Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CBC Bans Use of Creative Commons Music On Podcasts

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the but-that's-un-canadian dept.

Canada 148

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."

cancel ×

148 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

huh? (-1, Troll)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842154)

This frost pis is hereby released under the craative commons. Suck it up, hosers!

Re:huh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842378)

Shouldn't that be creEHtive commons?

i'm a faggot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842162)

i suck dick for cash

Re:i'm a faggot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842280)

Ich bin schwul. In Nazi-Deutschland, saugen Sie Penisse!

Electoral death to Harper ! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842172)

Electoral death to Harper!

Re:Electoral death to Harper ! (3, Insightful)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842286)

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.

Re:Electoral death to Harper ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842576)

What? Electrical isn't an option?

Re:Electoral death to Harper ! (0, Troll)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842596)

How did this even get to insightful? Even the bureaucratic handlers are liberal appointees. You want to whine, try blaming them for 20 years of mismanagement.

Re:Electoral death to Harper ! (1, Informative)

Mad Leper (670146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842886)

The CBC is union managed and controlled, so focus your ire on the NDP and not the Conservatives. And the CBC is actually protecting themselves from litigation with this ban, there are endless variations of limitations on CC licensing 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.

  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?

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.

Is this legal? (5, Interesting)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842210)

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? (4, Informative)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842246)

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? (-1, Troll)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842646)

And the Sherman Act, part of U.S.C. 15, limits the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation how, exactly?

Re:Is this legal? (1)

kc8apf (89233) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842684)

The grandparent never said it did. They simply stated that it certainly is illegal in the USA and suggested it may be in Canada as well.

Re:Is this legal? (-1, Troll)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842716)

The grandparent never said it did.

I wasn't replying to the grandparent.

Re:Is this legal? (1)

Albanach (527650) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842830)

I wasn't replying to the grandparent.

Actually, you were. The grandparent Pharmboy (216950) posted twice. The bit where he wrote 'I am pretty sure that the basis for the lawsuits in my above statements' might have been considered a clue.

Re:Is this legal? (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842694)

If you bother to actually read, he states in the first post that it doesn't, but that the law might be similar.

Re:Is this legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842704)

The US has better laws then Canadian. Why can't Canadian be more like the US?

Re:Is this legal? (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842922)

The US has better laws then Canadian. Why can't Canadian be more like the US?

I wouldn't stretch that so far. Canada has better copyright legislation on the books. The US has very strong anti-trust legislation on the books. Then again, the US has had many more abuse monopolies over the last couple of centuries, making these laws necessary.

But to answer your question as to why Canada can't be more like the US, the answer is: Quebec. ;)

Re:Is this legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33843072)

Necessary no, wanted YES

Re:Is this legal? (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843108)

Necessary no, wanted YES

Go read some history on Standard Oil, Rockefeller, et al. The laws aren't perfect, but when you look at the Robber Baron Age, what you see is greed that killed competition and SLOWED progress down. The roll of government *should* be to only insure the playing field is level. I'm not saying that govt. does a great job at it, but the problem has been enforcement, not the actual laws, which have been around long enough without being replaced to demonstrate their value.

Re:Is this legal? (2, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842412)

It's not someone saying you can't do this, it's saying if you do this, we won't sell you our product anymore. It's a way to use the control you have over your own product to your advantage. Of course this is about IP, so it's debatable whether it can really be owned. But let's just imagine it was someone who rented pickup trucks and stated that if you ever rented from anyone else, we wouldn't rent to you anymore.

Re:Is this legal? (2, Informative)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842592)

Thats not a loophole though, the contract would still be thrown out for doing that. Microsoft worded things that way but still got nailed with anti trust big time, amongst other things.

Re:Is this legal? (2, Insightful)

multisync (218450) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842888)

Microsoft worded things that way but still got nailed with anti trust big time, amongst other things.

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

They should have been nailed for the reasons you suggest, but were not, or the likes of Dell wouldn't be able to put "Dell recommends Windows 7" on every page of their site.

Microsoft continues to use their dominance in the "PC" market to influence downstream vendors and prevent real competition from taking place.

