A Licence for Filesharing
24.03.2004
Independent musicians who want to offer their songs on P2P networks can now get the legal backing for it.

"Do you want people to redistribute your songs, as long as they give you credit?
Do you want fans to share your recordings, so long as they don't make money off them?
Provided they don't remix or change them?
Do you want to help create and have access to a pool of royalty-free music?”

This is how a website called Creative Commons introduces a new filesharing-licence, which allows authors and musicians to distribute their songs on P2P sites, whilst legally protecting them from commercial exploitation.

Creative Commons is a US based nonprofit organisation, which wants to help authors receive more creative freedom with the relevant legal protection. The modular design of the licensing programme allows musicians and other authors to compile an individual list of rules, which they want to protect their material.

The new Filesharing licence combines some of these rules and adds case sensitive aspects to it with regard to the handling of music. And thus songs released under this new licence are allowed to be: copied by private users, distributed on P2P networks, be broadcast on radio shows. But they can not be sampled or commercially exploited.

The new licence by Creative Commons was introduced last week, at the South by Southwest Music Conference (SWSX) in Austin, Texas.
(source: www.mp3-world.net)

Followed the link but it was in German.

This is a good idea, but it has the same drawback as everything else...

I can post the CC license on my website right next to the rest of the wording that makes it specifically clear that this activity is allowed.

But once it is on P2P, how do the downloaders tell the difference -- not to mention the RIAA, FBI, DOJ and the rest of the rabid dogs trying to criminalize the independent distribution system?

"be broadcast on radio shows"

So advertisers can make money off them?

I thought we already had a system able to do this.

On Bearshare they have various groupings that you can Access ie. Artist, Games & Software.

Perhaps it would be as simple as setting up an area on each P2P site exclusively for those those using the CC license.

well yes the Gnutella and Gnutella 2 communities could easily add anothe schema to the meta search, and all we have to do is like i said b4 is put some acknoledgement on a meta tage of the file indicating that is is non riaa content.

Long live P2P, die Orin Hatch and you stupid PIRATE act

Actually on second thought it would be kind of cool to have a special designation for share-able stuff, then there would be a commitment in place. A little better than having the artist say one thing and the label say another.

It would be great to be able to identify Non-RIAA stuff on the various P2P sites, it would make it much easier to avoid this material and adhere to the Boycott.

I believe if most filesharers had a way to accurately identify RIAA artist while on the P2P sites, they would gladly avoid downloading same. If they don't want us to share their material, we should be happy to oblige, why give the people who will sue us any exposure.

Indeed I believe before any legislation is passed in regard to more legal action against filesharers, the RIAA and other such organizations, should be required to tag their material such that it is readily identifiable on P2P sites, downloaders could readily identify the files to be avoided.

Too bad such music is still illegal to share. Using precedent (USA) and basic math, the odds of a randomly created song being non-infringing is only 1 in 212. The URL for the proof is below, and while it is a slashdot journal, the math looks good.

http://slashdot.org/~yerricde/journal/36125

George, CC has made some noise in the past about meta-tags and such, but you are right, even CC meta-tagged song files would not be enough to alert the average user that the song was in the clear. Were we independents all made to stick circle "CC" on our works, it would only serve the industry by giving them ability to sue for p2p filesharing of all non "CC" licence identified files. It would strengthen the RIAA's arguement to make file-sharing illegal by strengthening the PERCEPTION of their words "legitimate" and "illegitimate" that they are trying to make the public swallow.

I am very happy with 99 percent of the work Mr. Lessig and Creative Commons does. If we could get the "CC" to replace "C" entirely, it would be a good thing indeed. But "CC" mearly as an alternative to "C" is not enough, and could be turned on us judo style.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!