Open Access Is Spreading -- But Is It Really Open Access?

from the let's-do-this-properly dept

The latest big boost to open access has come from in UK government's "Innovation and research strategy for growth" (pdf), which says:

The Government, in line with our overarching commitment to transparency and open data, is committed to ensuring that publicly-funded research should be accessible free of charge. Free and open access to taxpayer-funded research offers significant social and economic benefits by spreading knowledge, raising the prestige of UK research and encouraging technology transfer. At the moment, such research is often difficult to find and expensive to access. This can defeat the original purpose of taxpayer-funded academic research and limits understanding and innovation. We have already committed, in our response to Ian Hargreaves’s review of intellectual property, to facilitate data mining of published research. This could have substantial benefits, for example in tackling diseases. But we need to go much further if, as a nation, we are to gain the full potential benefits of publicly-funded research.

That sounds like great news. But one of the leading proponents of openness in science, Peter Murray-Rust, thinks that the open access movement is being short-changed with existing open access publications. His concerns arose when he attended the annual general meeting of the UK version of PubMed Central, which is "a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the US National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM)".

Here's what happened:

I was at the AGM of UK PubMedCentral last Monday and asked about the Open Access subset of PMC – those papers where authors/funders have paid large amounts of money to ensure their papers are “Open Access”. I asked about the licence, fully expecting these to be all CC-BY and was appalled to hear that most of them were only available as CC-NC. This appears to be near universal – most major publishers only allow “Open Access” to be CC-NC.

Very simply, this is a disaster.

Because CC-NC gives the reader or re-user almost no additional rights. The author is paying anything up to 3000 currency units for something which is little more than permission to put the article on their web page.

The issues surrounding the use of non-commercial licenses have been discussed on Techdirt before. Some people feel that open content released under a non-commercial license such as cc-nc is not really open, because you are severely limited in terms of what you can do with it. The Open Source Definition, for example, does not allow limitations of this kind. Others, by contrast, think that something is better than nothing, and that non-commercial uses are important enough that cc-nc materials are still valuable.

Murray-Rust explains the problems of cc-nc in the field of science:

I and others have written at length on the restrictions imposed by NC. NC forbids any commercial use. Commercial is not related to motivation – profit/non-profit, etc. It is whether there is an exchange of some form of goods. Among the things NC forbids are:

Public text- and data-mining. A third party could make commercial use of the results

Republication of diagrams, etc. in journals. Publication is a commercial act.

Creation of learning materials. Students pay for their education.

The key thing here is that publishers have been paid for full open access, not a watered-down version, so there's no justification for holding back rights that reduce the scientific value of papers considerably. It looks like the funding organizations that mandate open access need to be more specific in forbidding limited, non-commercial licensing. If they don't, it may turn out that all those open access resources that are starting to appear will deliver rather less than the "full potential benefits of publicly-funded research" the UK government and others are hoping for.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: innovation, non commercial, open access, research, uk
Companies: creative commons

Russian President Proposes Creative Commons-Style Rules Baked Directly Into Copyright

from the interesting-move... dept

Well, this is getting interesting. Last week, we noted that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, alone among the other G8 leaders, questioned today's copyright laws, suggesting that they did not fit with the times, and pointed out that these century-old laws don't seem to fit with today's internet. Glyn Moody now points us to the news that Medvedev appears to be going even further than just condemning today's copyright laws. He's now looking to adjust Russia's copyright laws in the other direction:

In a statement released on the Kremlin's website on Thursday, Medvedev instructed the country's communications ministry to draw up amendments "aimed at allowing authors to let an unlimited number of people use their content on the basis of free licensing."

The proposed copyright system is on a par with the initiative launched by Creative Commons, a San Francisco-based non-profit organization that has created copyright licenses that allow owners to share their content for free with certain restrictions.

This could be interesting. To be honest, I'm not sure why such things need to be baked into copyright law (as we've seen, it appears to work with it being built on top of existing copyright law -- though, some question the legality of certain CC licenses). However, what will be most interesting is to see how copyright industry lobbyists and US politicians react to this. I imagine that such a move will show up in the industry... er... I mean the USTR's annual Special 301 report as evidence as to why Russia doesn't "respect" copyright law enough.

But would that really be true? Does building a more flexible, more modern copyright law really mean a lack of respect for copyright? Why wouldn't it mean a healthy respect for building a system that matches better with the times -- rather than the industry's kneejerk reaction to just keep ratcheting up the punishments, enforcements and coverage of copyright?

