Common Rules
More on Creative Commons…
The way Lessig sees it, art has always been about stealing, recycling and mixing: Vincent Van Gogh and Paul Gauguin were said to borrow from each other’s brushwork. The 1990s hit “Clueless” with Alicia Silverstone was a modern-day adaptation of Jane Austen’s “Emma.”
“At every turn in history we see this new model of distribution that people say is going to destroy art itself,” Doctorow said. But, he said, such fears been proven wrong time and time again.
“Shawn Fanning, who as a teen developed Napster, is now working on software that would let copyright holders specify permissions and prices for swapping. Vivendi Universal is a backer.”
This sounds interesting. I wonder what they’ll come up with.
Perhaps I’m not looking at all the angles, so let me ask a couple questions. How would a creative commons license benefit a musician if he has no desire to hear his music remixed, reworked, etc?
Also, if a filmmaker is looking for music to use in a film, he’s not going to randomly search through online directories (i.e., the creative commons archives) to find appropriate music – he already knows which songs he wants to use, so why wouldn’t he simply contact the artist directly? Ultimately, he would have to to so anyway because as soon as he makes money from the film, he has to start paying the artist, unless that artist has given permission to use the song for free, so what purpose does the creative commons license serve in this situation? Seems like the “some rights reserved” license is only relevant if the filmmaker never plans to release the film (since the artist has not given permission to use the music for commercial purposes), and I can’t imagine why that would be the case.
Shawn Fanning is that Napster kid and what he’s come up with is SnoCap. SnoCap is basically a centralized database for licensing. It’ll help the online retailers and record labels save overhead but does nothing for consumers or downloaders that like the freedom of exploration gained from downloading. It’ll still be a buy each individual song situation.
CC is voluntary. Therefore it’s impossible to complain about it. If you want a strict “traditional” copyright go ahead and apply it, if not CC is a good option.
The author of the article didn’t make the most compelling points in relation to the film maker example. The best thing about CC is it gives artists options, unlike traditional copyrights which consist of an all or nothing application.
Impossible? Then how was I able to type all those words you see above?? That’s a joke.
I’m just asking questions about cc to find out if maybe my concerns are not valid. In other words, I’m trying to learn about cc as it is something that affects me directly, as a songwriter who might consider utilizing it someday. But I think my concerns are valid and do not think that cc is a good option for my puproses. I was hoping maybe you could show me how I was wrong.
“The best thing about CC is it gives artists options, unlike traditional copyrights which consist of an all or nothing application.”
Think about this: in the traditional system, the copyright holder still would have the option of suing someone who violated his rights. He could very well choose not to, depending on the scenario. So the traditional system gives artists options as well, without them having to give up any rights.
But most people not able to afford Let It Be aren’t going to go ahead and use it in their movie for fear of being sued.
My point is some artists may not wish to scare people away from their work with copyright. Some artists encourage derivative works limited to fellow artists and want to scare away Ford Motor Company from using their work in mustang commercials. A good option for them is CC.
Talking about individual artists is irrelevant. Most of the time the label is the one doing the suing, the artist has nothing to do with it. If Moby wanted to share all his music with a CC license he’d have to circumvent his label. That’s why the RIAA has the ability to sue based on their “clients” interests. Even is all RIAA artists were fine with file-sharing (I’m grossly exaggerating here) the RIAA has the ability to sue. Not many artists can resist giving up those rights to their label thereby giving them up to the RIAA.
Link
I think I can summarize.
1) Go with CC, encourage others to utilize your music as you see fit, severely limit your chances of selling records
2) Go with the traditional system, preserve your ability to sell records, but risk seeing another party sue someone for using your music in a way that you might otherwise condone.
So the question is, how much do you value giving others the opportunity to fiddle with your music? Personally, I have no interest in seeing my songs remixed, reworked, mashed-up, whatever. I would prefer that they not be, frankly. Maybe if I were a hip-hop or rap artist I’d feel differently, probably because I’d be sampling other artists myself. But that’s not where I’m coming from. Furthermore, the moment someone starts making money off my work, I want them to at least have the decency to ask my permission first.
Randy, can you agree that you only like cc because you DO highly value giving others the opportunity to reuse your music? That must be why we differ on this topic so much.
I do highly value the idea of derivative works but that’s not the only reason I like CC. I would also rather not play the major label game and put money on the forefront of all other aspects of my music only to let it be controlled by my “representation” (Have you read that Albini article yet?).
I would rather “lose money” with file sharing and let some kid in Guam download my album (who would never have the money or resources to buy it in the first place) than be obsessed with whether or not I’ve lost a sale.
