Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Blog
  • CBC Bans Use of Creative Commons Music on Podcasts

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

CBC Bans Use of Creative Commons Music on Podcasts

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Friday October 08, 2010

The producers of the popular CBC radio show Spark have revealed (see the comments) that the public broadcaster has banned programs from using Creative Commons licenced music on podcasts.  The decision is apparently the result of restrictions in collective agreements the CBC has with some talent agencies.  In other words, groups are actively working to block the use of Creative Commons licenced alternatives in their contractual language.  It is enormously problematic to learn that our public broadcaster is blocked from using music alternatives that the creators want to make readily available.  The CBC obviously isn't required to use Creative Commons licenced music, but this highlights an instance where at least one of its programs wants to use it and groups that purport to support artists' right to choose the rights associated with their work is trying to stop them from doing so.

Update: Chris Boyce, Director of Programming for CBC Radio has responded to the public comments on the issue by clarifying that the reason for blocking the use of CC licenced music from podcasts is not the result of contractual restrictions, as other CBC employees previously reported.  Instead, Boyce says that many CC licenced works carry restrictions on commercial use and that some podcasts have a commercial component. That is a much more sensible explanation, yet it does not explain why all CC licenced music is blocked from podcasts.  Some CC licenced music can be used for commercial purposes (the Spark CC music playlist contains such a track). A better approach - one that respects the choices of both artist and producer - would be to require that programs only use music with the appropriate rights, which could include some CC licenced music.

Update II: Creative Commons responds, noting the availability of CC licenced music for commercial uses.

 

Comments (150)add comment

Eric L. said:

...
I bet within a few days the CRIA will use this as "evidence" that the Creative Commons license is dangerous to culture and society. Much how Microsoft spreads FUD about the GPL.

A broadcaster not being able to use Creative Commons is equivalent to a company not being able to use OpenOffice (now LibreOffice) in their company because of legal trickery.
October 08, 2010

Andrew Butash said:

Wow
Well this is utter shit. Private companies are one thing, but the CBC is a public broadcaster funded by tax payer money. There is no way this kind of crap should be allowed.
October 08, 2010

Chris A said:

...
That has got to be the stupidest reason to do that. There's no way I can see that being justified. Hopefully some of the people who are commenting that are going to challenge it do so.
October 08, 2010

Bob said:

...
With respect...you don't know that the artists want Creative Commons licences.
October 08, 2010

Corey said:

...
Boycotting CBC radio shows until this is fixed.
October 08, 2010

Chris S said:

What Artists Want?
Bob, it doesn't need to be the case that all, or many, or even a notable number of artists want Creative Commons licences.

If even one artist first sees interest from the CBC, and is then blocked because of this restriction, that's sufficient evidence that this is too restrictive.

I strongly suggest watching the comments over time on the Spark blog - looks like this is gaining serious traction in very short order.
October 08, 2010

John said:

thanks for arguing about taking away my living for me.
Just another step down in my living.
I'm a full time composer/musician, for now, though I have been for 25 years now.
Its getting harder and harder to make a living. CBC used to pay well, used to have way more work, but is offering lower wages/fees for music/musicians, using music they used to pay for in ways that they don't pay for. I had one piece of mine used by CBC radio as a theme, but they used less then 30 seconds to avoid paying me at all. Now you are arguing to let them use music that they don't have to pay anyone for?

While CBC is non-profit, al radio tries to make money off the music they play, so they should have to pay to use it.

October 08, 2010

Bob said:

@Chris S
Sure,if they can separate so that only those interested are covered by CC, that's fine
October 08, 2010

... said:

@Bob
Um... maybe I didn't understand the article correctly... but aren't they saying "music covered by CC can't be allowed to be played" - and not "all artists on our programs must be CC" ...?
October 08, 2010

John Meadows said:

Another example
In related news, prostitutes demand that sex within marriage/committed relationships be banned. "If people get sex for free, it cuts into our ability to sell sex to make a living."

Give me a break!
October 08, 2010

Simon said:

Ummm, what?
@John - I'm not sure what your point is? Your post reads to me as "I should have a right to continue making a living the way I always have, progress be damned". Following your argument to it's logical conclusion, if I had a magical cure for cancer, you would want it banned to protect all the people working in the cancer care industry.
October 08, 2010

... said:

@Simon
I think it was sarcasm . . .
October 08, 2010

Mark said:

...
So due to collective agreements that CBC has with certain talent unions, they can't use any CC music at all? What is it about CC music that the unions have a problem with exactly? Is it really only because they can't compete with free? Sort of childish, I suppose, but hey... isn't that what unions do?

But this sort of motivates one to ask what about music that's in the public domain? Have they barred that too? What about folk music or classical music that anyone could freely use? Are all these things barred as well, or just creative commons? Because I just don't get what the hang-up would be about CC music in particular would be that the unions would explicitly exclude it.
October 08, 2010

Jesse said:

@ @Simon
It's so hard to tell when people are being sarcastic. I mean, John's is an argument you would hear in earnest: I am still unsure if it was real. It's really hard to parody a group of people who already parody themselves so well. i.e. "Radical Extremism."
October 08, 2010

Simon said:

...
To be clear, I was replying to "John" the composer, not "John Meadows" the pimp! The "John Meadows" post wasn't there when I posted, but unfortunate timing meant my reply was directly under his.
October 08, 2010

lindsay said:

cc isn't the same as free
as a stake holder in the creative realm, i chose to licence my work under a creative commons licence. i am also a member of socan and caras. socan in particular has put out some anti creative commons stuff that borders on pure fiction and has the aroma of dung at best. creative commons gives the artist control of their copyright and the extent to which they choose to limit their works use. it does not in any way prevent them receiving or earning royalties from rights organizations. i chose a pretty open form licence yet i retain ownership of my work and while i allow others to make copies for themselves and to share with others, i do not permit any commercial use of my work without approval. this is a rotten move by the cbc, likely at the behest of dishonest players pretending to have the interests of creators in mind. i'm looking at you socan. i'm looking at you actra. i'm cursing you cria, wholly owned shills for the litigation as business model mafia.
October 08, 2010

Eric G said:

Appalling
I'm really unsettled by this news. The CBC has a responsibility to promote and engage with Canadian artists (or anyone really) and thanks to alternative distribution channels it's pretty easy for musicians to make a go without being indentured to the traditional music industry.

I'd rather drop the existing contract and every song tied to it than ban CC music from the CBC.
October 08, 2010

Crockett said:

Bob, with respect, before you spin at least read the article.
@Bob "With respect...you don't know that the artists want Creative Commons licences."

Well, Gene Simmons certainly doesn't ;-) ...
http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1042801

October 08, 2010

Crockett said:

...
@Corey "Boycotting CBC radio shows until this is fixed."

That will do a lot of good as it's already paid for with our tax dollars.
October 08, 2010

Kent said:

...
There should be some sort of antitrust rule going on here. Talent agencies are trying to prevent their competitors from entering the marketplace, much like Intel for years tried to prevent AMD from entering the marketplace by using illegal contracts that made it excessively financially attractive for computer makers to rely exclusively on Intel chips. If that's illegal for Intel (as the EU and US regulators have claimed), why is it legal for these talent agencies?
October 08, 2010

IamME said:

...
Perhaps the point has been missed...at least how I see it. As more and more artists, both those already established and those starting out, choose to self produce and self release, organizations like the CRIA and SOCAN become less and less relevant.

Really, hardware is getting cheaper and cheap every day, there is all kinds of decent software that allows one to mix music quite effectively, wth the Internet, distribution costs become minimal...with world-wide exposure, all without the use of the CRIA. HELL, there is an entire distribution of Linux aimed at both the enthusiast and professional multimedia creator. "Ubuntu Studio"...and it's FREE!! More and more open-source software is being released every day...all FREE!!

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntustudio

Will the recording be as good as in a huge studio? Probably not quite, but 95% of the population won't care that much.

With major artists such as Metallica, Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails and many more, along with many up-and-comers choosing to self produce and self release, organizations like SOCAN and the CRIA are seeing revenue streams drop like flies. So now the next logical step is to try and block the the usage of such material...protect the monopoly. This is anti-competitive behavior which I thought was illegal under Canadian law.