Filed Under: copyright, creative commons, dmitry medvedev, russia
Companies: creative commons

Belgian Court Rules That Violating Creative Commons License Subjects You To Copyright Infringement Charge

from the legitimate-license dept

There hasn't been too much case law around the legitimacy of Creative Commons licenses, and some have questioned whether or not they're really legitimate. I'll admit that I do have some questions about certain aspects of CC licenses, but over in Belgium a court has pretty clearly claimed that Creative Commons licenses are perfectly legitimate. The case involved a band that had released its music under a CC attribution-non-commercial-no derivatives license. However, a theater apparently used the music (in a modified form) as part of an ad for its upcoming season, and the ad played on national radio.

The band sued, noting that the theater violated the CC license and, thus, had violated copyright law. The court agreed, noting the near total failure of the theater to respect the specific license terms, and found the theater's defenses unconvincing:

The theater defended itself by arguing a mistake (the court said that as a professional of the cultural sector, they should pay more attention to licensing conditions) and its good faith (traditionally not accepted in Belgian as a defense to copyright infringement).

This is certainly at least a nice boost to the legality of Creative Commons licenses, though it does sort of highlight how many users of CC-licensed content don't really understand (or pay attention to) the specific restrictions in the licenses of content they use.

Filed Under: belgium, copyright, creative commons, licenses
Companies: creative commons

CBC Stops Using Creative Commons Music Over Concerns About Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Use

from the clear-as-mud dept

A whole bunch of you have been sending in variations on the story, first highlighted by Michael Geist that the CBC (Canada's public broadcasting offering) has stopped using Creative Commons music in its podcasts. That was first revealed in the comments to a recent show, when someone asked why there were no links to Creative Commons music (something the show had apparently done before). In response, Dan Misener wrote:

There's simply no Creative Commons music used in this episode. By management decree, CBC podcasts are no longer permitted to use CC music. Instead, we're using the APM Music library (http://www.apmmusic.com/), which is copyright cleared and fully licensed by the CBC.

People quickly (and rightly) started complaining that this was ridiculous, and then Lily Mills from the CBC tried to provide more info, saying:

It turned out that our use of Creative Commons licensed music was going against some of the details in collective agreements we hold with certain talent agencies. As such, we had to discontinue our use of it.

Of course, that doesn't make much sense. What sort of agreement would forbid you from using Creative Commons music? Later on, Lily tried to clarify, and said that APM was just more cost effective:

I asked around and it sounds like APM was the most cost effective choice for production music. We're actually simply piggy-backing off the use license acquired from CBC Television (a license that can be used for the entire network).

Again, this makes no sense. The Creative Commons music is free to use, so, how could that not be cost effective?

Eventually, Chris Boyce, the Programming Director for CBC radio chimed in to explain, that it's really about problems with "commercial use" restrictions on some CC music:

The issue with our use of Creative Commons music is that a lot of our content is readily available on a multitude of platforms, some of which are deemed to be "commercial" in nature (e.g. streaming with pre-roll ads, or pay for download on iTunes) and currently the vast majority of the music available under a Creative Commons license prohibits commercial use.

In order to ensure that we continue to be in line with current Canadian copyright laws, and given the lack of a wide range of music that has a Creative Commons license allowing for commercial use, we made a decision to use music from our production library in our podcasts as this music has the proper usage rights attached.

Now, that makes a lot more sense. The early responses didn't make much sense. And this is perfect timing as we've just been having some discussions on this very topic, explaining why commercial use restrictions might not be such a good idea, and even noting that I'm often hesitant to use CC content that has a commercial use restriction because almost anything could be seen as commercial use at times. While it's unfortunate that the CBC won't be using CC content in certain areas any more, perhaps this will give more people reasons to rethink the value of commercial-use restrictions. I would guess that most of the artists featured in CBC podcasts who used CC licenses were happy about that exposure. Now they'll be missing out because of their worries about commercial use.

Filed Under: cbc, commercial use, creative commons, licensing, music, podcsts
Companies: cbc, creative commons

Are Non-Commercial Creative Commons Licenses A Bad Idea? Nina Paley & Cory Doctorow Debate...

from the clash-of-the-titans dept

Venerable author Cory Doctorow and I engaged in a friendly email debate this Summer, with the intention of sharing it to illuminate some issues confronting Free Culture and Creative Commons licenses. It's quite long, but hits on many topics of interest to Techdirt readers.