Re:Is this legal? (4, Informative)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842902)

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.

In some places probably is (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842498)

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.

Re:In some places probably is (1)

dr2chase (653338) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843010)

Strictly speaking, it is not necessarily true that union membership is mandatory if represented, it is merely the case that such labor contracts are legal. There's nothing, except self-interest, stopping a union from negotiating a labor agreement without the mandatory membership clause. And even more strictly speaking, it is not union membership, as much as payment of union dues (that detail, from Wikipedia).

Interestingly, if you are a fan of government non-interference in contracts, "right-to-work" represents the greater interference.

Re:In some places probably is (1, Interesting)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843062)

I would respectfully disagree. Unions are formed for worker protection, and you can still hire the same worker, they just are forced to be a part of a collective bargaining group: the union. This is different than excluding an entire class of musicians for reasons not related to monetary considerations. This is more like a company saying they will hire workers from one union, but not willing to hire workers from another union, even at the same pay or less. The Sherman Act actually has some teeth and is used rather frequently in the USA, often in surprisingly small cases. It might take 4 to 6 years to run through the system, but I am willing to bet it would come out on the side of the CC.

On the flip side, it is very possible to say you are ONLY going to use CC music, as that is a grant of exclusivity, and otherwise justified monetarily. Part of what gives the Sherman Act teeth is the exchange of money, so you could likely also say you are only going to use music that is "free as in beer" and be within the law. It is when one group is compensated and another group is excluded in a singular fashion, or when the source has a monopoly, that the Sherman Act seems to be applicable. And of course, IANAL, but I would be willing to bet next weeks lunch money on it.

Re:In some places probably is (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843184)

A parallel argument (to the just forced to be part of the union argument) would be that the musicians releasing CC music are just forced to release music under a different license.

Really what I mean is, your distinctions seem somewhat arbitrary.

Re:In some places probably is (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843208)

The primary difference is that Unions are legally recognized groups that are given exclusions in many ways. Right or wrong, they are excluded from anti-trust issues, else so many wouldn't be so crooked. Whether or not they should be would be a different issue. In other words, because they aren't treated the same by law, I don't think you can draw a parallel here. The analogy doesn't work because they are too dissimilar in the eyes of the law.

Re:Is this legal? (-1, Troll)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842568)

It would be illegal if the CBC did NOT have this policy. See, their PodCasts are ad supported. Almost all CC music forbids commercial use. The CBC has said that you cannot use music that forbids commercial use, because even though the podcasts are free, they are sometimes distributed via ad supported rotations. Slashdot, of course, went the same rout it always goes with news: Outright lies. If these artists wanted their music used on the radio without compensation, they would have released it under a more permissive license. But, they don't, and the CBC is enforcing their wishes.

Re:Is this legal? (4, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842626)

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? (2, Informative)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842666)

Care to quote any sources on that claim? The posts by the podcasters involved state that they're not allowed by the CBC to use ANY Creative Commons licensed content, not just those under non-commercial license. This is also specifically noted as a result of negotiations with "artists rights" groups, not as just coming from CBC management.

I'm not sure how CC has the wording on derivative works and thus how that would affect playing music in a podcast (is the entire podcast now considered a derivative work, or is it fine to play the unmodified original in the middle of your show?), but the basic CC license itself would be completely fine with use in an ad-supported show.

To summarize, CC is completely compatible with these shows, CC-NC is not, and ND and SA may or may not be usable depending on wording. There's no good reason for a blanket ban on all CC content. From the evidence available to me at the moment it seems the Slashdot version is accurate and you're the one full of shit.

Re:Is this legal? (3, Informative)

schon (31600) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842772)

It would be illegal if the CBC did NOT have this policy.

Bullshit.

their PodCasts are ad supported. Almost all CC music forbids commercial use.

So - because some CC-licensed music is non-commercial, then *ALL* CC-licensed music is illegal on an ad-supported blog?

Logic. You fail it.

The CBC has said that you cannot use music that forbids commercial use

No. They said you cannot use Creative Commons licensed music, some of which (as you have already pointed out) does not forbid commercial use.

Slashdot, of course, went the same rout it always goes with news: Outright lies.