As I see it, self produced artists pose a far larger threat to the livelyhood of the CRIA and RIAA than piracy ever did or ever will.
October 08, 2010

Napalm said:

...
@Crocket: "Well, Gene Simmons certainly doesn't ;-) ... "

On a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is the barbaric victory yell of a Neanderthal after killing his pray, and 10 is a symphonic orchestra, where would you place Kiss?

Nap.
October 08, 2010

Andrew said:

@John
I'm sorry to hear you're having difficulty, really, I am. Musicians are a vital part of society.

But you know what? Things change. You can't stick by your "I used to get paid a lot for what I do, and I want to keep it that way." Adapt or die (figuratively, of course!) You're not entitled to the money the CBC pays, and if you can't compete in the current climate you (or others) shouldn't expect your way of life to be guaranteed by legal language rather than talent and perseverance.

A lot of people are making a living from CC-licensed works, and even those who aren't making a living are still making music.

October 08, 2010

Crockett said:

Arrr, Maties ...
@IamME "As I see it, self produced artists pose a far larger threat to the livelyhood of the CRIA and RIAA than piracy ever did or ever will."

Yes, obviously, but the organizations pro porting to represent the well being and success of artists cannot come out say so. So, like an old parrot who only knows one line, they will keep blaming 'piracy' for all their woes.

There are not many types of people I really disrespect, but self-serving greedy liars are right near the top.
October 08, 2010

The Mad Hatter said:

American Rights Organization
Curiously the Rights organization that they said the CBC was using turned out to be American. Wonder why...
October 08, 2010

Napalm said:

...
Because CBC decided to promote Britney Spears using Canadian tax payer money?

Being played on the radio is the ultimate advertising. How did we come to the situation where the radio station has to pay an artist for advertising her/him?

Nap.

October 08, 2010

CCforCBC said:

...
competition bureau complaint anybody?
October 08, 2010

Jason K said:

FYI
I've been in contact with the producer of this program for most of the day today. She can't get any information related to this collective agreement herself from the legal department and senior brass. Something smells. Also asked for a comment from the CBC as well, was told TBC.
October 08, 2010

Napalm said:

...
@Jason: Looks like she will soon have to update her resume....

Nap. :-(
October 08, 2010

Jason K said:

CBC's Response
Chris Boyce the Programming Director at CBC Radio just issued a statement on the tread located:

http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2010/10/spark-122-october-3-6-2010/#IDComment102867146

It reads:

"We’ve been listening to the conversations today regarding a “ban” on the use of Creative Commons music in our podcasts and want to take the opportunity to clarify some of the misconceptions that are floating out there.

The CBC has always embraced new ways of creating and sharing the content we make (in fact, shows like Spark and previously Search Engine were some of the first in Canada to use this type of music license in their programming), however, just like you, we must do so in a way which respects the limits put on that use by the music's creators.

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.

Everyone can rest easy-- there are no “groups” setting out to stop the use of Creative Commons music at the CBC, and we will continue to use Creative Commons licensed music, pictures etc. across a number of our non-commercial platforms.

We hope this helps clarify things.

Sincerely,

Chris Boyce
Programming Director.
CBC Radio. "
October 08, 2010

Chris A said:

...
Or, you know, they could just have the people who want to actually use CC licenced music make sure that it's okay with the artist first rather than banning the whole thing. Or allow CC music that allows commercial use. But that would probably require more thought and effort on their part than just strait ban, so they just banned it.

Love the CBC, but sometimes it seems they need to think more.
October 08, 2010

Matt said:

hmm
doesn't this actually incur a cost to the CBC?
October 08, 2010

CCforCBC said:

...
hahaha @PR jason posted

just because something isn't for commercial use doesn't mean the CBC can't seek permission to use it. Who are the fools running this? CC isn't just for non-commercial use. I'm confused how they could make that assumption.
October 08, 2010

Degen said:

...
Yes, I advise everyone boycott the CBC right away! At least until they explain why it is they want to pay for the music they are using on the radio! What a complete waste of taxpayer money - paying for music. I'm am outraged!

What's next - paying their on-air talent? Paying their writers? Paying their technicians? Where will it all end?

Then again, isn't this about choice? Isn't the CBC allowed to choose what it broadcasts?
October 08, 2010

CCforCBC said:

...
John Degen writers union trolling again? I wouldn't read your garbage if you paid me. This isn't about your union. It's about artists who use a different form of licensing than you. Nice try buddy.
October 08, 2010

Jason K said:

@Degen
You actively belong to collectives that seem not to beleive in free market choices, or public debate on those choices Re: Access Copyright post secondary tarrif response. I think the CBC's right to choose here is exactly what we're all worried about. Unlike you, the majority of Canadians don't support socialist and fascist policies.
October 08, 2010

IamME said:

@Degan
"At least until they explain why it is they want to pay for the music they are using on the radio! What a complete waste of taxpayer money - paying for music."

This is irresopnsible to make such a statement given the context. CBC is a publicly funded, government run organization that uses tax dollars. Why should they not be allowed to use free music if an artist decides to use some non-mainstream licensing option? It's just laziness on their part because they don't want to contact the artist about using their material. How does this help foster musical arts in the least?

On the other hand, perhaps it's cheaper to use the the content in their "production library" than it is to contact an artist and get permission to use their content for free. After all, there is a time-cost associated with some employee going through the motions of actually contacting said artist. If this is the case, this is probably not CBC's call. My wife is a government employee who manages a substantial sum of money, and it comes straight from the top that cheapest option is the only option.
October 08, 2010

Crockett said:

John, we missed you ..
Welcome back! I'm sure the CBC budgetarians aren't really all that worried if they have to pay for a song or not in a broadcast. The issue (or as it was perceived) was the banning of a different licencing system in favor of another more established one. If, as they say, their concern was the media in question would be used commercially then that is feasible either by permission or payment. If the artist wanted the publicity rather than payment then that is their prerogative (and probably a smarter move).

Was this pressure from the established collectives or just laziness on the part of the producers? Either way it is a shame that a whole category of artists trying to embrace a new and possibly more more lucrative method of compensation for their work is now shut out of Canada's largest broadcaster.
October 08, 2010

Crockett said:

Straight from the back rooms of the CBC
Hi, Russell,
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.
- **** (CBC Radio Podcasting)

October 08, 2010

pat donovan said:

read the rest of the paperwork
from the looks of it, the CC conflicts with the standard CBC boiler plate;

it's free, we keep all the money, you lose.

NOT using CC will keep the confusion down. from the looks of it.
packrat
October 08, 2010

Johnny LaRue said:

...
"just because something isn't for commercial use doesn't mean the CBC can't seek permission to use it. Who are the fools running this?"

I work for the Ceeb. When I first learned of this, I was initially angry till I read Boyce's explanation, which completely clears things up, even if it still sucks.

Those "fools" who can't seek permission are the handful of CBC staff left on each production who don't have time to chase people down to get permission for every last little clip of music they want to use. I know you might not see this as a big deal, but believe me... when you are as shorthanded as we are these days, it does. Not sure if you noticed, but we just lost 700 people in the last round of layoffs.

I whole-heartedly support using CC, but any barriers to use with the resources we have make it increasingly hard to do our jobs with a mind to using open-source content of this type. If we didn't have to stick ads on everything we did, we wouldn't have this problem. Don't like it, call your MP and ask them to restore our funding.
October 08, 2010

Free said:

Hey John
Hey John, if I want to create music and give it to the CBC it's my choice. You can't force force me too charge for it, and you should not or anybody else prevent the CBC from accepting it. You should be happy about it, next time they will not steel your 30 second of music, they will use mine, for free.
October 08, 2010

Jason K said:

@Johnny LaRue
Mr. LaRue,

Coming from a background in broadcast management on the production side here, shouldn't the CBC be doing what ever it takes to reduce production overhead, even if that means chasing people down to get permission? Isn't that part of a producers job to begin with?

I find Mr. Boyce's response anything but clear. The information provided on these accusations comes directly from one of the CBC producers. I see nothing in Mr. Boyce's response that clears this up at all.
October 08, 2010

Chris A said:

@Degan
"Then again, isn't this about choice? Isn't the CBC allowed to choose what it broadcasts? "

Yes, why can't they choose to use CC licensed songs if they want to? I mean, if it's all about choice, they can't they choose to use what they want? But then I suppose that might mean you may have to acknowledge that there are new ways for creators to licence and distribute their work, and we can't have that.
October 08, 2010

Mike DeWolfe said:

Copy Wrong
I can understand that the talent agencies are running scared. But as said previous: the CBC is underwritten by tax dollars. The "talent" agencies are insisting on unnecessary expenses for CBC production.
It's time for the CBC to cut these agencies loose and go all creative commons. As a member of the Canadian Pirate Party, I see this is in complete opposition to what we should be doing to make intellectual property reforms.
October 08, 2010

Andy J said:

Crazy idea, but isn't it about the music?
WHO CARES what the original artist licensed the work as. If the CBC isn't breaking any laws by using a particular work, what's the issue.
ALL music, CC or not, should be cited. None the less, if the music fits, where-ever it comes from, the show needs the ability to use it.