Read Paley & Doctorow argue over Non-Commercial licenses

Cory releases his books under -NC ("Non-Commercial") licenses. The -NC restriction is Creative Commons' most popular, but has a lot of problems, including incompatibility with Free licenses. As an alternative, I recommend the Creator Endorsed Mark used with a copyleft (such as Share-Alike) license. The sparks fly from there! (Actually it's all very civil, but if I say sparks fly maybe more people will read it.)

I'm curious to read how the Techdirt community weighs on on these issues, so please comment.

Filed Under: cory doctorow, creative commons, nina paley, noncommercial
Companies: creative commons

Larry Lessig Challenges ASCAP Boss To A Debate Over Whether Or Not Creative Commons Undermines Copyright

from the throwdown dept

We've already written a couple of times about ASCAP's bizarre anti-artist decision, as part of its fundraising campaign, to falsely imply that Creative Commons, EFF and Public Knowledge are seeking to undermine copyright. So far, about all this has done is piss off a bunch of ASCAP members who actually like these groups (especially those who use Creative Commons). Larry Lessig has now written a response, where he points out that Creative Commons relies on copyright and doesn't seek to force anyone to use it at all. It just offers artists more choices in how they license their music. More interesting, however, is that Lessig then challenges ASCAP's president, Paul Williams, to a debate on the topic:

So here's my challenge, ASCAP President Paul Williams: Let's address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate. I'm a big fan of yours, and If you'll grant me the permission, I'd even be willing to sing one of your songs (or not) if you'll accept my challenge of a debate. We could ask the New York Public Library to host the event. I am willing to do whatever I can to accommodate your schedule.

Let's meet and address these perceived differences with honesty and good faith. No doubt we have disagreements (for instance, I love rainy days, and Mondays rarely get me down). But on the issues that your organization and mine care about, there should be no difference worthy of an attack.

So, will ASCAP and Williams -- who has been on an anti-Lessig rampage for a while now -- step up and actually debate? And if Williams agrees to such a debate, will he finally stop making false claims about these groups?

Filed Under: copyright, debate, larry lessig, paul williams
Companies: ascap, creative commons, eff, public knowledge

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.

So, basically none of these organizations do anything like what ASCAP claimed. It's too bad that ASCAP still seems to be standing by its backwards-looking position.

Filed Under: attacks, copyright, culture, fundraising
Companies: ascap, creative commons, eff, public knowledge

Music Publishers Keep Lashing Out At Consumer Groups; Those Who Respect Individuals' Rights

from the you're-not-doing-yourselves-any-favors dept

It appears that music songwriters and publishers don't yet recognize that going on the attack against groups representing public interests and consumers' rights is a strategy destined to backfire. They just keep doing it, and it's really making them look both petty and petulant, with no desire to actually understand these issues. Instead, they just think the world owes them their business model, and anyone looking out for larger interests is, quite literally, "the enemy." We've already covered ASCAP's (long planned) attack on Creative Commons, EFF and Public Knowledge. These attacks are so distasteful that even many ASCAP supporters are upset about them.

Now, it appears that the National Association of Music Publishers is getting in on the misplaced anger. In a recent speech, its CEO, David Israelite lashed out at these groups, and lumped CEA and CCIA into the bunch. CEA and CCIA, of course, have both been pretty strong supporters of making sure that copyright law is not harming innovation or the economy. These are important issues if you believe that a stronger economy is important for everyone -- including musicians and songwriters -- but it appears that Israelite and the NAMP take a very narrow, zero-sum view of the world, which is that, if the gov't isn't handing over greater and greater protectionist policies, something's wrong -- and anyone who supports looking at the actual evidence should be shouted down as an enemy. It's not a position that can be supported by logic, so it's pure emotion:

But there is a growing enemy that does not have respect for copyright at all. And this is a very different enemy.

When the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a study in April on the economic impact of intellectual property piracy, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the Consumer Electronics Assn. and the Computer and Communications Industry Assn. took out a full-page ad in newspapers around Washington, D.C. "Content industry piracy claims are bogus," the ad read. "For years, claims of huge losses from digital piracy have been used to justify harsh restrictions on innovators and consumers . . . They have harmed our competitiveness, hampered legitimate businesses and impeded innovation."