One thing I took from the original article is a quote from Jim Gilliam:
If I’m going to make money off my music I want to do it by my own rules. I don’t want to relinquish any control to some faceless bureaucrat for something I hold as personal as a song.
Plus, look what Scott Welch (manager to Alanis Morissette and LeAnn Rimes) said in Forbes:
That same article goes into how much artists make touring and how labels are beginning to draft contracts with merchandise, ticket sales, and other clause percentages.
Maybe back in the Utopian times of The Beatles and Stones artists made bank on album sales but now-a-days it seems to me the labels are making the cash and the artists are left to fend for themselves. Unless, of course, you’re Britney Spears.
I just read the Albini article. Firstly, I don’t expect that I would be courted by a major label at any point. It’s nice to fantacize about, but not realistic. Having said that, I would conduct myself completely differently than the band in the article. I would NEVER, EVER sign anything put in front of me by an A & R man on the spot. I would NEVER sign anything without extensive analysis, consultation, soul-searching, etc, even if that meant that the label would revoke the offer. By not signing the vague yet legally binding “memo”, that band could have prevented most of their problems.
THe article was good, but I would walk away before getting involved in that king of legal and financial snafu.
Re: the Gillam quote: How, exactly??
Re: the Welch quote: The other 90% make their money BACK selling records, ideally, and then turn a profit on the road. No one expects to make a living selling records alone without touring.
I’m not obsessed with losing a sale, nor am I obsessed with giving my rights away for the sake of some hypothetical kid in Guam. You summed it up well –
“If I’m going to make money off my music I want to do it by my own rules. I don’t want to relinquish any control to some faceless bureaucrat for something I hold as personal as a song”
(cont)So if the ONLY way to get a major label deal would be to relinquish control (which is probably the case), I’d walk away. We’re on the same page as far as that’s concrened.
Gilliam noted that in the article.
His movie (Outfoxed) garnished so much press (even without major studio promotion) he’s sold a lot of DVD copies from his web site.
A lot of people like physical CDs, DVDs, etc… so it’s not surprising.
The Guam Kid isn’t an individual, he represents a whole slew of people without the ability to attain a legal copy of work.
It looks like you can watch the trailer on the Outfoxed site, then you have to buy the DVD to see the whole thing. How does this apply to music? If you can download the song free, why would you need to buy a physical copy? I thought we had both concluded that if buying a CD became unnecessary, they would be relegated to novelty status, a la vinyl records.
I know the Guam kid represents something grander. Just like the “sale” I’m apparently “obsessing” about represents a whole slew of sales that would make the difference between making a living/supplementing one’s income and not making anything at all.
My session at the library was up when I was typing my last comment, so I didn’t have time to comment fully on the Albini article. Here’s some things to consider. If you reduce the advance to $100,000, which is far more reasonable, especially considering that living expenses for several months are factored into the equation elsewhere, each member nets an add’l $37,500. (Plus, by reducing the advance, you might get a little more on the back end.) Give each member another $5,000 and eliminate the ridiculous $20,000 merch advance. Fourteen grand for new instruments? No way – give each a couple thousand back. After paying back the royalty deficit, it’s at least $70K. Corners could be cut elsewhere – this band wasn’t prudent, whereas I would be, so I have to guess I could save money in several other areas. So tack on whatever amount that might be and you’ve got a pretty decent income for a few months of doing a job that most people would kill to have.
AND you get the chance to make another record. Like Albini said, you might have to spend more on it this time if the label insists, but this time there’s no advance to pay back and you have a recognizeable “name”, so you have a chance to turn a larger profit. If you’re good enough to keep making good music AND lucky enough to maintain or improve sales after the first record, by the time your initial contract is up, you’ve made a few hundred thousand r more and now you’re in a position to negotiate a better deal as an established act.
What’s my point? If you don’t shoot yourself in the foot with huge advances and delusions of grandeur, you can do alright. Does the label earn more? Deservedly so, since they have to gamble so much on a unproven act. Don’t entry level employees in any field always have to prove themselves?
Outfoxed was/is popular across BitTorrent, Kazaa, etc. networks. This was before you could either buy the DVD or view the trailer from the site. The film can be viewed in its entirety through those channels yet people are still buying it off the site.
The label assuming a risk on the bands first release is most times inevitable. But what of the second, third record, etc..? Those percentages don’t seem to change, why is the label profiting so much on those subsequent releases?