October 08, 2010

Jason K said:

...
My follow up to this:

CBC Vs Creative Commons Round 1:

http://jasonkoblovsky.blogspot.com/2010/10/cbc-vs-creative-commons-round-1.html
October 08, 2010

Aaron Luchko said:

Sucks but understandable
As mentioned earlier the CBC can't use CC music with a non-commercial clause since CBC shows are commercial. And it's simply not feasible for them to go chasing down independent artists asking for exceptions and making sure they have the actual Copyright holder when preparing a show.

I think the proper fix here is for some rights management organization to emerge that allows CC artists to offer commercial terms to the wider business community. I can't tell because I can't figure out their webapp, but APM Music might even have this function already.

(if anyone does figure out how to use it please let me know if you find any CC artists, I couldn't even find the Beatles)
http://www.apmmusic.com/technology/myapm-online-search
October 09, 2010

stephan said:

Ghandi says..
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

gogo, non-lizened content.. yiha, creative comments
October 09, 2010

Ralf, a pirate from Germany said:

Use your right to demonstrate
You are living in a free country, right?
You are paying CBC with your taxes, right?
If you don't like what they are doing with your taxes, make yourself visable and hearable, go out in the street and let them know what you think!
It's your broadcaster, paid with your hard earned Dollars!
October 09, 2010

Joe Smith said:

Dev
They want to introduce preferential treatment with CRIA and their ilk, the CBC can fund itself. Don't ask for tax payer money to fund the operation if you're going to collude with them on things like this. This is a Tax Payer Funded organization, the CBC is thus answerable to the public, not these special interests. The language of their contracts be damned.
October 09, 2010

lindsay said:

nonsense
Boyce's weasel worded excuse is a load of bunkum. The far more restrictive boilerplate 'all rights reserved' copyright certainly doesn't authorize commercial exploitation of an artist's work either. The fact is that as a registered broadcaster, CBC like any other broadcaster, logs their use of media with SOCAN and pays into a royalty pool from which artists are paid for their work. In the CC licence it is pretty dang clear what the non-commercial stands for and that is third parties reselling that work or derivatives thereof. That is entirely in keeping with the spirit of the old school copyright rules that have seen lawsuits against unauthorized sampling in music. This is not about free music. This isn't about escaping the obligation to pay royalties on use. This is about punishing artists for having the temerity to assert control over how their work is used by their audience.
October 09, 2010

Degen said:

...
So, not much changes over here.

We get the initial sensationalist, inaccurate headline - The CBC Bans CC! - based on unchecked, unverified information (thanks Dr. Geist, excellent research! - glad the taxpayers are paying for that chair you use while doing it).

Then, of course, we get a whole lot of panic and fuss in the comments section. What is to be done?! Boycott the CBC! Blame the collectives! Blame the artists! All blissfully unmediated by the writer of the headline.

Then we get a reasonable explanation from someone who actually knows something about what's going on:

"there are no “groups” setting out to stop the use of Creative Commons music at the CBC, and we will continue to use Creative Commons licensed music, pictures etc. across a number of our non-commercial platforms."

Does this calm the panic? Is anyone here embarrassed that exactly the thing they said is happening is the very thing that is NOT happening?

As I pointed out earlier, the CBC is making a reasonable, responsible choice about what music they will use. In this instance, the CC licence itself is what is standing in the way of airplay for those artists who have chosen it, and that is indeed a shame. It seems to me if you demand that your music be licensed for non-commercial use only, and the CBC wants it for commercial use, then you are shutting THEM out, not the other way around. How can they be blamed for wanting to respect the terms of the licence that has been applied?

I am all for CC licencing. I've used it myself. But as long as we still live and work in a market economy, the standard C remains the most beneficial to the professional creative sector.

But what do I know? I'm a fascist, socialist, writers union troll. Apparently.
October 09, 2010

Napalm said:

...
@Degen: "At least until they explain why it is they want to pay for the music they are using on the radio! What a complete waste of taxpayer money - paying for music. I'm am outraged! "

I have no issue with the CBC employees drinking bottled water instead of tap water. My issue would be if the contract with the bottled water supplier would forbid any use of tap water.

Nap.
October 09, 2010

Michael Geist said:

@Degen
John,

The post was based on comments from a CBC Spark producer and an employee from CBC Radio podcasting, who both commented publicly on the issue. Their comments indicated they were told not to use CC licenced music and that the reason was the collective agreements with certain talent unions.

I'm glad the head of CBC Radio programming has responded by indicating that the non-use of CC licenced music is not the result of collective agreements. However, it still strikes me as unnecessary to establish a prohibition on CC licenced music. Producers of programs should be able to choose appropriately licenced CC music if they so desire, a position which is wholly consistent with the choices of the creators themselves.

MG
October 09, 2010

Eric L. said:

...
"But what do I know? I'm a fascist, socialist, writers union troll. Apparently."

Well, when you refuse to acknowledge other viewpoints, and then twist words, then yeah, I think that is an excessive but accurate description.

Also, I like how you have been absent from many other blog posts here, but only come back as soon as you find some words that could be potentially manipulated to support your viewpoint. In other words, you are waiting for opportunities to attack the other viewpoint. This is the definition of a troll.

I think I'll start calling you Robert Scott Anderson for now on (in-joke).
October 09, 2010

TekNoJ said:

Pandora anyone?
Socan, the Riaa, the establishment generally has used membership or copyright for ages to wedge out artists they don't want or like for ages. It's like a highschool cliche. Ditto for what artists get funding through gov't arts programs.

It's about time Creative Commons came along that lets everybody join and lets the listener decide what they like.

Since Socan seeems to be keeping out sites like Pandora from Canada with high fees compared to broadcasters perhaps sites like Pandora should work with Creative Commons artists to create a system where they could opt-in to a site like Pandora Canada and cut these Socan folks out of the picture all together.
October 09, 2010

JV said:

...
The part I am having a hard time choking down is that we have CanCon laws in this country. But the CBC has a US licensing agreement blocking the use of content licensed through Canadians or via CC or other open style licences which could also be Canadian. If a Canadian artist isn't signed up with that particular licensing agency does that mean their work is banned from being played on CBC radio, podcasts and TV? There is a whole lot that I don't understand about modern international music licensing.

And why is there publicly funded content only available via iTunes? Why are we subsidising Apple? They don't have enough money?
October 09, 2010

Chris A said:

@Degan
"Does this calm the panic? Is anyone here embarrassed that exactly the thing they said is happening is the very thing that is NOT happening? "

Not really since it's still happening. They could have just said "Don't use CC music that does not allow for commercial use", but they didn't. They just said "Nope, don't use CC music at all". If they had said the later, then it would not be a problem, but that's not what they said and not what the producers of the show were told.

Plus there's the whole miscommunication with their employee as to why. If the CBC doesn't want things like this, they need to better communicate with their employees.

"But what do I know? I'm a fascist, socialist, writers union troll. Apparently. "

Seeing as how discussions with you in the past have basically amounted to "only my view matters, I'll ignore points I can't counter, and the rest of you are pirates who don't want to make sure creators are paid", yeah I'd say that fits you.
October 09, 2010

Jason K said:

...
lindsay is very right on the fact that Broadcasters do have to log their music with SOCAN. The stations pay into SOCAN's royalty pool, there shouldn't be any problems with contacting the artist of the CC works to let them know their works have been used and to connect with SOCAN for royalty payments for commercial CC licenses. I'm pretty sure that would be in line with Canadian Copyright Laws as well.

I still think a look at the collective agreements is nessesary considering some odd responses from the CBC on this. It may help to clear the air a bit on this situation as well, and also give the tax payer a keen eye on exactly what they are paying for over at the CBC.