Who are these four groups and why would they take out full-page ads to suggest the ridiculous--that theft of intellectual property isn't really bad? The answer is, this is the new face of our enemy.

Yup. They call these groups "enemies" twice. Very subtle there. What's really glaring, however, is that Israelite doesn't even respond to the actual study at all. I mean, you would think that the actual evidence presented by one of the few parts of the government that is widely respected for its objectivity in doing research, would be worth commenting on. Nope. He skips right over the actual evidence and blames these four groups for actually highlighting what the evidence says. And then he claims that they're "suggesting the ridiculous"? In other words, Israelite has taken such a faith-based position, that when actual evidence is presented that goes against his faith, he doesn't just shoot the messenger, he shoots anyone who repeats the message. Convincing.

These four groups have an extremist, radical anti-copyright agenda. They all have an economic interest in the theft of our music or paying little to nothing for it. [And] they are intellectually dishonest in how they approach these fights.

Radical extremists, huh? Isn't that what the Canadian politicians behind the new copyright law, James Moore, just called critics of his bill? Sounds like the talking points on anyone actually interested in consumer rights is making the rounds, and "radical extremists" is the key phrase in trying to tar and feather anyone who suggests consumers have rights.

I have put together a top 10 list of the positions taken by these groups that I will define as their extremist, radical anti-copyright agenda.

Oh, do tell. This is going to be a great list, I'm sure. Please make sure that it's in Letterman-style countdown format too...

No. 10: They support changing the law to reduce damages for copyright infringement.

That's radical extremism? Wow. Of course, when the damages for copyright infringement are so far out of line with the actual harm of copyright infringement -- such that someone sharing a single album's worth of music for non-commercial purposes can be fined $2 million -- it seems like it's actually kind of a pretty good question why the damages are so high. Even judges in these cases appear to find the damages results laughable. When the damages are entirely out of line with actual harm, it seems perfectly reasonable to suggest they be brought more in line. How is that radical or extremist?

No. 9: They support the elimination of statutory damages for secondary copyright infringement.

Again, how is it either radical or extremist to suggest that liability for breaking the law should fall on those who actually break the law, rather than some 3rd party with deeper pockets? Personally, it seems a lot more radical to blame one party just because it's easier and they have more money, rather than those who actually break the law.

No. 8: They favor rolling back copyright extension; in some cases, radically.

Again, I'm at a loss as to how this is either radical or extremist. Actual evidence (again, the stuff Israelite would apparently prefer to avoid at all costs) has shown the net loss to society and culture from copyright extension. Our original copyright law lasted for, at most, 28 years. The entire point of copyright law was supposed to enrich the public domain, but we haven't had anything enter the public domain in years, and it's unlikely we'll see much enter the public domain in our lifetime. That seems radical.

No. 7: They favor the elimination of the songwriter and publisher rights for server, cache and buffer copies.

Again, this is not at all radical. Nor is it about "eliminating" rights. It's about accurately applying the law so that ridiculous results don't emerge -- such as cases where cache or buffer copies of songs require additional royalties and licenses, when they're clearly in transit. It was about not outlawing technology based on how long the wire is (i.e., the Cablevision case, where Israelite apparently supported the blatantly ridiculous position that a DVR hosted by Cablevision is illegal, because it hosts cached versions in transit, while the DVR in your home is legal).

No. 6: They oppose efforts to obtain the identities of individuals engaged in massive copyright infringement.

Not quite. They oppose efforts that expose individuals' privacy without fair and due process. Who knew it was "radical extremism" to insist on privacy rights and due process. These groups have no problem with exposing the identities of those who break the law when there is due process involved. It's hard to believe that Israelite is really suggesting that music publishers don't believe in due process or privacy rights.

No. 5: They support extreme versions of orphan works legislation.

Misleading again. Orphan works legislation is a red herring -- only brought about because of the ridiculous overreach in copyright law that wiped out the public domain. The sort of overreach that Israelite's group supported. So now when these groups try to fix one of the massive problems that this overreach created, it's dubbed "radical extremism." Yikes.

No. 4: They have filed legal briefs supporting anti-copyright positions of Grokster, Napster, LimeWire, Cablevision, Google, YouTube and Verizon.

