| |
| Author
|
Free open music license, your opinion ?
|
Tris
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
16
Posts :
296
Posted : Oct 18, 2004 17:45
|
Hello everybody,
CD burners, mp3, P2P networks, online shops... we all know we are confronted to new ways to distribute/sell/promote music and make business in this area.
So, artist and label owner/manager, I would like your opinion about some new (or maybe not so new but still not very popular) ideas.
What do you think about Creative Commons ( http://creativecommons.org/ ) or Open Music licenses (http://openmusic.linuxtag.org/modules/freecontent/content/openmusic/yellow.html ) ?
Actually, I’m part of Hadra and we release our first compilation in a few weeks (more infos here : http://forum.isratrance.com/viewtopic.php/topic/46130/forum/41 ).
For this first CD we followed the music industry standarts about copyright without asking ourself a lot of questions...
And something strike me as quite stupid : we wrote (like it's written on every other CD I've got) "public performance" is forbiden... But, actually, we hope (and i think most artists will feel the same) these tracks will be played in as many parties as possible by all DJs willing to do so.... Our whole scene is working this way !
Then...
It's written that to copy the CD is forbidden : except asking people not to do so, can we seriously control this ?... After they get the CD, buyers will do what they want...
And it's the same thing about swapping music by P2P... There is no way we can prevent it (as I sure don't want majors acting as cops on my behalf and I don’t even think it could be effective...).
Then what if someone is sampling it ? If only we found out, do we have money to rent an international layer anyway ? ? ?
So I wonder if it’s not time for us to change the way we sell music.
Do we have to follow rules which are not part of our philosophy ? Rules obviously ineffective to protect our business ?
We sure can sell CDs but maybe using some licenses allowing people to play music as much as they want (radio, parties, whatever… ) and copying it freely as long as they don’t sell it.
Sampling it if they want and so on….
We can still ask people to buy Cds but maybe we can ask them to send donations if they’ve got a copy and they like the music (instead asking them not to copy or share it… )
All opinions welcome…
Thanks.
PS : moderators, if it's not the right forum to discuss this, plz make the change.
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 18, 2004 18:44
|
I think it makes a lot more sense for trance releases to be under a open license.
When the labels write that public performance prohibited without permission I can only assume one of two things.
1. The label is signed up with the royalty organisation, and therefore have to use their licensing terms.
2. The label just write it because it says so on the other CD's they seen.
If the label is signed up with the royalty organisation they are not doing either themself or the artists a favor with it.
I'll be very interested to see how many artists in this scene who recieved any payment for performance royalties.
If the label is not signed up, it seems insane to expect any DJ who like to play a released track to contact the label for permisson, and it never happens.
Anyone thinking that people copy more if it says they are allowed is wrong I belive.
Rather the opposite, since people think the licensing is fair they have less of an excuse to spread it.
And the mp3 release groups probably think twice before they release something released under open license. It's not cool to spread something that is allowed to spread for anyone as they like. What release group want their name on a release like that.
So, if you are not registered with the royalty organistion you should think twice before doing it, and until you done that, I would say it's maddness to use standard license terms.
Unless you really want to have to give special permission everytime someone wnats to play your track.
 (``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Tris
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
16
Posts :
296
Posted : Oct 18, 2004 19:08
|
Quote:
|
I'll be very interested to see how many artists in this scene who recieved any payment for performance royalties.
|
|
Hum...
Under the French regulation we have to pay a tax (on tickets and bar incomes) every time we organise a party to have the right to play music in public.
Then, DJs who play in our parties have to list EVERY track they played and if they played a track by an artist who is a member of the french musicians organisation (aka SACEM), this guy is supposed to receive some royalties....
Imagine the paperworks.....
Beside most artists are not members so most of our money doesn't go back to the psytrance scene anyway... |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 18, 2004 19:33
|
Ok, it varies a bit between country and country.
In sweden, and many other countries, you don't list whats played, and the money paid by clubs goes spread out over radio/TV play.
Do you know how much an artists gets every time a DJ plays his track in france?
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Tris
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
16
Posts :
296
Posted : Oct 19, 2004 14:10
|
Not really...
But I don't think it's a very good system. It might be better than nothing but it transforms party promoters in book keepers...
Actually, when we go through all of this, artists play whatever they want and then they list tracks from their own album. Which is fair enought, but...
We are just getting one step farther toward economic normalisation and commercial parties... Money, money, money...
For me, it's just not our values, or at least, what I think psytrance values should be...
|
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Oct 19, 2004 15:24
|
I totally agree, it's not a very good system for the trance scene.
For sure not if you are not bothered about making money with it.
I definatly wouldn't like to make my living out of trance muisc. For me it would spoil the fun. Ok if you could make a couple of mega hits and relax for a few years. That just doesn't happen in this scene, and you have to keep working hard and be on top to be abel to make any kind of living out of it.
On the other hand, if you are looking at it from a business perspective as well, which I belive a person running a label will have to do, no matter how anti-commercial his intentions is.
Printing CD's cost money, and you have to deal with the economics of realeasing the music, even if you only release the music you really burn for.
But also from a business perspective I fail to see the logic in signing up with the royalty organisation.
Ok, the music get listed if it get's played by a DJ in france. Still briney gets your money when it gets played in other countries.
Sure it's very few who recieved any money to talk about from the organisations.
I belive that with use of a license like the ones you mentioned, the labels should be allowed to print the material without paying the mechanical royalties. From that money they should pay to the artist to compensate for the mechanical royalty that they would have recived via the organisation otherwise.
In the end there would be more money left than if you paid your fees and collected mechanical and performance royalties.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Basilisk
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
168
Posts :
2984
Posted : Oct 19, 2004 18:26
|
Well, you've got my support. Be warned that distributors still push labels to follow the standards because any deviation could concievably cause a loss in sales in their view.
Personally I think it would be rather cool to have a label out there that only creates 100 hand-made copies of a release and distributes the waves with bittorrent over the net under the open license. For those that love the release the ltd. edition hand-made album would be a treasure, and for the artist the exposure would be widespread. But that's just a zany idea 
Overall, and seriously, I still don't understand why an underground scene operates in an overground way, especially when it so clearly does not function as optimally as it should, since the size of the economy is too small for several aspects of the overground system to really (lawyers, copyright agency fees, etc).
Good luck whatevery ou do!
peace
|
|
|
|
|
|
