Slashdot Mirror
CBC Bans Use of Creative Commons Music On Podcasts
An anonymous reader writes "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."
Electoral death to Harper!
One has to ask if this is legal. Can you collectively bargain to exclude another group? In the USA, I know that it would likely not be. For instance, Company ABC can require a distributor only sell products from Company ABC in order to be a distributor, but it is flatly ILLEGAL for them to say "You can sell any product you want, as long as it is not from Company XZY". We have seen these lawsuits in my industry. You can require EXCLUSIVITY, but you can't exclude a singular company. I would have to imagine that the same would hold true for music under a single license. The key is whether or not someone will try it in court. And no, it doesn't matter what the contract says, it is illegal here. Then again, Canada is like a whole other country.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
If they cant use the CC music under a CC license, cant they just ask whoever made it for an old style license? Probably only needs to be an email asking for permission to use the music and an affirmative reply.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
My sent message:
The ban on creative commons works is appalling. You are publicly funded ans thus this shows a deep confilct of interests between you, who supposedly represent the public that fund your programming, and some agreements with private entities to suppress public work. You undermine the work of artists that are thinking ahead and are creating the next generation of thinking, creating and publishing model. As you know dinosaurs are now extincts, I believe you are no longer fit and do not represent our interests. I shall consequently actively lobby for the dismanteling of our once great public broadcaster to my federal representatives unless you correct your awful actions. With all my hearth I hope this will open your eyes.
Tomorrow is another day...
This anonymous reader just copied the text straight from Michael Geist's post and it gets put on the front page, whereas my submission, which was not copied verbatim from Geist and in fact was originally written by me, is left "pending" and will presumably be rejected for redundancy.
There should be a system wherein duplicate submissions are not marked as "rejected" outright as the term implies that the submission itself was bad; "rejected" is a very negative term. Perhaps "duplicate" or something. As it is now, a submission can be marked "rejected" just because the editor saw another submission first. It has nothing to do with the quality of the writing. I don't want others to look at my submission history and see a large "rejected" percentage simply based off of bad timing.
*sigh*
The Harper government has recently muscled in on political control over what government scientists can say publicly. The tar sands (re-branded as oil sands) is an ecological disaster. The list goes on. Don't expect sanity from this band of leaders.
... Think "anonymous" are looking for new targets.... ^_~
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
According to Chris Boyce, Programming Director for CBC radio, the reason for the ban against CC music is that evidently most creative commons music is explicitly *NOT* licensed for any sort of commercial use.
I can understand the CBC's reluctance to want to use something that is explicitly barred from being used in any commercial context.
While not all CC music has such prohibitions, I suppose that it's apparently enough that the CBC figures it's simpler to just block it entirely than try to figure out exactly which ones are okay.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Senator McCarthy: " have you ever used a cc license or ever attended gpl meatting "
poor shelp called before the comity : " yes"
history repeats
"I don't pitch OpenSUSE Linux to my friends, i let Microsoft do it for me
Some see it as anti-trust and related to things like the U.S. Sherman anti-trust act. If I were a musician I would see it as a very basic restraint of trade.
there's this great app called the internet, perhaps you've heard?
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Because this isn't a single company being targeted. This is similar to union laws in non-"right to work" states. In those places, if there is a union that represents you in a given job, membership to that union in mandatory. You must be a member and pay dues so long as you work in that position, no choice. Also the unions can and do negotiate union-only contracts with companies. The companies will hire only union shops for work, no non-union contractors may bid. This is all legal.
Now that isn't everywhere, other states don't allow that, but a number of them do.
SinceSpark is available on areas of the net that are being monetized, which can violate Creative Commons rules (non commercial) on the vast majority of music (and most forms of CC-licensed work) available for use.
It's run by what I can only imaging is a junta of commerical radio flunkies.
They've gutted CBC Radio 2, moving it to a top-40 type system where 90% of the airtime is devoted to a the same ~1,000 songs, played over and over.
Radio 1 has some islands of OK-ness (AIH and Saturday Night Blues being the main examples), but the rest is either mediorcre or actively annoying (eg The Current).
Here is what the CBC as to say about this:
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. "
...should be able to see this for what it is; disallowing a particular licensing on music can't be a good thing for consumers no matter how the criminals paint it or how stupid consumers can be.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
... Canada doesn't have a Sherman Antitrust Act.
We could loan them ours. We're not using it.
Have gnu, will travel.
The CBC is run by, for and of ACTRA union members. Interfere with their turf and you're in for a fight, buster! Go up against the CBC literati and you're doomed to crash back down in flames. Push against their pampered, plush lifestyles and you're pushing against the power of Canada's #1 media outlet.
In short, this issue will hardly see the light of day but, if it should get a moment of attention, it will be marginalized and set aside to rot on the newsroom floor.