One thing I do agree with Degen on though is the ability to follow up on this story before posting. Follow up is usually what seperates bloggers from journalists, and I think considering the wide reach of some of these blogs, that should have been a responsiblity that needed to be followed through before posting.

I do also strongly agree with MG that producers should have the ability to use CC works if they desire, and that it's "unnecessary to establish a prohibition on CC licenced music" which is something that wasn't fully answered by Mr. Boyce's comments and should be looked further into.
October 09, 2010

Karlheinz said:

Godhead
The issue here is a lot more complex than it seems.

The CBC has a large pool of music that is already licensed through Canadian PRO's. It will not cost the CBC any additional money to use this music.

On the other hand, to legally use CC-NC music (or any non-PRO music), the CBC would have to enter into additional licensing contracts with every artist whose music they want to use. Even if the artists granted this use free of charge, the mere act of contacting all of them would be a huge investment of employee time and effort. It's actually cheaper to use their already-licensed catalog, and with any publicly-funded entity, the cheaper option usually wins.

So, yes, the -NC clause is what's keeping the music off the air. Of course there is music that is CC and not -NC, but the selection is really, really paltry. (Especially when you also remove -ND licensed music.)

As I see it, there are a couple of solutions:

1. Drop the -NC clause entirely.
2. Keep -NC, but join a PRO, so your music will be licensed to the CBC through them.
3. Collectively license -NC music to the CBC, free of charge. (Someone like Jamendo would have to coordinate this, I think.)

I think #3 would be the most successful at the moment.

@lindsay:
"In the CC licence it is pretty dang clear what the non-commercial stands for and that is third parties reselling that work or derivatives thereof."

That's not at all what it says. The CC definition of "commercial use" is: "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."

Note that "reselling" is not mentioned. And how could it be? If your music is used in a car commercial, they're not "reselling" the (derivative) work, since the commercial is free. Furthermore, for-profit terrestrial radio stations don't "resell" anything. Both uses are certainly considered commercial use.

In fact, some artists (a minority) consider personal blogs that are funded by Google AdSense to be "commercial use." That seems nonsensical to me, but since a trivial amount of money changes hands, it could be considered "private monetary compensation."

The huge grey areas are part of the reason that people like Nina Paley and Mike "Techdirt" Masnick advocate dropping the NonCommercial restriction altogether. I'm not quite convinced by their arguments, but stories like this certainly don't hurt their case.

@Degen:
"standard C remains the most beneficial to the professional creative sector."

Um, no. If your music is not part of the CBC's pool of already-licensed music, then you're out of luck, no matter WHAT license you use.

At the moment, signing with a PRO is the most beneficial to professional musicians, but you can do that and still release your music under a CC license. Of course, if you do that, then you would be supporting that PRO (and all the political nonsense that goes with it). Whether it's worth it is up to you to decide.
October 09, 2010

Jason K said:

...
"Even if the artists granted this use free of charge, the mere act of contacting all of them would be a huge investment of employee time and effort."

No not at all. Infact more time an effort was spend by this CBC producer to communicate with me on this issue, than the time and effort spent to do a google or myspace search (if nessesary)and fire off an e-mail or PM. The huge investiment of time and effort argument holds very little weight.

October 09, 2010

Eric L. said:

RE: JV
"And why is there publicly funded content only available via iTunes? Why are we subsidising Apple? They don't have enough money?"

The same reason why Microsoft has an unfair monopoly and is a so-called "standard": vendor lock-in.

iTunes has become a well-known platform, so despite its issues, the CBC has decided to lock themselves in so to speak, rather than use an open platform which anyone can operate. It's a purely short-sighted decision of course, and will probably come back to bite them in the ass in the long run, similarly to how depending on flawed Microsoft products has hurt businesses and even governments, especially in the area of software exploits.
October 09, 2010

Johnny L said:

...
"Coming from a background in broadcast management on the production side here, shouldn't the CBC be doing what ever it takes to reduce production overhead, even if that means chasing people down to get permission? Isn't that part of a producers job to begin with?"

Yeah, they did that. It was called laying off 700 people. And by cutting staff, it is now cheaper to just buy a couple of cds that we can all uses instead of spending time chasing down free music to confirm that we can use it on "commercial" podcasts.

I'm not saying this is ideal. I'm just saying it is what it is. Call us lazy if you want... I'll just sit here on my Thanksgiving weekend thinking about how funny that is while I work.

Michael,

Yeah, CBC producers should be able to use CC music if they choose to pursue it, and can obtain permission. I'm pretty sure if they just went and did it... nobody would notice.
October 09, 2010

Jason K said:

@Johnny L
Sounds like mis-management of the production department to me. Sounds like you guys need to be whipped a bit to get into gear ;) Who's the Production Director over at CBC radio these days anyway? Maybe getting someone in there who won't tolerate laziness on the tax payers dime might be needed.
October 09, 2010

Napalm said:

...
@Johhny L: "Yeah, they did that. It was called laying off 700 people. And by cutting staff, it is now cheaper to just buy a couple of cds that we can all uses instead of spending time chasing down free music to confirm that we can use it on "commercial" podcasts. "

What's next? Offshoring? I can imagine how "This is Radio Canada" could work in Indglish, but does anyone know how "Ici Radio Canada. Beaux temps ce matin a Mumbai..." with a thick Gujarati accent would sound like?

:-)

Nap.
October 09, 2010

Johnny L said:

...
@Jason K,

"Infact more time an effort was spend by this CBC producer to communicate with me on this issue, than the time and effort spent to do a google or myspace search (if nessesary)and fire off an e-mail or PM. The huge investiment of time and effort argument holds very little weight. "

The problem is that producers are working towards tight deadlines, and all they want is a little piece of music that fits the bill. They want to find it fast, add it to the piece and move on to the next task. Contacting the owner, hoping they'll simply say "yeah go ahead" isn't realistic when there is a chance they'll say no, or start asking for more info. It just doesn't work that way.

But hey, if it works for you to call us lazy, go nuts.
October 10, 2010

Crockett said:

...
So the aim of programming on CBC is not to find new or interesting talent wherever it can be found, but to make sure those adds on the podcast get out quickly?

And yes, I know funding cuts have made everyone's jobs harder. But it is still a shame and a continuing example of or our wonderful government's support of Canadian artists. Best pass bill C-32 fast so the RIAA/CRIA can lock us into some more Lady Gaga.
October 10, 2010

Jeff said:

pre-ask the artists
This seems like a great opportunity for someone to write a script to automatically contact (spam) all the musicians with CC non-commercial licenses and offer to them the option to add their music to a pre-approved list of non-commercial music for which the owner has waved license fees for the CBC.

In this way there would be no delay in determining whether permission was allowed or not when the CBC wanted to select music under this license.

I would imagine that many artists would allow an exception to their license restrictions to have their music played and properly attributed by a national radio public broadcaster.
October 10, 2010

CC is not free (well some of it is) said:

...
Commercial use is poorly defined hence CBC's reservations.

The CC could require people define what CC was for their content or actually define commercial use but then it would be internationally irrelevant.

The simple fact is that the only safe CC licenses are those that are Debian Free Software Guidelines approved.

CC-BY CC-SA

October 10, 2010

Jason K said:

@Johnny L
I don't know what type of ship you are running over there at the CBC production booths, but it would be much different on my watch. You make time when you are on tight deadlines. You've made time here to reply on this blog, probably more time responding to the comments here than it takes to get permission from a CC artist.

As a producer you always have choices. If you are producing the Spark podcast for instance and want to use CC music for the show intro, all you have to do is fire off an e-mail to the CC artist. A simple myspace or google search is needed usually to come up with the contact info. Sometimes it takes a day or 2 for the artist to get back to you, in the mean time use the stations production music, once the artist gets back to you seek permission to add their CC works to a CC library to use in future productions. Once permission has been granted, than you can switch the into to the CC music.

Another good alternative would be to get the stations Music Director to start building a CC approved library as well, so that the producer has a choice to on the stations production library to choose from and a CC library when confronted with tight deadlines.

There are lots of ways to make this work. Those are just 2 examples. You're coming up with excuses not to use CC music, it is feasable to make that happen especially if the tax payer wants you to. In fact once the word gets out that you are widely using CC music, creators will contact the station themselves to have their works submitted to the Music Director to be considered for the stations production library, if advertised properly.
October 10, 2010

Jason K said:

@Johnny L
I'm also getting the feeling from your responses here that the production union wants more money in order to air CC works, which makes the initial accusation true that collective agreements are responsible for the position the CBC has taken on the CC issue? Am I not correct?

