[pp.int.general] A Swedish Rights Management organizationnow accepts some CC licences

[Reinier Bakels]

> This is a step in the right direction, but not sufficient if it is
> limited to the NC licenses.
It is an essential step if rights management organisations learn to accept 
that not all authors always want to make money from their works.
In NL, a union of retail stores was fed up by paying copyrights for 
background music, so they had background music specifically composed and 
performed for them, and purchased the copyrights ("assignment"). Still they 
were harrassed by collective rights management organisations (who typically 
charge fees unrelated to the actual music played, even for offices), but 
eventually the collective rights management organisations accepted the 
facts, and - what is apparently more complicated - adapted the 
organisational policies.
Another problem: in a copyright textbook I read the comment that authors 
fundamentally have the right to refuse copyright licences. If Microsoft 
wants to buy RMS software, he may say: you don't get it, whatever you pay. 
The textbook argues that collective rights management organisations make the 
assumption that no one objects exploitation of his works - while that is 
actually a fundamental prerogative of the copyright owner. Proponents of 
free software and information may not immediately sympathise with people 
outright refusing copyright licences, but there are (other) examples when 
thgis makes sense: e.g. a nartist may not like that his works are used in an 
advertisement campaign, for whatever unsympathetic firm (Microsoft again?) 
Interdicting commercial exploitaion is also a CC variant.
reinier