Misleading in the extreme. None of those lawsuits involved "anti-copyright" positions, no matter how much the entertainment industry likes to spin these cases that way. The first three -- Grokster, Napster and LimeWire -- were never "anti-copyright" positions, they were questions about third party liability. Again these are just questions about who it's fair to blame: the user or the toolmaker. The entertainment industry wants to blame the toolmakers. Common sense says you blame the actual user. Claiming that a debate over properly applying liability is an "anti-copyright" position is deliberately dishonest. The Google/YouTube case is the same story. It's a case about liability. Not anti-copyright. The Cablevision case we described above. It was about whether or not the industry could veto technology based on the length of a wire. That's not anti-copyright at all.

Finally, it's pretty shocking that he includes Verizon in this list. I'm guessing he's referring to the RIAA's fight with Verizon way back when. To suggest that Verizon is "anti-copyright" is ridiculous. That was, yet again, a case about due process -- which I guess Israelite is admitting he doesn't believe in. This Verizon case involved the question of whether or not the RIAA could just demand Verizon hand over details of Verizon customers without a court-reviewed subpoena. The issue covered basic due process, which had nothing, whatsoever, to do with copyright.

It's really stunning how blatantly Israelite is basically admitting that due process is meaningless if you interfere with "his" business model.

No. 3: They oppose graduated-response protection for copyright owners.

Yes, it's "radical extremism" to support the view held overwhelmingly by consumers that kicking people off the internet is punishment that does not come remotely close to fitting the "crime" of sharing, distributing and promoting music you love for free.

And, again, of course, most of the arguments against graduated-response efforts are due the clearly unconstitutional lack of due process involved: cutting people off the internet based on accusations rather than convictions is pretty radical and extremist. Actually fighting for due process? Not so much.

No. 2: They oppose treaties that support copyright enforcement like the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Heh. This one is amusing, because he conveniently ignores the serious problems with ACTA. They're not "opposed" to these treaties just for the hell of it, or because of some "radical extremist anti-copyright" position. They're opposed to it because it has all sorts of ridiculous language that will do serious harm. But, I guess for Israelite to realize that he'd have to look at the evidence, and he's less a fan of that than he is of supporting due process.

No. 1: They actually argue that illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic helps the economy and doesn't hurt songwriters.

I'm actually not aware of any of those four groups actually saying that, but I will say it. What's hurting songwriters is their inability to adapt to a changing market. The songwriters who are adapting seem to be doing just fine. We write about them all the time, but Israelite won't read this blog, I'm sure, because it's filled with "evidence." Yes, if you don't adapt to market changes, it can "hurt" your business. But that's what most of us here in capitalist America think is a good thing. Otherwise we'd all be riding around in horse buggies. So, sure, automobiles "hurt" the horse buggy market. And the printing press "hurt" the monks-writing-books business. But what happened? Much greater opportunities came about as a result, and the smart horse buggy makers who jumped ship to join automobile makers did just fine. We're seeing successful songwriters adapting all the time. It's just that they're doing it without kowtowing to Israelite and NAMP.

I don't see how any of that represents "radical extremism." I see plenty of attempts to falsely demonize those who believe in due process, privacy rights, consumer rights, innovation, correctly applying liability and (*gasp*) actual factual evidence. But, that's not radical extremism. It's called reality.

Filed Under: copyright, david israelite, music publishers
Companies: ascap, ccia, cea, creative commons, eff, namp, public knowledge

ASCAP Members Pissed Off At ASCAP's Attack On Creative Commons

from the fundraising-for-whom? dept

Last week, we posted about how ASCAP was attacking EFF, Public Knowledge and (most bizarre of all) Creative Commons, as part of its fundraising drive. As we pointed out, this showed ASCAP's true colors. For an organization that presents itself as trying to supports artists' rights, it's downright ridiculous to attack a group like Creative Commons that only looks to give musicians more choices in what they do with their own rights. In following some of the reaction to the article, I saw a tweet from musician Eric Young, where he publicly declared plans to quit ASCAP over this fundraising appeal:

#FUCKASCAP #iQuit ... this is the 1st public anncmnt of my resignation from ASCAP. this is bullshit.

That left me wondering how other ASCAP members were feeling about this, and thankfully, Slashdot points us to a blog post on the Mind the Gap blog that discusses this issue (towards the end). In the comments, though, a number of ASCAP members express their displeasure with the organization.