No, that would be you.

Re:Is this legal? (1)

dunng808 (448849) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842826)

This argument is based on a very narrow definition of "commercial." If someone offered CC music on a "Best Love Songs" collection, which sold for $14.99, then yes, that would be commercial use. Let's assume that in this case the ad income goes to offset the production costs. Even the GPL allows copyright owners to charge a duplication fee ... "free" is not necessarily zero cost.

Whether or not I am right, the distributor has no obligation to include any particular music, for whatever reason. Arguing legality will not lead to a solution. That will take the distributor to change their position on CC content. Write to them.

Re:Is this legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842966)

Actually, the GPL as well as the CC licenses (for those that permit commercial redistribution) don't have any sort of "duplication fees" or other cost limits. You can sell them for whatever the market will bear. The one thing you have to remember, however, is that you must also give "downstream users" the same ability to repackage the content for resale as well including duplication. If you start to scalp the marketplace, somebody else is going to come along and underbid your prices.

So if you put together an album of fairly decent CC music on a CD or some other digital medium and sold it for $14.99 or even $149.99, you are certainly within you means to do so. On the other hand, you can't stop me from doing the same thing and selling that same music for $5.99 or even $1.99. You don't have exclusive control over that content.

The GPL issue is that if you get some software, that the source code simply must be provided by the software distributor at duplication costs or included with the software for free. You can charge whatever the market will bear for the binary files themselves, even though typically it is usually merely given away.

Source files really don't apply to music in the same way. Certainly there is nothing that the CBC is doing that necessarily is a problem with Creative Common licensed content (other than the NC kind), but there likely is an overzealous lawyer who is concerned about the viral nature of the license and worried that it will eliminate proprietary content and have it become "absorbed" into a kind of CC type content. That is the real question: Can you have a broadcast program that includes Creative Commons content mixed with proprietary content and for that compilation to retain a proprietary license? I can certainly see the arguments suggesting that isn't true. Certainly a computer program that has a GPL'd library (not LGPL which permits this kind of exception) must also be a GPL'd piece of software or they are violating the terms of the license. This is how MySQL was able to force people to buy separate licensing for proprietary software wishing to use their software libraries. GPL'd software using MySQL was perfectly legal, however.

Re:Is this legal? (1)

The Hatchet (1766306) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842604)

The nature of this should be covered under anti-trust legislation, however the government stopped protecting consumers from dangerous monopolies on not just corporate works but on ideas and concepts. one is reminded of xkcd 129: Content Protection.

Re:Is this legal? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842622)

Not that I think it's right, but I can understand the broadcorping castration's reason for doing this too: They need to have the copyrights to their own programmes to be able to defend them, and the CC license prevents that.

The question is what else they could do -- I'm sure there's something, and I hope to see some constructive suggestions here, and not just condemnations.
I'm also pretty certain that this wasn't due to them being fascist-nazi-commie-godfearing-godhating faggot-adulterer-homophobes in the pocket of the corporations and the far left, and acting with a political-religious atheist agenda. (Translation: get a perspective, folks, and save the conspiracy theories for other submissions)

Re:Is this legal? (3, Insightful)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842652)

Huh? Considering CC is based on copyright, they still have the copyright to their own shows. It's no different than if they licensed boy band of the day and put it on the show.

Re:Is this legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842718)

Translation: get a perspective, folks, and save the conspiracy theories for other submissions

So recognizing that powerful monied political interests tend to get their way on any issue related to copyright law is now a conspiracy theory? You can throw around "conspiracy theory" the way medieval Europe once threw around "she's a witch!" to get rid of something you don't like if that's what you want to do, but you're just burying your head in the sand.

Get some perspective yourself. The public gets shafted every single time these interests get what they want, and they always want more and more because they are never satisfied. Good high-quality content licensed with a Creative Commons license that the public can enjoy freely strikes fear into the hearts of monied copyright interests everywhere. They will use PR, legal influence, and market power to stamp it out any chance they get, not because they are some shady "conspiracy" but because they make more profits that way. Of course since that involves more than one person it is in a way a conspiracy (oh no, a loaded word that triggers irrational dismissal! run away!) but nothing like the knee-jerk-instant-dismissal-without-examination way you are trying to connote.