Apart from that, I have no opinion. Good luck all you creative people!
*** Don't be dull.***
I started to post in order to question your claim, googled, and found lots of news making similar unfounded claims. Every article or blog said piles of people were affected, but then they give a single example. In many cases it's the same example. I'm not questioning that it happens, but it seems more likely to be
1) legitimate claims where BMI-licensed music was played in a place without a license, and they legitimately need to pay (according to law, not me)
2) a number of anecdotes of intimidation without any actual legal action, where either nothing happens or the owner gives up
What I do not see is anywhere that BMI or ASCAP have ever shut someone down. They intimidate, the owner rolls over, and the owner shuts the place down. If you're clicking the reply button to chastize me, read on please before doing so. They can claim anything they want, but "try to shut [them] down"? Only through intimidation. Kinda like me repeatedly asking for my two dollars.
This article has the claim that it's happening all over but has a single example and one that's not clearly legit or not. It also says that license costs are being pressured down, probably due to people not wanting to pay license fees:
http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Music/2009/0109/p14s01-almp.html
Here's "one" illigitimate claim, can't tell if it's the same one:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1823043352.shtml
Here's a guy who keeps getting invoices, but because he hasn't been caught with licenseable music nothing has happened, which is typically how it happens and not actually shutting anyone down.
http://www.viewnews.com/2010/VIEW-May-18-Tue-2010/Henderson/35878176.html
Here's an entire essay using the word extortion instead of license, and they managed a single example (I skimmed it), and it names the musician, not the places that hired him.
http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2010/08/bmiascapsesac-legal-extortion-scam.html
It links to this guy, with the title being "HOW ONE INDEPENDENT MUSICIAN DEFEATED BMI". Although he didn't get hired by these places, the US Copyright Office told BMI to sodomize themselves with a rusty baton.
http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html
In short, there is no difference between the establishments that shouldn't pay BMI but do, and the people who give their bank accounts to Nigerian scammers. They make it bad for everybody, and they need to grow a sack. Go ahead and sue me, I have playlists for every night I've been in business. Hell, I taped every show. Tell me what night, and what was played, and I'll show you the video.
Businesses shut themselves down out of ignorance. BMI and ASCAP are some shady bastards who need to be beaten with pillows until bruised at the very least, but business does this to itself.
Please, someone think about the artists' right to choose the rights associated with the rights associated with their work.
that it is just in it for the money and greedy.
Copyright is theft.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
And don't call me paranoid anymore!
Some people are engaged in preventing mankind from working as intended. It's a bunch of parasites who cannot stand altruism or gift economies, because they're the middlemen.
Creative Commons, GPL, legal file sharing, open knowledge... all this is unacceptable to them -- and they will act in a way to prevent good people from doing good deeds. They will use lawyers, the law, patents, DMCA and any other trick they can come up with to bar cooperation and collaboration.
This is purely a political strife; while it happens, idiots will discussing technical merits, like comparing speeds of a lion and an antelope... but for the antelope, death is certain once it's caught.
What is at stake is not only who can or cannot patent ideas. Instead, our fundamental freedoms and they the world works now are in jeopardy.
My imagination is not enough to grasp all the dangers of a world where innovation is done in secrecy to be evaluated and publish in regular 6-month cycles, or synchronized with new OS versions.
If you put a gun to someone's head and tell them they can jump off a building or you'll shoot them in the head, and they jump and are injured, they have not done it to themselves.
You can start by supporting my band, all our stuff is CC licensed. Take a listen, rock / punk : http://theexperiments.com/
Thanks, and enjoy!
what were you expecting when everyone is let to profit without limit and bounds ? some groups would eventually gain power and protect their own interests over the interests and freedoms of others. if you let any kind of power accumulation, it is inevitable. and, money, is power.
Read radical news here
I hired an artist to write a song. She is a member of SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada - http://www.socan.ca/). To quote:
"As for releasing it under CC, I actually can't (And releasing things under CC for musicians is a whole neat problem unto itself that's a discussion for a totally different day!). I'm a member of SOCAN and my performing and association rights are already automatically assigned to them."
So basically if you join SOCAN you are barred from using CC licenses on your work, even if you want to, even if it is a work for hire, etc.
but they don't, not the living anyway.
Simple fix. Create a boilerplate agreement wherein that specific episode (original broadcast and any subsequent repeats) of the show is explicitly licensed to reproduce the work at no charge. Enter into this agreement with the copyright holder. Voila, no CC license to violate.
It deals with "abuse of dominance" to exclude competition in section 79. If I were creative commons lawyers filing a complaint under this law would be a start.
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/01165.html
http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2008/04/we-heart-creative-commons/
.
. hmmm