Corey Dargel who also tweeted his displeasure and plans to quit ASCAP commented:

I think ASCAP should be ashamed of itself, and I am presently ashamed to be a card-carrying member of ASCAP. The language in that fundraising email is fear-based and reactionary. Furthermore, it is misleading and disingenuous. ASCAP portrays itself as a grassroots organization and calls attention to the "deep pockets" of Creative Commons, but in fact it is *ASCAP*, not Creative Commons, that's siding with corporate interests and "deep pockets."

A Rich T. explains his problems with the ASCAP campaign:

I'm the agent for my father, who was a studio musician, performer, music & songwriter from the late 50's until the late 80's, when he retired.

We've been fighting with ASCAP for 6 years to get the money they received for selling the rights to several of his early recordings to a overseas company.

He also handed out free "right to record" statements at the end of each live show back when the recording industry was pushing the "taping is stealing" propaganda.

he's totally against anything that would further criminalize fair use, and has asked me to help him write up a appropriately scathing letter to ASCAP on the subject.

ASCAP member sarah is upset at the fear mongering:

I got this letter yesterday; and all I could think was even if it was true, it wouldn't affect me -- seeing as how several songs I co-wrote have been airing regularly for over 2 years on TV (kid's show stuff, so I do mean regularly), yet I haven't seen a penny through ASCAP. I think they should worry about their own mission statement and get creators actually PAID.

And if I was actually getting my royalties, I would still think the letter was ridiculous and fear-mongering. But what else are they going to do -- let everyone know there's an issue that people need to thoughtfully and sensibly make up their own minds on? Of course not.

Musician Jeremy Jarratt also announced plans to quit ASCAP:

I'm a card-carrying member of ASCAP as well. At least, i was until i got their message. I'm disaffiliating myself as soon as i can figure out how. This is ingenuous at best, and an insult to anyone with even the remotest modicum of understanding of modern digital content distribution. It shows only how antiquated this whole entire game is.

ASCAP should change their moniker to ASSHAT: American Society of Socially-Harmful Attorneys and Treasurers.

Someone going by the name Bobkat who is a member of ASCAP admits that he generally likes ASCAP protecting his rights, but is disgusted with the tone of the letter and now very conflicted over how he feels about ASCAP:

I'm also a member of ASCAP, and I was digusted by the tone of the letter. I hold Creative Commons and the EFF in high regard, and painting them as some kind of enemy of musicians is ridiculous. As a musician, I don't feel like a small-time individual has many options; I have a pretty broad idea of fair use, myself, but if Kanye sampled my song and made millions off of it then damn right I would want a piece. Without the resources to hire a lawyer, who else but ASCAP could help me get my share? Yet at the same time, I don't completely trust that they're really always protecting my best interests; and in this case I believe they have amply demonstrated how clumsy and old-fashioned their philosophy is. What a crummy situation.

Similarly conflicted is Dennis Bathory-Kitsz who wrote a very long comment trying to explain both sides, but finally coming down on the side where he hopes ASCAP changes its stance (this one was long, so just some excerpts here):

I'm a longtime member of both ASCAP and EFF, and I find the whole situation painful.

ASCAP's broadcast and international royalty collections are poor (former is a lottery, latter is unenthusiastic) but their domestic performance royalties are good and appropriately scaled. I appreciate that, and also appreciate that their staff is actually fairly small.

That said, I have to say I'm always disappointed by ASCAP's rough behavior (even if they're not nearly as awful as the RIAA). Maybe it's a negotiating stance, but it just tastes bad....

....

I attended one of the first ASCAP committee meetings about internet music use back in 1995 (where I met folks such as Laurie Spiegel and Morton Subotnik for the first time). I suspect that the composers in attendance 15 years ago are disappointed if not disgusted by the bullying position ASCAP has been taking (revealed as much in the "Daily Briefing" emails they send out as in the recent letter).

So I hope ASCAP will rethink its position and arrive at a truly creative solution that acknowledges how culture (to which they're nominally allied) functions as opposed to a hard-line interpretation of the law. This is no easy task, as Congress has been doing the bidding of the real deep pockets in the past few decades.

Meanwhile, there were some similar comments found on the BoingBoing article on ASCAP's letter as well. For example, there is this comment from the musician Kemmler who posted the email he sent back upon getting ASCAP's fundraising pitch:

Dear Mr. Williams -

I'm not interested in supporting any initiative based on this sort of information-free screed. I've personally relied on creative-commons licensed materials to use in my own work, as well as a license which provides a convenient way to both promote and control the dissemination of my own work.

