a staff member:
http://www.eff.org/about/staff
He's not a board member:
http://www.eff.org/about/board
He's not a fellow:
http://www.eff.org/about/fellows
And he's not even an advisor:
http://www.eff.org/about/advisoryboard
As far as I know, Lessig has nothing whatsoever to do with EFF.
But, that said, with so many people involved in EFF, what if Lessig did have some connection to the group? I find it weird that so many maximalists have this weird mancrush on Lessig, as if anything he touches is really him alone.
Anyway, I can't wait to see if you'll actually admit you were wrong for once. Somehow, I doubt it.
Facts are not your strong suit. But what's amusing is your inability to admit it when proven wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dude to funny !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And so what? That proves NOTHING of the point you tried to raise, which was:
"of course, considering that larry lessig is part of eff, you sort of know where they stand. see, when you know the players, you discover why the organizations have such positions."
PART OF THE EFF, as in, he is currently involved. He is not. You are wrong. Again. You will, of course, not admit that you were incorrect in this instance (or any instance) because you see anyone who disagrees with you as a "pirate" and "thief, and you see Lessig as some kind of Guru-like figure that everyone he has ever had dealings with worships at his feet. Just because he WAS involved with EFF doesnt mean diddly now, at least as far as your "when you discover the players" weak-ass attempt at a "gotcha!"
Basically, unless you come back with a mea culpa, you are DONE with having any credibility (little that you might have had) to ANY counterpoints you try to raise here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough, if the 2nd statement wasnt the same person as the first. My assertion still stands however. That AC was wrong about Lessig being a part of EFF, and wrong about the "meaning" of it. He still needs to admit the error or lose all credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: x8
Nor does he have the ability to spell, or use at least semi-proper grammar, or punctuation. He also has this weird adversity to facts, almost like an allergy. He gets these weird hives whenever he tries to type or paste some. At least, that's what I would assume.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF are you trying to say, bunghole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I love the smell of nonsense in the morning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Two days and no retraction, or admission of error. You are now officially DONE here TAM, and no longer have anything to contribute nor any valid points to ever make. Buh-bye!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ascap opens its big mouth again
Ascap needs to be boken into 50 state versions of itself which compete against each other for member and user dollars.
The greatest con ever created is the blanket license by which a broadcaster for exasmple pays for music it doesn't even use! Almsot 80-90X as much. And why Alden-Rochelle hasn't been aspplied to TV brodcsts is beyond me. ASCAP is a racketeering influenced corrupt organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]