You said: "If we didn't have to stick ads on everything we did, we wouldn't have this problem. Don't like it, call your MP and ask them to restore our funding."
October 10, 2010

Degen said:

...
Dr. Geist,

I know what you based your post on. I saw the original discussion on the Spark page as it was happening, thanks to a tweet from Russell. I thought at the time... only someone with a strong anti-copyright, anti-collective licensing bias could see this as a ban on CC licensing.

And, voila -- your posting.

Please, stop encouraging this kind of panic and anger about artists who choose the collective approach over one you favour and in which you have an obvious ideological interest. It's terribly irresponsible and turns otherwise reasonable discussion into the comedy show we see here.

First you encourage Canadian universities to walk away from one form of licensing in favour of another (offering little more than your own limited classroom practice as evidence of actual need and use), and then you act all outraged that the CBC needs to use one form of licensing over another because of the very terms of the licences.

To all those here who are happy to call me a fascist, and to their fearless leader who NEVER asks them to stop -- Happy Thanksgiving.
October 10, 2010

Darryl said:

@Degen

You have a very blinkered view of the world.

The specific statements in the conversation were.

Dan Misener: "By management decree, CBC podcasts are no longer permitted to use CC music."

Lilly Mills: "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. "

Yet somehow you think only "only someone with a strong anti-copyright, anti-collective licensing bias could see this as a ban on CC licensing. "

They didn't say "ban on only CC music that prohibits commercial use". They said ALL CC music. What words would they have to have used for you to see it as a ban on CC licensing I wonder.
October 10, 2010

Johnny L said:

...
JasonK,

No, you are not correct. My comment re funding is that we are so shorthanded due to constant cutbacks, that we don't have the luxury of adding multiple steps to the production process for the sake of chasing one small piece of music if we want to meet our deadlines.

That said, if a producer has the time, and they choose to use a piece of CC, and can secure written permission, I wholeheartedly believe they should be allowed to use it.
October 10, 2010

Jason K said:

@Johnny L
"My comment re funding is that we are so shorthanded due to constant cutbacks, that we don't have the luxury of adding multiple steps to the production process for the sake of chasing one small piece of music if we want to meet our deadlines. "

If you have the time to comment on this blog, than you have time to add these steps into the production process. I can grab a piece of CC music, search on google and myspace and fire off an e-mail in 5 mins. So what you are telling me here is that the production team at the CBC has more time to spend on blog comments, than actual work? No sorry bud, I don't buy your comments nor your argument here. The case your making is "we don't want to do it, unless we get a pay raise" which would be consistent with the way unions negotiate.

I should really think about applying as the production director over there at the CBC. This crap wouldn't be acceptable from any member of a team I would be leading.
October 10, 2010

Crockett said:

Beware the reflection in the mirror ...
@Degen "It's terribly irresponsible and turns otherwise reasonable discussion into the comedy show we see here."

Dear John,
It often seems, rather than participate in reasonable discussion, that you prefer to jump in when you 'smell blood' and an opportunity to attack views that do not line up with your own. Remember the 'conspiracy' of actawatch not accepting your comments that turned out to be a server issue? The 'outrageous' stink you made about that was good fodder for a laugh or two. Are there others here who are, sometimes, guilty of the same behavior (myself included)? Honestly, yes. This is a issue which people can be passionate about.

Yet, of the many posts you entered on this blog I have yet to recall a time you considered or conceded to a point not your own. If you believe Dr. Geist to be a man of 'an obvious ideological interest' then perhaps you and he have more in common that you care to admit?
October 10, 2010

Johnny L said:

...
@ JasonK:

"If you have the time to comment on this blog, than you have time to add these steps into the production process."

Er... first of all, I'm arguing on my spare time. Is that okay? Or do you own me?

At no point did I mention a pay raise, did I? I said we're short staffed because we just lost 700 people. Pay attention, and stop looking to vilify the union, which has nothing to do with this.

As for the issue at hand, we're talking about a few minutes to type smarmy comments vs the lack of time in the daily production grind, which you clearly know nothing about. Let me lay it out for you:

A producer needs a small piece of music. Ideally they go to CC, or the aforementioned library, grab what they need, and they're done. If on the other hand they need to obtain written permission, they have to take the time to write an email explaining what it will be used for, and then wait for a response. When you're on deadline, this introduces a unknown that can derail your project, because you don't know how long it will take the creator to get back to you, or even if they'll grant permission, or worse... if they'll ask for more info, thus drawing you into something way more complex than what you bargained for over a tiny chunk of music. See how that works?

As for applying for a job at CBC, knock yourself out. I'd love to see somebody like yourself try to keep up.

http://cbc.radio-canada.ca/jobs/
October 10, 2010

Jason K said:

@Johnny L
You said: “Er... first of all, I'm arguing on my spare time.”

Well I have lots of e-mails on company time from Ms. Mills, and lots of responses from CBC staffers on company time to the Spark thread on this.

You Said: "If on the other hand they need to obtain written permission, they have to take the time to write an email explaining what it will be used for, and then wait for a response. When you're on deadline, this introduces a unknown that can derail your project, because you don't know how long it will take the creator to get back to you, or even if they'll grant permission, or worse..."

I'll repeat the comment I made earlier. For podcasts and shows that are done on a regular basis there shouldn't be any problem using production material from the library, while you are waiting for a permission. Once that permission comes you should be able to change up the production music with the CC music, and use the CC music from then on. Also it would be helpful to have the Music Director work on a CC licensed library for producers as well. Why can't all of this be done?

Thanks for the link to the job posting. I'm used to working with some of the top radio producers in the country. I have a standard of professionalism that I like to see in an organization before I post resumes and portfolios. I have yet to see any level of professionalism coming from this production team of wing nuts, that the tax payer is paying for over at the CBC.

If the tax payer wants CC music, stop giving out excuses as to why you can't do it, and as I have told some teams I've worked with in the past "Get it done! No excuses!" There's always a solution and ways to work projects to allot the time needed to follow the bosses orders. If you disagree with this, you shouldn’t be anywhere near a production booth in my point of view. In this case the boss is the tax payer. There should be absolutely no reason in my book that a solution can’t be met to incorporate CC works. Only someone with limited project experience wouldn't consider options.
October 10, 2010

Jason K said:

@Johnny L
Offside of the technical requirements of being a radio producer, your job should be to properly manage your time, and the project to deadline. It sucks that your short staffed, but in my books that's no excuse, you should be adapting to this. If you manage your time properly, and the team is managed properly, you will always have time to work on any issues that come up during the production and pre-production stages no matter how understaffed, and underfunded you are. You're a producer, your job it to make it work, not "complain"
October 10, 2010

Degen said:

...
Crockett,

I've never hidden my bias -- as I've stated many times, going back years in fact. My opinions are very public and I regularly engage in continued debate and discussion on my own blog as well as here. Also in the press, at public events like my discussion with CIPPIC and DOC a couple weeks back, and in meetings with legislators and stakeholders. Your assertion that I hit and run is as falsely contructed as the original posting on which we are commenting.

In case you were unaware, Dr. Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law. I know it's asking a lot, but maybe someone in such a position can check a fact before publishing an accusation such as "groups are actively working to block the use of Creative Commons licenced alternatives in their contractual language."

Jason K seems to think CBC producers can organize their time to individually clear rights on every short sample of music they use. I assume you think the same? Could Dr. Geist not have asked a grad student to make a few phone calls?

BTW, actawatch is still not accepting comments. It's probably not a conspiracy, but it is delightfully ironic. Someone with an agenda could go wild -- Lack of transparency in actawatch.ca comment policy! Actawatch.ca bans all comments on lobbying astroturf site!

etc.

No-one returned my Thanksgiving wish? Sigh, the lonely life a fascist.
October 12, 2010

Crockett said:

Again, be careful of those mirrors ..
John, we've had this discussion about actawatch before. Initially, there was a mechanism to leave comments but when entered they did not show up. This turned out to be a server error. Now comments have been disabled completely and actawatch is essentially an information site. Now, you may philosophically disagree with this this, which is your prerogative, but by that definition copyrightgetitright.ca falls into the same camp of 'astroturfing'. Since that site, whose main partner is Access Copyright of whom you so dutifully defend, neither allows commentary I wonder if it also provides you with feelings of delicious irony?
October 12, 2010

Jason K said:

@Degen
Those calling for the graduated response and groups you belong to Degen have long tried to shut out the public voice, and are actively doing so on these PR sites for industry.