Even your rationale there is ridiculous:

Not that I think it's right, but I can understand the broadcorping castration's reason for doing this too: They need to have the copyrights to their own programmes to be able to defend them, and the CC license prevents that.

Did you think the CBC writes and performs live original music for every program? No, they don't. If they use commercial music with a restrictive copyright they wouldn't own that either. What they would "own" is a license to broadcast the copyrighted work, probably by paying a fee to the copyright holder. Creative Commons-licensed music works the exact same way, except it's a permissive license that gives them, by default, the right to use the work/music in a broadcast. The only real difference is that no money has to change hands.

Open your eyes and see this for what it is: a money grab.

Re:Is this legal? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842776)

Did you think the CBC writes and performs live original music for every program? No, they don't. If they use commercial music with a restrictive copyright they wouldn't own that either. What they would "own" is a license to broadcast the copyrighted work, probably by paying a fee to the copyright holder. Creative Commons-licensed music works the exact same way, except it's a permissive license that gives them, by default, the right to use the work/music in a broadcast. The only real difference is that no money has to change hands.

Yes, they pay a fee to the copyright holder, and in return get rights to not only broadcast, but also sell recordings of that broadcast without anyone else being allowed to do so. The real difference is that CC doesn't necessarily allow that, and I can see this being a potential problem that deserves a better solution than simply not playing the music.

Re:Is this legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842918)

Did you think the CBC writes and performs live original music for every program? No, they don't. If they use commercial music with a restrictive copyright they wouldn't own that either. What they would "own" is a license to broadcast the copyrighted work, probably by paying a fee to the copyright holder. Creative Commons-licensed music works the exact same way, except it's a permissive license that gives them, by default, the right to use the work/music in a broadcast. The only real difference is that no money has to change hands.

Yes, they pay a fee to the copyright holder, and in return get rights to not only broadcast, but also sell recordings of that broadcast without anyone else being allowed to do so. The real difference is that CC doesn't necessarily allow that, and I can see this being a potential problem that deserves a better solution than simply not playing the music.

I think you're a lot closer to the point but I think you're slightly missing it too.

For commercial music you don't have automatic rights to broadcast or sell the music. To get those rights you have to negotiate with the copyright holder and obtain their permission. The copyright holder of CC-licensed music can also give the CBC permission to broadcast or sell their music. If necessary they could use another license when dealing with the CBC since they are the copyright holder.

There is no good reason the CBC cannot approach the copyright holders of Creative Commons works the same way they approach the copyright holders of commercial works. In fact the CBC is much more likely to obtain permission without having to spend money in the case of CC-licensed works. There's no good reason why they would have to completely avoid this option.

There's no good reason but there is a reason. There is a lot of money and political clout behind the monied copyright interests. This maneuver benefits them, satisfying "que bono?". The question is whether you think that's a complete and total coincidence caused by a completely free, unprompted, un-coerced, un-pressured decision on the part of CBC. Anyone who wants to believe that so badly that they'll dismiss all other notions as "conspiracy theory, get a perspective" is either naive or deluded.

It's really that simple.

Re:Is this legal? (1)

tx_kanuck (667833) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843258)

There is no good reason the CBC cannot approach the copyright holders of Creative Commons works the same way they approach the copyright holders of commercial works. In fact the CBC is much more likely to obtain permission without having to spend money in the case of CC-licensed works. There's no good reason why they would have to completely avoid this option.

There's no good reason but there is a reason. There is a lot of money and political clout behind the monied copyright interests. This maneuver benefits them, satisfying "que bono?". The question is whether you think that's a complete and total coincidence caused by a completely free, unprompted, un-coerced, un-pressured decision on the part of CBC. Anyone who wants to believe that so badly that they'll dismiss all other notions as "conspiracy theory, get a perspective" is either naive or deluded.

I've got another reason for you. Time and money. Consider this.
Negotiation for license rights = 50/hr (numbers pulled out of my ass. This includes the negotiations, contract signing, accounting to cut any cheque for payment, time for the legal dept to review the contract, etc)

So, to license from a library of works = 4 hours of work.
To license from 750 different license holders = 3000 hours of work.