Changing the numbers to favor your point is pretty easy to do (obviously). Albini has been involved in this business for over 15 years. I don’t think he’s just throwing something together to scare people away from major label deals. He’s simply warning artists that these deals aren’t trying to help them. They’re trying to help labels.
You can assume, “I’m smarter than that, I’ll look out for my interests and won’t be woo-ed into submission” all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that even with the best deal you’re making money for a person you despise, off one of the most personal things you’ve ever created.
When does integrity and pride trump profit?
Interesting side note:
-Bemuso.com
-Hilary Rosen of the RIAA
-Bemuso.com
1 million, 2 million, even 100,000 albums seems pretty grandiouse to me? What numbers were you basing your “granduer” comment on?
One last quote from Bemuso.com based on Hilary Rosen’s above quote:
“Changing the numbers to favor your point is pretty easy to do (obviously). Albini has been involved in this business for over 15 years. I don’t think he’s just throwing something together to scare people away from major label deals. He’s simply warning artists that these deals aren’t trying to help them. They’re trying to help labels.”
Yes, and it’s equally easy to turn down an unnecessarily large cash advance, possibly ending up with a higher percentage of sales. Or to refuse a cash advance on merch. Admit it, the band in Albini’s example was just plain stupid to handle things the way they did. So, yes, I have the right to claim that I would do things differently.
And my comment wasn’t about integrity or pride – it was about how that particular band screwed themselves.
Re: the Rosen comment. It’s common knowledge that most records released don’t sell. That’s why labels have to make money on the one’s that do. They then take that profit and use it to gamble on a bunch of other bands whose records are probably not going to sell.
Re: Cooperman. An obvious contradiction of Albini’s article. That band very nearly broke even and didn’t sell nearly that many records. And if they were smart, they would have made money. Not to menton that the label made a killing in ALbini’s example. So Cooperman is wrong, if Albini is correct.
“1 million, 2 million, even 100,000 albums seems pretty grandiouse to me? What numbers were you basing your “granduer” comment on?”
The delusion is obvious. Albini is trying to convey the mindset of a young band that has no problem pissing money away without any thought of the consequences. Listen to how they cite famous acts as they convince themselves that they’re the next big thing. “This is what so-and-so did, so we should do the same thing!” Randy, are you telling me that you don’t blame this band in any way for their problems? With the tone of his writing, Albini is blaming the band as much as the label!
What did I write to give you the impression that I’m not blaming the band? They’re a bunch of morons. Anyone signing something without support is pretty stupid in my book.
Don’t take this bad but have you read anything I’ve stated? Because it seems like your two prior posts didn’t really have too much to do with what I wrote or cited…
Yeah, they screwed themselves. How did my pride comment (or even the paragraph above it) contradict that? What I was getting at is signing with a major doesn’t help artistic integrity whether you make money of not (selling-out anyone?).
You seem really bent on pointing to the shortcomings (which I never disagreed with) of this fictitious band … I’m not focused on them, I’m just trying to point out that this label doesn’t really care what type of poor decisions they make even though, in truth, their success would help the label. Instead, the label is just throwing ‘em to the side like a used condom. Since when has it been acceptable that the label is the artists’ enemy? Wouldn’t a cooperative arrangement be more beneficial?
As far as the contradiction with Albini and Cooperman is concerned you hit the nail on the head! Given all costs were outlined in Albini’s example, the label obviously profited from that release. Yet, both Cooperman and Rosen (huge label execs) stated (in front of Congress!) that it would be impossible to profit with those numbers. Somehow indies make quite a lot by selling 100,000 CDs but majors make nothing unless they move over 1-2 million? There’s a bit of bloat going on. And despite what you might like to do, you can’t blame the band for that (joke).
I NEVER said you were obsessed about a sale. You took my words completely out of context with that quote. If you insist upon debating this please refrain from putting words in my mouth..
Alright, back to the regularly scheduled program…
“I would rather “lose money” with file sharing and let some kid in Guam download my album (who would never have the money or resources to buy it in the first place) than be obsessed with whether or not I’ve lost a sale.”
I don’t think I took your words too far out of context.
Seriously, I have to stop. All this back and forth is giving me a headache. Let’s pick it up the next time we see each other in person.
The statement said “I would rather.” I was stating my own opinion which didn’t at all reference yours. It’s not a big deal, it just took me off guard. I’m sure you didn’t mean much by it.
I agree, this one’s dead. We’ve already taken it too far and fallen into our own heated traps once again. In person, with boxing gloves (or lots of beer) would be a much better meeting place. Talk with ya’ later, punk.