The American society of authors tries to prohibit a free content

Organization ASCAP (the American society of composers, authors and publishers) has extended among the members the letter (part1, part2) in which has declared fund raising which it it is planned to route for struggle against such organizations as Creative Commons, EFF, Public Knowledge and others, supporting movement for content freeware distribution.

“Today, – the letter says, – we face the most serious challenge ever to confront us. Many forces in the face of Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and the techno-companies with deep pockets mobilizes to promote the so-called” Copyleft “the replacement of our Copyright. They call themselves defenders of the rights of consumers, but the truth is that they do not want to pay for use of our music. Their mission is to announce that our music should be free.”

Drew Wilson, the observer of site ZeroPaid, explains substantive provisions of license Creative Commons in connection with this campaign ASCAP. License Creative Commons does not attack the authors protecting the products by the copyright. This license helps authors, its accepting, to advance the products in the market. Creative Commons is a median approach to the copyrights, the given license gives the chance to tell clearly that the consumer can also that cannot make with a content. If Creative Commons encroached on copyrights, it would not have value of the license and would not have force. Under this license products of the author who has selected this license, instead of products someone another extend.

The copyright, in the today’s form, has become outdated and does not respond conditions of the digital environment, it belongs to times when music could not be extended in electronic form. Many actors (for example, 50 cent) consider that the free model of distribution of music is a form of marketing. The young actor, for example, which is very much needed audience interested in that as many as possible people to listen to his music, as well as he does not want people to feel that they pirates downloading his music.

Therefore the young actor goes on site Creative Commons and selects a suitable variant of the license. In the license some questions are set, for example, whether the author wishes to allow to do by another remixes of its products or obviously prohibits any modifications; whether usage in commercial objectives and so on is authorized. The total result in the form of the block with a code can be placed on a site or simply to specify the link to it in archive with music. Creative Commons is very popular way of free distribution of music, but it is a choice of the author of this music.

What would happen if ASCAP somehow managed to put a Creative Commons outlaw? This would narrow the choice actor on the set of “copyright (all rights reserved), creative commons (some rights reserved) and public domain, that is public domain (no rights reserved)” a choice between “copyright (all rights reserved) and “public domain (no rights reserved). Any attempt to silence the Creative Commons is an attempt to impose censorship on artists. “Because these events occur in the U.S. and if this call for war will develop further, the situation could become interesting. At this stage it is difficult to say whether this will result ill-considered letter to something bigger, it’s hard.”

This entry was posted on Friday, July 2nd, 2010 at 12:34 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.