Hmm....$200 in labour for a blanket license, or $150,000 to license 3 songs / podcast (5 shows a week + 2 weeks vacation/reruns in a year. Add in the costs of researching and maintaining records of each license agreement....). As long as the cost of the exclusive library license is less then the cost of negotiating all those individual license agreements, CBC will go exclusive.

Could they go and use CC music? Yeah, no reason not too other then the cost.

Re:Is this legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33843240)

Did you think the CBC writes and performs live original music for every program? No, they don't. If they use commercial music with a restrictive copyright they wouldn't own that either. What they would "own" is a license to broadcast the copyrighted work, probably by paying a fee to the copyright holder. Creative Commons-licensed music works the exact same way, except it's a permissive license that gives them, by default, the right to use the work/music in a broadcast. The only real difference is that no money has to change hands.

Yes, they pay a fee to the copyright holder, and in return get rights to not only broadcast, but also sell recordings of that broadcast without anyone else being allowed to do so. The real difference is that CC doesn't necessarily allow that, and I can see this being a potential problem that deserves a better solution than simply not playing the music.

The regular CC-by-SA (and other CC licenses permitting commercial redistribution) does permit a commercial broadcaster to sell their broadcasts and can generally be used in a manner like you would other licensed content. Where problems come up with proprietary licenses (i.e. not open source licenses like one of the CC licenses) usually come from historical programs where music licensing didn't cover syndication rights, rebroadcast rights, or distribution on alternative media like DVDs. This becomes a huge deal if you want to take a program originally aired in the 1970's or 80's and want to put onto DVD, but the music licensing wasn't really well secured because nobody thought of asking. This is not an issue with any Creative Commons license at all.

On the other hand, the issue does come up if Creative Commons content is viral in nature. In other words, if a particular broadcast program (radio or television, the issue is the same) includes CC content, is that program "forced" as a whole to adopt that license? That is something I am not completely familiar with myself, although there are some CC licenses that don't allow derivative works. Such licenses couldn't be used even if they permitted commercial reproduction.

That is also the largest problem with "Creative Commons licenses" as you really don't know what the heck you are talking about until you nail down the discussion about a specific license coming from Creative Commons. There are so many different kinds of licenses including some terms that are contradictory in nature that would essentially prohibit reproduction if you read the fine print on some variations, yet they are all "Creative Commons licenses". Nail down what license you are talking about, then perhaps we can agree on something. This is also a reason I hate CC licenses even if I understand their supporters.

Workaround? (4, Interesting)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842270)

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? (4, Informative)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842298)

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? (2, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842318)

So are they barred from playing public domain music as well then? What about classical?

Re:Workaround? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842346)

It's a protection racket.

The copyright dogs don't care what you actually play, if you play *anything* they will sue.

Re:Workaround? (3, Informative)

RubberDogBone (851604) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842964)

That isn't exactly true. What they will do first is send you a contract asking you to list whatever was played and then payup accordingly. If you ignore that, then they send a bill based on what they think you owe. And if you ignore that, then they sue.

I worked for an organization which was hit up by ASCAP. "An annual fan event like SD Comicon" would be close enough. ASCAP didn't know exactly what we played and let us tell them. There is no "does not apply" option. You are assumed to owe for something.

There are tick boxes for live performances, bands, etc.

We ended up paying for an electronic reproduction license for not too much money. It fit us because everything we played was actually from some electronic source. We had little live music. Just some non-ASCAP, non-BMI musicians who played their own stuff.

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

Re:Workaround? (4, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843004)

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

Re:Workaround? (1, Informative)

illumnatLA (820383) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842474)

So are they barred from playing public domain music as well then? What about classical?

Recordings of classical music are copyrighted by the group performing the piece... e.g. the L.A. Philharmonic's recorded performance of a Beethoven composition is copyrighted by the LA Phil.

Also, many classical scores have been 'arranged' by someone. The person who did that particular arrangement of Beethoven's composition holds the copyright to the arrangement.