"Jason K seems to think CBC producers can organize their time to individually clear rights on every short sample of music they use."

I've outlined some of how to do this above. Which part of this explaination do you disagree with and why?
October 12, 2010

Degen said:

...
Glad to see y'all have learned NOT to check your facts. The professors lessons are working.

Jason -- which "groups" do I belong to who want to shut out the public voice? Are these the same "groups" Geist believes are conspiring against Creative Commons?

Crockett - when did we learn that actawatch is having server problems and has therefore shut down comments? Where is that information published? On actawatch? I can't find it.

What I do find are many postings by Michael Geist, all of which appear to invite and accept comments. Except they don't.

BTW, check out the Get Involved section on actawatch. It lists Facebook groups we are encouraged to join, presumably for more anti-ACTA discussion.

The two "Canadians against ACTA" listed are the same group. Act Against ACTA doesn't actually exist. Stop the ACTA is full of posts about weight loss and personal finance. "Fuck" Acta is full of posts about Stay at Home Moms. Citizens Against ACTA appears to be advertising photos from a porn site.

How am I supposed to take any of this grassroots protest seriously?
October 12, 2010

Jason K said:

@Degen
"How am I supposed to take any of this grassroots protest seriously? "

Those that post on the blog Degen, know you specifically don't give a rats ass about this grassroots policy, in fact your understated fetish to bring Geist down has lost a lot of your credibility and readership to your blog recently. Why should any of us try to convince you of anything? Only those that use your material to try and push through socialist and fascist policies which are against the constitutional freedoms of Canadian Society really pay any interest to you, and it’s mostly to gain PR for lobbying purposes. You're guilty by association.




October 12, 2010

Jason K said:

@Degen
And you haven't answered my question yet.

You said: ""Jason K seems to think CBC producers can organize their time to individually clear rights on every short sample of music they use."

--> I've outlined some of how to do this above. Which part of this explaination do you disagree with and why?
October 12, 2010

Degen said:

...
Funny, the readership on my blog has been growing steadily. Are there any facts you have a handle on, Jason?

I'm not sure what else you need a comment on. Do you want my opinion on how you harangued a CBC employee with laughable advice about time management based on your team leadership experiences and the work you've done with the "top radio producers in the country." Are you wondering how I feel about you labelling those you disagree with "wingnuts"?

I think those things are embarrassing, or should be.

October 12, 2010

Degen said:

...
What is an understated fetish? Is that something I can find out about on "Citizens Against Acta"?
October 12, 2010

Jason K said:

@Degen
I don't care too hoots what you think Degen, and if those in the production feild can't manage their time properly than yes, they are "wing nuts" and shouldn't be anywhere near a production booth. Glad you disagree though, I guess we should set a below average standard on our national broadcaster based on the admission by it's crew that they are "lazy".

Get a life Degen, you so suck at trolling.
October 12, 2010

Jason K said:

@Degen
Over the next few weeks I will be posting up a blog with respect to whom in the Creative Industries have not come out strongly against the graduated response and whom have signed support to groups advocating for this approach, which is socialist and fascist also board line treason and against our constitution in my view. Keep an eye on that list Degen. You might just find yourself on it from who you have advocated and signed on to support.

October 12, 2010

Jason K said:

@Degen
I will also be providing the contact and twitter info with this list as well. This is a project I've been working on for quite sometime, and Canadians need to know who are the creators within these groups advocating for the graduated response are. They need to be answerable to the public in my view on their views with this. We need a lot more broader debate on the graduated response, and those that support it within industry need to be outted individually.
October 12, 2010

WJM said:

...
I had one piece of mine used by CBC radio as a theme, but they used less then 30 seconds to avoid paying me at all.

= = =

John:

1) What theme was that?

2) What's the significance of 30 seconds?
October 12, 2010

Crockett said:

To freshen your memory John.
@Degen "Crockett - when did we learn that actawatch is having server problems and has therefore shut down comments?"

John, below is the exchange between you and Michael on the server issue. The point I was trying to make to you though was this; trying to vilify one party for running an information site without allowing commentary, while at the same time being philosophical associated* with a site on the other side of the debate that is behaving in the same manner, in my books, nullifies your argument.

September 24, 2010
Michael Geist said:
@Degen I was unaware of the problem posting comments on the ACTAWatch site. I've asked my web person to investigate and fix.

Degen said:
Thanks Michael

* PWAC, TWUC, CPC, APC, AC ...
October 12, 2010

Crockett said:

Mirror, mirror on the ...
@Degen "BTW, check out the Get Involved section on actawatch. It lists Facebook groups we are encouraged to join, presumably for more anti-ACTA discussion."

The site refered to above [copyrightgetitright.ca] invites you to sign up right on their front page with a happy yellow sunshine. I presume for more anti-fair use discussion?
October 12, 2010

Degen said:

...
Crockett,

I repeat -- where do you get the information that there is a server issue? Geist ordered a fix almost a month ago - clearly he intends for the site to appear as though it takes comments. It takes a month to fix a comment problem on a basic website? You keep trying to make some sort of connection between actawatch's comment issue and Access Copyright. AC keeps all its business very public, and regularly fields all sorts of questions at their AGMs and other public meetings. When's the next actawatch AGM?

You know, you folks should ask Jason K about time management. He could probably tell you how to fix that comment problem on a coffee break (if you're not lazy).

I wonder if Professor Geist has anything to say about the threatened web-outing. So far my disagreements with the copyleft have seen me banned from discussion boards, called any number of nasty names, and now this attempted intimidation.

I love the smell of the constitution in the morning.
October 12, 2010

Degen said:

...
WJM,

I have no idea what you're talking about, but it's an interesting story. Is it possible CBC was exercising fair dealing?

I'd love to hear more. I like copyright.
October 12, 2010

Jason K said:

@Degen
I don't care about what Geist thinks, I'm not a supporter of the Fair Copyright Movement nor of Geist anymore. I think they are too soft on individuals supporting the graduated response policy. I think a much harder line needs to be put into place on that policy, both publically and politically.



October 12, 2010

Crockett said:

Beware the Illuminati
@Degen "AC keeps all its business very public, and regularly fields all sorts of questions at their AGMs and other public meetings. When's the next actawatch AGM?". "I repeat -- where do you get the information that there is a server issue? Geist ordered a fix almost a month ago - clearly he intends for the site to appear as though it takes comments".

Ah, John, you have found some more conspiracies. Good for you 0_o

John, you keep missing the point. As it stands actawatch does not allow comments, the fix [it seems] was to disable them completely rather than have them send you to a comment input screen that did not post them. It is now an information site, get over it, you and anyone else have ample opportunity to post comments here [an obvious linked sister site].

On the other hand copyrightgetitright.ca, whom you do not seem to address my queries about and which promotes your associations views, continues to not allow comments or any way to enter dissenting views. I attempted to join but never received a response.

This blog though is very public, open and accessible, if you consider an Access Copyright AGM to be a viable open public debate forum then more power to ya.
October 12, 2010

Jason K said:

...
"It is now an information site, get over it, you and anyone else have ample opportunity to post comments here [an obvious linked sister site]. "

Personally I don't think people who support the graduated response should be "piggy" backing on other sites, and social media groups where people don't agree with their views. I find that distastful to be honest. They have ample social media groups and other sites to work with on their own. Oh yea I forgot this is public exposure for their views because they can't seem to learn how to get it on their own, or don't have the public interest needed in their policies so they need to start up crap to gain support. Now I remember. Why anyone wastes their time on Degen here is beyond me.
October 12, 2010

Degen said:

...
Crockett,

Please, go to actawatch.ca. Do the research you need to do to make your points. It won't take you long. There you will see that comments are still an option, and yet they don't work. They haven't been turned off. In other words, you are wrong. You have been wrong for a while now, and you continue... to... be... wrong.

Damn, you guys are never embarrassed by this idiocy, are you?

Hello? Anyone? Is there a doctor in the house? Truly disturbing threatening behaviour happening here. Is anyone in charge of this blog?
October 12, 2010

Jason K said:

@Degen
"Hello? Anyone? Is there a doctor in the house? Truly disturbing threatening behaviour happening here. Is anyone in charge of this blog? "

What are you going to coward behind the walls of moderation now. I thought you were against this? Someone doesn't agree to your views you want to shut them up?
October 13, 2010

Crockett said:

Oh brother ...
@Degen" Truly disturbing threatening behaviour happening here."