I also have a firm respect for the EFF and their efforts in protecting the interests of consumers and small business where they pertain to new media channels, the internet, or IP.

As a musician, and as an entrepreneur making my living selling equipment to studios and musicians, I obviously have a great deal to lose if the putative forces of "copyleft" somehow succeed in preventing music being paid for. However, I cannot condone, or fail to decry the practice of vilifying institutions like Creative Commons, which poses absolutely no conceivable illegitimate threat to ASCAP or its members.

If someone wants to license their materials under a CC license - that's their right. If someone wants to use CC-licensed material, and not pay ASCAP for some other material - that's also their right. Please grow up and get a grip.

Similar to some of the conflicted artists above, someone going by the name "BrooklynTwang" who appears to be the musician Rench posted a comment about how he supports ASCAP and what it does, but hates this fundraising campaign:

I am an ASCAP member. I hate this fundraising letter and I am telling them so.

You can tell them too, right here
http://www.ascap.com/legislation/legislation-form.html

Just FYI though regarding the ASCAP-is-corporate-assholes talk, I am not a rich rockstar but I make money licensing music for film, tv, and commercials. I am happy to give music away free to the public, but if some corporation is going to use it to sell crap, they should pay me. Not just the up front fee, but royalties for each time they run the ad/show/film. ASCAP makes them do that so they don't get away with shortchanging artists like me. Thats one thing that ASCAP does, and thats why I am a member. ASCAP is not just another corporation. They are a player in a complex position between artists and corporations. They are not the bad guys, they are just not as good as they should be these days. Next time we vote on the ASCAP board members I will grill the nominees about this.

That's not all either, but a quick sampling. I'm sure that this won't have a noticeable impact on ASCAP, which has 380,000 members, most of whom probably don't know or don't care much about the details of what it is ASCAP is misleadingly attacking. But ASCAP might want to be careful before continuing to attack organizations that actually do have musicians' best interests in mind. They might find that more and more will start to question ASCAP's motives as well. In the end, I doubt there was anything malicious in ASCAP's fundraising letter. It's just that the organization is so far out of touch with what's happening in the music world today that it actually thinks attacking these groups makes sense.

Filed Under: copyright, music
Companies: ascap, creative commons, eff, public knowledge

ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom

from the protectionism-all-the-way dept

About a year and a half ago, we reported on the news that ASCAP, who represents songwriters and publishers as a collection society, was holding strategy sessions on how to "counter" proponents of free culture, as if they were some sort of attack on ASCAP. Since then, we've actually noticed a growth in both the number of hilarious conspiracy-midned "attack blogs" from people tied to ASCAP, as well as an increase in the number of "anonymous" commenters on the site coming from IP addresses used by a few law firms that have connections to ASCAP. Funny that.

Now it appears they're stepping things up to stage two: they've sent around fundraising emails that specifically ask for money to fight Creative Commons, EFF and Public Knowledge. What's amusing (but really sad) is that this proves that the rhetoric out of ASCAP about protecting "artists' rights" is bunk. Creative Commons does nothing whatsoever to undermine artists' rights. It merely offers them more options for how they choose to license their works. It's the sort of thing that ASCAP and the rest of the music industry should embrace. In fact, when confronted, many of these organizations often make the point that they have no problem with Creative Commons, and they're happy if artists choose to use CC licenses.

But ASCAP's blatant attack on Creative Commons (and EFF and PK; both of whom focus on consumer rights, but not undermining artist's rights at all) shows their true colors. They're not about artists' rights at all. They're about greater protectionism -- which is not (at all) the same thing.

Of course, all this makes me wonder why ASCAP members would support an organization that is, in fact, actively trying to diminish their options for licensing? ASCAP has a huge ulterior motive, of course. If alternative business models and things like Creative Commons become more widely used, the reliance on ASCAP diminishes, and ASCAP doesn't want that at all.

Below is the letter itself, which was posted by Mike Rugnetta:

Really sad day for ASCAP that it would stoop so low as to claim that giving creators more options and more business model and distributions options is somehow bad. Pretty much takes away all of its credibility.

Filed Under: creative commons, culture, free culture
Companies: ascap, creative commons, eff, public knowledge