Copyright Licensing Company Responds to the SocietyAdded: Saturday, July 3rd, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) said recently that ventures like Creative Commons (CC) were suspected in undermining their copyrights. Creative Commons didn’t keep waiting on that and made an official response in regards to ASCAP’s letter writing campaign.
It has already been discussed that Creative Commons, on the contrary, doesn’t undermine anyone’s copyrighted content, but rather gives musicians a middle option between the public domain (which means there are no rights reserved) and copyright (assuming all rights are reserved).
A spokesperson for Creative Commons quickly responded to the ASCAP’s letter. He admitted that he was very sad to hear that ASCAP was mistakenly accusing Creative Commons of undermining copyright. He also went on explaining the nature of Creative Commons licenses. They are, in fact, simply copyright licenses, which means that without copyright existing, they wouldn’t even work. Such licenses are legitimate tools artists are able to use for offering specific usage rights to the public, while keeping other rights. This is also a good option for those musicians and record labels who are thinking about making their works available to the public for some specific usage, such as remixing or noncommercial exchanging. On the contrary, those performers and groups who want to reserve all the package of copyrights shouldn’t use Creative Commons licenses.
This mechanism really makes sense, as Creative Commons is a voluntary option. The rights owner can freely choose whether to use CC licenses or not.
Thousands of performers, including Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, David Byrne, and the Beastie Boys, have an experience of using CC licenses to share their music with the public. No one of those performers is looking to stop earning money from the music. Instead, many of the musicians using Creative Commons licenses are at the same time members of some collecting societies like ASCAP. Actually, that’s how the licensing company first heard about the ASCAP’s email campaign – many artists supporting Creative Commons got those emails and hurried to forward them to the company. Moreover, some of them even enclosed a donation.
All this leaves a feeling of a very bad error in judgment from ASCAP. The Creative Commons hopes ASCAP will at least issue an apology over this.
July 3rd, 2010Posted by:
Saturday, July 3rd, 2010
|posted by (2010-07-04 06:11:47)|
|Could it be possible that some band that used Creative Commons and was dissatisfied is now using ASCAP as a tool to hurt them? If thousands of performers have already used this service there is bound to be a few people who weren't happy with it. I believe we have only seen the first few layers of this story.|
|posted by (2010-07-05 13:30:17)|
|A thinking comment Alacrity! I see light lunch articles like this all of the time and am left wondering what lead up to the action, |
or in this case wondering what the Ascap letter actually says. I'm not barking that it's the author's fault, writers use what info
they can get.
Most Popular Stories