John, take a breath. < breathe > There you go. No one is threating you, it's called debate. If it's Jason putting your name on his big bad blog 'outing' you in support of the copyright industry that is worrisome to you, really ... I don't think you need to fret. Your views are already well documented here, no one I think will notice the difference. If his views really do have you spooked, I'm truly sorry he made you feel that way.

In regards to actawatch, you are getting down to some ridiculous minutia here. If you move a mouse over a link on a page and the pointer does not change to the clickable link icon then the function has been disabled. It simply means no comments allowed, most people would get that. No conspiracy.

Even at some point if comments are enabled, you still refuse to see the obvious double standard you are using by not even acknowledging that the opposing views of the copyrightgetitright.ca site does not allow comments either.

John, I apologized once for inferring you were a hypocrite, but now I think the definition of that term may have escaped you. Maybe before further blogging you might want to run your thoughts past someone, oh I don't know, say a writer or poet, who could catch such nuances ;)
October 13, 2010

Jason K said:

@Crockett
"If his views really do have you spooked, I'm truly sorry he made you feel that way."
Shining the light on those calling for graduated response shouldn't be spooking those that have publically already signed up their name for it. The weakness both in and outside industry with this policy, is that most creators feel that's a wrong approach, or don't want to fess up because this is something their fan base doesn't support.

This is about fans and creators. These 2 groups need to talk more directly to each other, and that has always "spooked" those who want to put into place very fascist and socialist public policies on copyright, and probably the reason why these industry PR sites that Degen has signed on to have no section for debate or comment. Their arguments are weak in the court of public opinion, and they coward behind and attack Geist for their weakness, and leech off of his public exposure to get their views known.

In an industry full of PR people, one would figure they should be able to act independently to promote not just artists but their public policy views and not “piggy” back on the success of others. What a pathetic bunch of hoodlums to be blunt. They've already lost, and the embarrasement of the idiocy of those calling for a graduated response, needs one last kick in the groin on the way out IMO.
October 13, 2010

Chris A said:

...
I see Degan hasn't changed his posting style at all. Still not addressing points that he can't, and trying to turn the debate away from them.
October 13, 2010

Chris A said:

...
I also find it funny that Degan is spending time insulting one person for not understanding someone else job, while doing the same thing he claims that person is going wrongly to the person who happens to run Dr. Geist's web blog.
October 13, 2010

strunk&white said:

an element of style
The word "coward" is generally not used as a verb.
October 13, 2010

Degen said:

...
Now, I'm bored. Threatened and bored.

Crockett:

http://acta.michaelgeist.ca/mustreads/where-us-law-inconsistent-acta

What part of "Post new comment" sounds like "This is an information-only site"?

Chris A -- back it up. My original point about CBC exercising their freedom of choice? Turns out that's exactly what was happening.

Of course, that post was immediately labelled "garbage," and now apparently I need to keep my eye on some lists where names will be named of known fascists and socialists.

Keep excusing each other's reprehensible behaviours, folks. That strategy can't possibly lose.
October 13, 2010

qwerty said:

...
Strunk - He obviously meant "Cower" - but if you want to keep picking people's spelling apart in an attempt to make yourself look bigger... by all means, go nuts.

Degen - Keep crying. It's entertaining. Seriously.
October 13, 2010

Chris A said:

@Degan
You still haven't answered Crockett about the website he asked you about. You keep on deflecting from that one with stuff that really has no meaning to what he's asking, like, you know the continued reference to the admittedly broken ACTAWatch.org (which you so magically think should be easy to fix).

And yes the CBC is acting on their right to do that, and I'm acting on my right to say that their reasoning for doing so is beyond stupid and doesn't change the overall effect. You of course are acting on your right to disagree with this, but rather than disagreeing in a manner that actually promotes more discussion, you come here attacking people. Which is pretty much you MO for every other time you've posted here. You don't want discussion, you just want to yell at people who don't agree with you.
October 13, 2010

Jason K said:

@Degen
"Now, I'm bored. Threatened and bored."

Good, now be a good industry peon Degen, and start blogging.
October 13, 2010

Crockett said:

Now I'm a poet too!
OK John, I'm a big enough man to admit when I'm wrong. The posting function is not active on the main page but is still there at the end of articles, that needs to be addressed.

Now your turn, care to admit to your double standard?
October 13, 2010

Crockett said:

...
Oh and I'm sorry you're bored, so for your entertainment ...

There once was the CRIA
who thought that they were the way
they sued all their fans
cut off their hands
and now they have no way to pay.

See now I'm a poet too!
October 13, 2010

Michael Geist said:

Comments on ACTAWatch
As an FYI - we're still working to address this problem. It has proven more complicated than anticipated as the problem lies with the hosting service for the site. Working to resolve.

MG
October 13, 2010

Degen said:

...
Yikes, you have to go through a gauntlet of abuse over here just to be proven right about something.

Thanks for the clarification, Dr. Geist. The online world can be a pretty complicated place to do business, no? Thankfully, you can count on folks being patient while you figure out the model that works best for you.
October 13, 2010

Crockett said:

...
@Crockett "Now your turn, care to admit to your double standard?"

Still no reply ... ah well, patience is a virtue.
October 13, 2010

Degen said:

...
Thanks for the clarification, Dr. Geist. The online world can be a pretty complicated place to do business, no? Thankfully, you can count on folks being patient while you figure out the model that works best for you.

Yikes, you have to go through a gauntlet of abuse over here just to be proven right about something.

October 13, 2010

Degen said:

...
Crockett - I can't admit to something that isn't true.

I don't care if someone wants to put up an information only site - from either side of the debate (though I do think those sites and Facebook groups should contain relevant info and not just photos from porn sites).

But if you ask for comments, maybe you should accept them (especially when, like, your whole "thing" is vox populi).
October 13, 2010

Crockett said:

So let me get this straight ...
@Degen "Thanks for the clarification, Dr. Geist."

So, your problem this whole time has been about a server issue? Not the disparity between the issues you attack others for but neglect to apply to your friends?

Really? It's good you're satisfied with that.
October 13, 2010

Degen said:

...
Really? Do I have to explain my facetiousness as well?

October 13, 2010

Crockett said:

...
John, it was a server glitch. No malicious intent as you first proposed.

But it's good you can remain so focused on an issue, REALLY ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHlN21ebeak&feature=player_embedded
October 13, 2010

Jason K said:

@Crockett
You need to put things in perspective really. Today Both the Libs and NDP came out in support of Net Neutrality, a policy that further isolates the group of creators calling for a graduated response. That makes all 3 political parties against this approach now. Degen is just is still trying to keep a hugely unsuccessful PR campaign going against Geist, and the posters to this blog. They have nothing better to do at this point but to draw up drama on their opponents hoping that someone out there that has the power to change policies is actually listening, when in fact most of our MP's in Ottawa are taking great lengths at distancing themselves from such policies as the graduated response. I'm expecting and hoping for quite the show in committee with those who are calling for the graduated response. I think those individuals won't be able to hid behind Geist when the bright lights and cameras are turned on this policy.

It's an epic fail by those friends of Degens where are calling for such policies, so is the bait and switch sites and op-eds this group has been doing for months now to try and drum up support to strip Canadians fundamental freedoms from them. It's actually quite comical if you think about it. Champion of artistic rights Degen? Give your head a shake. It’s people like you that have caused the credibility of your industry to go down the tubes with policy makers. Good show!
October 13, 2010

Chris A said:

@Crockett
But John is apparently the poor abused on here, attacking people for making assumptions and not checking the facts. Nevermind that he does the same thing here all the time, you're just suppose to ignore that.

And yes, at this point, I'm trolling John simply because I see no useful discussion happening with him at all. Here or at this blog.
October 13, 2010

Degen said:

...
ummm, the net neutrality of which you speak is in essence a regulating of ISPs -- and I think that's a great idea.
October 13, 2010

Degen said:

...
hey, remember the good old days when the "new" copyright was all about cutting out those dastardly middlemen?

Funny thing happened...

http://www.bookninja.com/?p=8845
October 13, 2010

Degen said:

...
Wait... what? What facts did I not check? I'm the one who knew what CBC was doing. I'm the one who knew that actawatch.ca still doesn't accept comments.