So yeah... Beethoven's score is public domain, but a bunch of other stuff happens that makes classical music technically not public domain.

Re:Workaround? (4, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842968)

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? (2, Informative)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842952)

They aren't barred, they are charged a royalty based upon "number of chairs", which is not the same as "seating capacity". (at least that was the standard 20 years ago). Theoretically, they have "sampled" what you play to have an idea of which artists get a tiny, tiny cut of the royalties they charge you. The majority of the money they collect goes to "expenses". It is a racket, and I have no idea who you have to blow if you are a musician and you want a decent cut of "royalties".

In reality, most clubs play music subject to royalties, which is all fine and good, but they really don't know what you play so they guess and give it to the artists they want to give it to, although that is offset by the fact that very little collected goes to anyone except their executive staff as pay and bonuses. And they will bulldog you if you don't pay. And if you claim you don't play music that they collect for, they *can* sue if they can demonstrate otherwise, so most clubs just pay to avoid the hassle. A decent size club used to pay around $1500-$2000 annually back in 1990, it is likely higher now.

Re:Workaround? Fight back. (2, Informative)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842856)

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 [csmonitor.com]

Here's "one" illigitimate claim, can't tell if it's the same one:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1823043352.shtml [techdirt.com]

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 [viewnews.com]

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 [blogspot.com]

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 [woodpecker.com]

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.

Re:Workaround? Fight back. (2, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843056)

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

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.

spark@cbc.ca (0, Flamebait)

gagol (583737) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842274)

Send your concerns to spark@cbc.ca. Slashdotting their mail server would be appropriate.

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.

Re:spark@cbc.ca (1)

Chaonici (1913646) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842304)

> Send your concerns to spark@cbc.ca. Slashdotting their mail server would be appropriate.

Um, no? My understanding of the matter is that CBC itself is imposing the restriction on programs such as Spark. I don't think Spark itself is guilty of anything here, so they don't deserve to take any heat.

Re:spark@cbc.ca (1)

wes33 (698200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842316)

With all my **hearth** I hope this will open your eyes.

no ... I expect with all the smoke you'll just blind them :)

Re:spark@cbc.ca (1)

gagol (583737) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842328)

I am a frenchie... that you found only one misspelling is very good news to my ears.

Re:spark@cbc.ca (1, Informative)

Chaonici (1913646) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842354)

that you found only one misspelling is very good news to my ears.

Unfortunately...

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.

Re:spark@cbc.ca (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842670)

Don't worry about it. Your English is much better than the French of most people on this site. Furthermore, if you pay much attention, you'll notice that at least a quarter* of all replies on this site are from grammar/spelling/other nazi's slamming other native speakers for some infraction of the rules of English language, whether real or imagined.

* That's a W.A.G. -- "wild guess" -- that I completely made up for the sake of a point rather than technical accuracy. "[Citation Needed]" posts need not reply.

Re:spark@cbc.ca (1)

gagol (583737) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842782)

Well, I am kind of a Grammar Nazi with my french. In fact I can proofread, correct and reformulate a text for a given public. I take very positively the criticism about languages and try to make it better. I am also learning a bit of Espanol by myself... But right now, I am just pissed off about this particular CBC issue. I think we should just shut it down and sell the assets. 50 years ago it was the only channel available, it is now Entertainment is too pervasive in our society anyway.

Really, Slashdot? (0, Offtopic)

Chaonici (1913646) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842278)

This anonymous reader just copied the text straight from Michael Geist's post and it gets put on the front page, whereas my submission [slashdot.org] , 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*

Re:Really, Slashdot? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842290)

That's one reason why I rarely submit anything -_-;;

Re:Really, Slashdot? (0, Redundant)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842362)

You think it is a negative term? Did it make you sad? Do you need a hug so you can feel better about yourself?

Or you could grow the fuck up, Nancy.

Re:Really, Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842458)

Feel all big and important now that you've insulted some random stranger on the Internet? I hope so, because I'd like to think that selling out what little dignity I'd afford a random Internet stranger was worth at least a little something. If anyone's a "Nancy" here, it's not the GP, it's the guy who says what you did hidden behind only a username. How does it feel, wuss?

Re:Really, Slashdot? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842484)

It felt like I was going for a funny mod. Big words for someone without even any slashdot karma on the line.

Re:Really, Slashdot? (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842690)

I'll lay my karma on the line: It wasn't funny, and it was unnecessarily mean-spirited. Yes, this is the Internet; yes, mean-spiritedness is way too common here; no, if that's going to get your feelings hurt, you probably *shouldn't* post here. Nevertheless, it *would* be nice to see personal attacks for the purpose of a laugh replaced with just a little civility. </dream-mode>

Re:Really, Slashdot? (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842898)

I'll lay my karma on the line: It wasn't funny, and it was unnecessarily mean-spirited. Yes, this is the Internet; yes, mean-spiritedness is way too common here; no, if that's going to get your feelings hurt, you probably *shouldn't* post here. Nevertheless, it *would* be nice to see personal attacks for the purpose of a laugh replaced with just a little civility.

This is where I re-post the original, only this time it's funny because of the juxtaposition.

Re:Really, Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842758)

I thought it was pretty funny, but my karma machine only takes quarters and I'm outta coin ATM.

Re:Really, Slashdot? (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842410)

since when are any posts thrown out for redundancy? ;)

Canaduh (4, Informative)

diodeus (96408) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842294)

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.

Re:Canaduh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842942)

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.

I should correct that for you. The "Oil sands of Alberta provide an enormous economic benefit and a marginal ecological challenge. With the guiding hand of Mr. Harper (aka, The Great Leader), the possible environmental damage has been reversed into an 'evolutionary' opportunity for all the fauna and flora in the region! Furthermore, the carbon footprint of the oil sands projects have been declining* every year thanks to the Conservative government's careful planning and stringent enforcement of environmental laws!"

* - as measured on the Carbon Intensity (TM) index

Hm..... (0, Troll)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842392)

... Think "anonymous" are looking for new targets.... ^_~

Digging a little deeper.... (4, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842404)

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.

Re:Digging a little deeper.... (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842462)

that, and I was also wondering since I don't know how their podcast system works... when you submit a podcast, or sign up to be an author, do you sign something that gives them some (possibly commercial) rights to the material you submit? In that case it would be incompatible to submit a CC licensed work?

Lots of (shady and even not so shady) online forums are that way, little do you know when you use their service to distribute something, that you're signing away a chunk of your rights and they can do what they please with your content.

Re:Digging a little deeper.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842672)

Creative Commons stuff that is explicitly not licensed for commercial use is also explicitly marked as Non-Commercial (i.e. CC NC [creativecommons.org] ). Furthermore, by default commercial usage is permitted so all they'd have to do is look for the NC clause. It really isn't that hard to figure out.

Re:Digging a little deeper.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842822)

I agree with what you're saying, but that's still what they said... that "because of the lack of a wide range of music that has a Creative Commons license allowing for commercial use, [they] made a decision to use music from [their] production library".

Re:Digging a little deeper.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33843022)

This is one of the reasons I hate the Creative Commons license suite, as it is so easy to overgeneralize what a "Creative Commons" license really means when in fact it is like a Swiss Army Knife: There are so many different license options that almost any sort of licensing regime is possible. About the only kind of license I can't make up from the various CC options is something like the Microsoft EULA.

Basically unless you very explicitly clarify what license you are talking about (and get the ire of the purists if you screw up on even a minor part like CC-by and CC-by-SA and CC-SA as three separate licenses) you can't really talk intelligently about what exactly it is that you are talking about regarding the terms of the license. I keep seeing new variants of the license all of the time that I have never heard about before which really sort of scratches my head.

The wide range of licenses can tax even the most ardent supporter of free content, so somebody new to the concept and still not sure about licensing is likely to look at the whole mess and simply see a "DANGER WILL ROBINSON" type light flash in their head and advise people to stay away from it like the plague. I don't necessarily blame those lawyers with that attitude either all things considered.

Re:Digging a little deeper.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842696)

So we can count on another winter of Anne Murray and Gordon Lightfoot [youtube.com] in the background?

Re:Digging a little deeper.... (2, Insightful)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842706)

Seriously? I've released some of my music with a CC license. While I did elect to use the CC-NC-SA license (non-commercial, share alike), that information was clearly displayed everywhere my music was posted. I haven't conducted a random sample to see how much CC-licensed commercial-allowed music is out there, but at least IME, it was easy to tell if it was NC or not.

Re:Digging a little deeper.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33843266)

From the cbc.ca website

"CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate is set out in the 1991 Broadcasting Act. CBC/Radio-Canada is accountable to all Canadians, reporting annually to Parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage."

and from their 'who we are' pdf.

"We account for our activities to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) through year-end reports and by submitting annual financial returns, and we account to the public through town hall meetings and our websites."

So, while they state they are 'acountable to all Canadians', and 'account to the public', they cut it just short to where money, and copyright, come before the publics interest of all legal available artist licensing.

Yea, I pick and chose quote but the point remains. This isn't in the publics interest. It's in the Corporations interest, and only theirs.

/American here, btw... scenario to your South isn't much better, and is going to explode at some point soon

re (0, Troll)

JohnVanVliet (945577) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842406)

Senator McCarthy: " have you ever used a cc license or ever attended gpl meatting "
poor shelp called before the comity : " yes"

history repeats

This is restraint of trade (3, Interesting)

dyfet (154716) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842436)

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.

why not just put the podcast on the net? (0, Redundant)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842450)

there's this great app called the internet, perhaps you've heard?

Jumping to conclusions! (5, Informative)

Wacky_Wookie (683151) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842522)

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! (1)

chebucto (992517) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842624)

I don't know much about CC, but from what I understand there are a dozen or so licenses, some of which allow commercial use. If they're so concerned about commercial use down the line, why on earth couldn't they just pick and choose the licenses they want to support? It really can't be that difficult.

Likewise, they could allow music with commerce-restricted CC licenses for those shows which they know will not be used for commercial purposes. This would require flagging those shows in their own library, but that's not an impossible task.

They are a public broadcaster and CBC radio is a commercial-free broadcaster, over the airwaves at least. I've never heard of any CBC radio paid-for podcasts, but IMNSHO they shouldn't exist in the first place.

Re:Jumping to conclusions! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842654)

It's still stupid - finding CC licensed music that allows commercial uses takes 2 seconds in Jamendo: just click "Music I can use for commercial purposes". And it might not be the minority, but 9300 albums isn't that small.

Re:Jumping to conclusions! (4, Interesting)

Arker (91948) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843224)

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.

The CBC sucks these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842546)

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).

CBC response (0, Redundant)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842556)

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 [www.cbc.ca]

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. "

Re:CBC response (1)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842566)

oops, someone beat me to it, mod me into redundancy's oblivion

Re:CBC response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33842910)

It would be nice if there were a "redundant without prejudice" option that would downscore the post but not affect the poster's karma. Sort of like a reverse "Funny." Even though it's a disservice to people reading at +1, I'll almost never mod down a post that was obviously being composed just as a nearly identical one appeared.

Posting AC so I don't get nuked as "Offtopic."

Even a moron in a hurry... (0, Flamebait)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842588)

...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.

Its a shame ... (2, Informative)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842686)

... Canada doesn't have a Sherman Antitrust Act [wikipedia.org] .

We could loan them ours. We're not using it.

This is a classic (0, Flamebait)

XB-70 (812342) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842768)

To understand this issue, you have to understand the CBC. Make no mistake, the CBC is NOT about freedom or doing 'what's right' etc. etc. even though it is mostly funded by taxpayer's dollars.

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!

Artists' right to choose (1)

zarozarozaro (756135) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842986)

Please, someone think about the artists' right to choose the rights associated with the rights associated with their work.

The greedy industry once again proves (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 3 years ago | (#33842990)

that it is just in it for the money and greedy.

Copyright is theft.

This is what I've been saying. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33843008)

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.

screw the CBC - support CC music! (3, Interesting)

geekd (14774) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843132)

You can start by supporting my band, all our stuff is CC licensed. Take a listen, rock / punk : http://theexperiments.com/ [theexperiments.com]

Thanks, and enjoy!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>