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."

Comments

Is this legal?

[Pharmboy]

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.

Re:Is this legal?

[Pharmboy]

To add some clarity, I am pretty sure that the basis for the lawsuits in my above statements was due to the Sherman Act, which says in part:

"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."

"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]"

Re:Is this legal?

[icebraining]

Almost all CC music forbids commercial use.

CITATION NEEDED.

1) Go to Jamendo.com.
2) Mark "Find content I can use for commercial purposes." and "Find content I can modify, adapt or build upon"
3) Results: 9307 albums

Not only there is plenty of CC music that you can use for commercial purposes, as it's extremely easy to separate from the rest; there's absolutely no reason for banning CC music as a whole just to prevent uses of other CC licenses.

Re:Is this legal?

[Pharmboy]

Microsoft got nailed for bundling a web browser with their operating system (which was stupid, in a lot of people's opinions).

MS also got nailed for forcing Dell to pay for a license even on computers that didn't ship with MS software (the original source of the phrase "Microsoft Tax"). This was a separate issue than bundling IE with the OS. And if Dell is putting "We recommend Windows 7" on their website, rest assured that it isn't because they are forced to (the former lawsuit already settled that), it is because they are being paid to. If you read the recent news about how most of Dell's profits weren't from selling computers, but from "rebates" from Intel which have now ended due to ethics issues raised about Intel, then you would see that Dell is looking for any way to make money. A check on their stock price over the last 10 years would also indicate this.

Re:Is this legal?

[rtb61]

In this case there is the CBCs own mandate "actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression" http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/mandate.shtml and nothing does that more than the creative commons which does it freely.

In relation to Canadian law there is also this "(ii) encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming and by offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view," http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/B-9.01/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_3. In one fell swoop they have excluded all Canadians who make use of and contribute to the creative commons and they have effectively barred CBC from contributing to the creative commons in contravention to the law that governs the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

In this case not only should the illegal contract get overturned but the criminals that signed it should be fired.

Workaround?

[funkatron]

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.

Re:Workaround?

[Pharmboy]

This would likely not be possible simply because you don't have ASCAP or BMI handling the royalties, and they can't collect royalties on stuff that is both copyrighted as exclusive content and as CC. ASCAP and BMI have to HATE the CC, because there are no royalties to collect, so no way to screw over artists..er, collect on behalf of artists.

Own a bar? You pay ASCAP and BMI based on number of seats. Play only CC music? They will still claim you owe and try to shut you down, usually successfully. You see, a band *might* come in and play a song that they collect for. ASCAP and BMI are pretty much like the mafia, except the mafia has a code they live by.

Re:Workaround?

[gman003]

There are recordings that have fallen into the public domain. And the US military bands play quite a bit of classical music, and (as it is a work of a US federal government employee working on government time) any recordings of those are public domain as well. I have a great recording of the 1812 Overture played by the Marine Corp band, with live artillery. Check musopen.com for a bunch of public domain music.

Re:Workaround?

[russotto]

After we paid once, ASCAP came sniffing around for more money. They assume they are underbilling and you're guilty of underpaying.

"And that is called paying the Dane-geld; but we've proved it again and again, that if once you have paid him the Dane-geld you never get rid of the Dane. " -- Rudyard Kipling

Canaduh

[diodeus]

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.

Digging a little deeper....

[mark-t]

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.

In some places probably is

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Jumping to conclusions!

[Wacky_Wookie]

It seem that the CBC was *protecting* the creative commons license, not attacking it. From the Sparks comments section:

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.

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.

Re:Jumping to conclusions!

[Arker]

Unfortunately this doesnt seem very credible. There is no explanation for why several employees previously, unanimously, and clearly attributed the ban to a union contract in the first place. The rationale given is contrafactual as well, as much CC-licensed content *is* available for commercial use, and it is trivial to filter the works which do or do not allow commercial use. In light of that, the suspicion arises that this statement is merely a spur of the moment fabrication in response to the justified outrage the original explanation sparked.

Re:Electoral death to Harper !

[catchblue22]

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.