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

[coretx at piratenpartij.nl]

Many different views and opinions exist. 

Lessig once told a journalist that CC is a means to "circumvent" the law. (
I can track a online vid if someone wants to see it )
Once i mentioned this fact towards a highly placed CC netherlands official
in public.
What i saw was a face turning red. And this was just after CC netherlands
got into bed with BUMA/STEMRA.
And in one way or another i was told to shut up, and that dutch laws do not
need change.

In my opinion the BUMA/STEMRA & CC "trial" is some kind of trade-off. CC
gets media attention. And BUMA/STEMRA keeps control over the market & good
PR.
Right now it is in the news that BUMA/STEMRA is going to lower their income
distribution by 10 %.
Basically because they have been gambling on the stock-markets with money
that is not theirs and lost 14 Million euro.
I'm really wondering what independent artists think about this. And if the
PR department of CC worldwide is willing to be associated with such a
company.



On Thu, 28 May 2009 11:08:18 +0200, "Reinier Bakels" <r.bakels at planet.nl>
wrote:
>> 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 
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general