It's called research. Try it sometime.
October 13, 2010

Crockett said:

...
"We can connect those readers in a way that no publisher or bricks & mortar bookseller ever could.”

Maybe they just do it better than you John.
October 13, 2010

Chris A said:

@Degan
ISP regulation is probably the stupidest idea to promote net neutrality and competition. All you have to do is look at what Bell did to the resellers to figure that gem out. Plus with all the major ISPs also being owned by or owning a number of media companies in this country, it brings up all sorts of potential abuse problems. Unless you like paying more for you Internet than you do now. It's called research.

Plus you did not check the facts that the last time you brought up the ACTA Watch website you were told it was broken apparently. Not sure what made you think it might have been fixed if it was not still accepting comments. Logic is hard, I know.
October 13, 2010

Chris A said:

@Crockett
Definitely interesting possibilities with e-books. I'm not quite ready to give up my paper books yet, but there are a number of interesting readers out there.
October 13, 2010

Degen said:

...
Yeahhh, Crockett - it's like you have no idea who you're talking to.

I like Kobo. I own one.

http://johndegen.blogspot.com/2010/06/readerwriter-after-bill-c-32.html

Bought another for my wife for her birthday. Think they are just peachy.

I also know that cutting out the middleman just makes room for the next middleman.
October 13, 2010

Chris A said:

@Degan
You can have as many middle men as you want personally, as long as I'm not completely locked to them or they provide a tangible benefit for me to be locked to them. There are others though who would rather keep old business models rather than learn to adapt to a changing market place.
October 13, 2010

Degen said:

...
Jason,

When you publish my twitter feed, you're welcome to quote this tweet:

why are copyright critics starting blacklists? http://bit.ly/9Dojuc
October 13, 2010

Jason K said:

@Degen
Actually no John, I don't really see a need to respond to this, or give you any attention to this through my blog commentary. You're just my messenger. Thanks for playing along ;) You're too easy to manipulate.
October 13, 2010

Degen said:

...
Oh, burn. Once against JK has forced me to write a blog posting. Why can't I control my own urges?
October 13, 2010

Crockett said:

...
@Degen "I also know that cutting out the middleman just makes room for the next middleman."

So it's better to stay with the devil we know then?


And no John, I'm not calling you a devil!
October 13, 2010

Degen said:

...
Actually, I don't think the choice is between devils.

The choice is between two legitimate intermediaries who add real value to your experience. Some of the greatest value added in publishing is, by its nature, invisible to the end user. That doesn't mean it has no costs that need to be offset.


October 14, 2010

Chris A said:

Publichers vs. Device Manufacturers
One of the things I can see ending up happening is that the publishers become device manufacturers, or device manufacturers also become publishers. Or at least close relationships are built between the two. Depending on how they work, it could end up being a good or a bad thing for both the creators and the consumers, but it also has the potential to be good for both. Depends on the contracts and how copyright laws are formed.

Depending on how NaNoWriMo goes for me (if I happen to enjoy the experience), I may decide to look more closely at publishers.
October 14, 2010

Napalm said:

...
@Degen: "The choice is between two legitimate intermediaries who add real value to your experience. Some of the greatest value added in publishing is, by its nature, invisible to the end user."

Degen, could you kindly mention a couple of examples of the "great value" that middlemen such as RIAA/CRIA members are adding?

October 14, 2010

Crockett said:

An open letter to both sides.
John,

It is true that things sometimes get passionate in this debate, on all sides. There are people with strong views, some flexible, some not. You said artists are tired of getting beat up if they support strong copyright, well consumers are also tired of getting beat up for desiring fair use. In this way everyone seems to have their backs up and it doesn't take long for tempers to flare.

I see it this way. Artists blame file sharers for copying their works and pass that anger onto consumers in general. Consumers blame the RIAA and their ilk for their questionable tactics and pass that anger onto Artists. Comments by high profile Artists like Gene Simmons or antics from groups like 4chan don't help either side.

Respect given is respect earned, this is something that is too often forgotten. Also the willingness to see others points of view must be in play or this type of tit for tat will go on ad nauseum.

I suggest we both tone down the rhetoric and actually make the effort to hear what the other is saying. Let's dispense with both the 'fair use advocates are all freeloaders' and 'artists are all social fascists' nonsense that seems to permeate the blogs.

Maybe we'll get somewhere ...
October 14, 2010

Crockett said:

Oh my!
John,

I do have an observation that you might want to be aware of. Recently we had quite an exchange over the fact that actawatch.org had mechanisms for making comments on articles yet they never seemed to appear. This, as you know, turned out to be a server issue. So, as you suggested, I did some research and found that http://balancedcopyrightforcanada.ca also asks for comments (of which I left a few) but two days later are nowhere to be seen. As a matter of fact there seems to be no comments at all logged to any of the articles, yours included.

I wonder if they are using the same server?
October 14, 2010

Degen said:

...
What was that you were saying about tit for tat?

See my blog comments for the response.
October 14, 2010

Crockett said:

Hey guys I need some information
Degen has told me that the balancedcopyrightforcanada.ca site allows comments on it's news items but I have signed in with my twitter, Facebook and a manual account and each time there are zero comments attached to the articles and posts I have placed do not show up. I know you can go to their Facebook site for comments but I am wondering about the main site. Has anyone else been able to log in there and leave comments?

Thanks.
October 14, 2010

Crockett said:

...
"What was that you were saying about tit for tat?"

It's not like that John, that was an honest question. There are still no posts showing up under the news articles, they all say '0 comments'. I have signed in with my Twitter, Facebook and even tried to create an account manually. Is it their facebook site that you can only post comments on?
October 15, 2010

Napalm said:

...
@Crocket: "Degen has told me that the balancedcopyrightforcanada.ca site allows comments on it's news items but I have signed in with my twitter, Facebook and a manual account [...]"

Owned! Now they know who you are and this evening a CRIA/BSA team assisted by RCMP will come to your house and perform a cavity search for infringements :-) :-) :-)

Nap. :-)
October 15, 2010

retro jordans said:

http://www.chinabulksite.com
I suppose maybe you have interests in sporting.What brand would you like? I think
new jordan shoes are wonderful,right? New jordan shoes make us powerful and
comfortable, jordan shoes also let our body feel breathable exactly!
April 11, 2011

cheap clothes online said:

http://www.cheapmass.com
Well,it makes me feel surprise.I wonder if you may like sports,you can take
jordan shoes into consideration.I believe it is wonderful.It makes us feel
like a bird flying on the sky.Our body will be light-footed and swift while
sporting
April 11, 2011

mbmdan said:

dear
It's not like John, who was an honest question. There are no messages showing in newspaper articles, everyone says 0 comments. I signed with my Twitter, Facebook and even tried to manually create an account. Is your site on Facebook to send comments?
Bubble hash bags
August 15, 2011

baseball cap said:

I just required some information and was searching on Google for it. I visited each page that came on first page and didn’t got any relevant result then I thought to check out the second one and g
I just required some information and was searching on Google for it. I visited each page that came on first page

and didn’t got any relevant result then I thought to check out the second one and got your blog. This is what I

wanted!

http://www.discounthatsshop.com/
November 21, 2011

teon00 said:

teon00@inlibrary.net
Основы нейрофизиологии заболевания кожи книги о здоровье.
Несостоявшийся проект политика советской цивилизации анатомия российской элиты и политика.
Россия и страны латинской америки реформы петра великого роль силы в ненасильственной борьбе.
Применение спектрального анализа продольный эффект фарадея применение лазеров в военной технике.
Календари для пчеловодов породы медоносной пчелы практические советы пчеловодам.
July 03, 2012

Alex Morie said:

like the CRIA and SOCAN
As more and more artists, both those already established and those starting out, choose to self produce and self release, organizations like the CRIA and SOCAN become less and less relevant.

http://www.bit-cart.com/multi-vendor-shopping-cart-software.html
August 30, 2012

m,m, said:

...
Исключительная экономичность современный спортивный стиль техническое оснащение.
Эмблема шевроле луи шевроле легендарный внедорожник.
Потребительское качество автопарк ветровики дефлекторы окон.
Руководства по эксплуатации автолитература автомобили универсального характера.
Руководства по эксплуатации профессиональный тюнинг автомобиль bmw.
June 12, 2013

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
, , ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: