Fwd: [A2k] Warner Music is almost there

[Sherwin Siy]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Just to be clear: PK has not endorsed this specific plan. While we've
commented favorably on efforts by WMG to move forward (
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1487), it's a bit of a stretch to say
that this particular program is something we now support.

We like the idea of collective licenses, but we haven't seen, much less
signed off on, the particulars of this program, and as Philippe mentions,
there are many issues that ought to be resolved.


Best,
Sherwin


On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Philippe Aigrain <
philippe.aigrain@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Enjoy. Philippe
>
> http://paigrain.debatpublic.net/?p=3D495&lp_lang_view=3Den
>
> Numerama reports that Warner Music Group proposes to put in place a form =
of
> blanket licensing for music sharing in the US. This time, it is for good:
> there are limits to the scheme, but the proposal is a true revolution for
> the
> music industry. Thus, comments must be constructive and aiming at bringin=
g
> the WMG proposal to a stage where it an be implemented, generalized and
> bringing all the possible benefits for creativity and cultural diversity.
>
> Let's first recall what are the main characteristics of WMG's proposal: i=
t
> is
> a blanket licensing to universities (and only them) in exchange for the
> payment of a fee per student ("all or none"). The license does not give
> usage
> rights to students but only a covenant not to sue them for access and
> sharing
> usage. WMG wants all catalogs included, including the independents.
> Distribution would be on the basis of measures by universities (using a
> variety of possible mechanisms, apparently open to experimental ones alon=
g
> the line of those I suggest to use in the chapter 9 of Internet &
> Creation).
> It would be transmitted to a non-for-profit organization where right
> holders
> would be represented, including the independents.
>
> WMG also states:
>
>    We are open-minded as regards our non-commercial voluntary blanket
> license
> solution, for which we're assembling all rights (sound recording and
> publishing) from all four big music companies and the independents
>
> This opening must be praised. WMG states that its offer is already
> supported
> by EFF and Public Knowledge. Without further ado, I suggest a few
> adaptations
> to the proposal:
>
>    * Distribution is fine, but to whom? Right holders or artists? At leas=
t,
> there should be some minimum standard of artist remuneration put in place=
,
> and this standard should be a significant share of the total: after all,
> artists do the creative work and students and universities will do the
> distribution work. So publishers should only get for what they do.
>    * Clarify that works that are voluntary shared, for instance under CC
> licenses, will also benefit from the redistribution. More generally open
> the
> mechanism to all works under the principle of extended collective license=
s.
>    * Why just universities and students? It is evident that such a
> mechanism
> wil extend to all publics as soon as it exists (the contrary would be
> discriminatory).
>    * Why just music, the benefit of the approach will be much greater if =
it
> includes other media. But if one wants to start experimenting with just
> music, why not, as long as compulsory DRM and compulsory filtering are
> banned
> overall from the start. Warner is clearly open to this : "Our approach
> leads
> other media and makes music the canary in the mine =97 music sets a prece=
dent
> that video, text, graphics and others can and will follow".
>    * Why not take the occasion to put in place better funding schemes for
> future works?
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>



--
Sherwin Siy
Staff Attorney
Public Knowledge
202.518.0020