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."
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.
Electoral death to Harper!
You are a bloody moron. Harper did not invent the CBC. It is run by out of touch bureaucrats. If you want to be pissed off any anybody, send your torches and pitch forks at those talent agencies.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.
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'
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.
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.
... Canada doesn't have a Sherman Antitrust Act.
We could loan them ours. We're not using it.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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!
The CBC is union managed and controlled, so focus your ire on the NDP and not the Conservatives.
Ummmm...the conservative government actually has quite a bit of control at the CBC. They appoint the leaders who set the direction of the network. In the last few years, the CBC has taken a subtle but definite shift to the right. One can see it in the way they frame certain news stories. And they have introduced programs with a very right wing slant, such as a Crossfire-like show called The Lang & O'Leary Exchange.
Finally, I'm seeing a lot of ant-Harper spam on Slashdot as of late, seems those poor anarchists and jackboot radicals are still smarting from their bad press after the Toronto G20 summit debacle.
I think that Harper is a dangerous single minded ideologue who has run a minority government as a majority government, and has snubbed his nose at Parliament many times. If this is the way he acts in a minority government, I shudder to think about what he will do with an absolute majority. And I can assure you that I am not an anarchist or a jackbooted radical. If anything, your blanket characterization of those who oppose Harper as extremists is a type of action that is itself in the mould of a jackbooted radical.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
there are endless variations of limitations on CC licensing
Every commercial track has a different separate license. CC is much simpler since there are only a few main variants with version numbers. You can simply say "CC-SA and CC-BY-SA are allowed CC-NC is not". Your claim is fairly simple FUD.
and it would be a nightmare for the CBC to track down and clarify the status of every single piece of CC music they wanted to use.
Wherever you download it from normally has the status. If it doesn't, that version isn't CC licensed and you don't have anything to track down.
It seems like you are making very weak excuses for some reason. Why?
As for of the claims by some uninformed people that a simple search on the internetz would provide unencumbered music, well, citation needed.
Would you bet your job on those results?
Guess what; there have been lots of cases where it was decided, after long court cases, that proprietary songs were copied from other proprietary songs without license. Would you bet your job on that? No, because you don't have to. If you had a good reason to believe the song was okay, for example the CC license attached to it, then you will not likely have a problem and if you do have a problem, the license the song claims to be under will not make any difference.
Finally, I'm seeing a lot of ant-Harper spam on Slashdot as of late, seems those poor anarchists and jackboot radicals are still smarting from their bad press after the Toronto G20 summit debacle.
Ahh. maybe we have the explanation; American style "two team" politics is creeping into Canada. This is not a "football" thing. You do not have to believe something just because it might be convenient to your team. Most of us on slashdot have barely heard of your "Harper" whatever he/she/it is and we do not form our views according to what might be most likely to damage "Harper".
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2008/04/we-heart-creative-commons/
.
. hmmm