David Gerard wrote: > On 26 June 2010 11:53, <wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > The point of my post was, of course, that ASCAP are attempting to > apply pressure to Congress to outlaw the licence most Wikimedia > content is released under (by its creators). >
I don't suspect that is correct for one moment, and there is nothing to suggest such FUD in their letter. They are talking about THEIR copyright and that "these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of *our* music". The music that is predominately listened to on the internet is not CC licensed you'll be hard pressed to find any CC licensed music that is in the top 40 of any chart or of any of the most popular downloads on a pirate site either. CC licensed music is not what is drawing eyeballs to youtube, and its not the background music that starts playing when you visit a MySpace page. Undoubtedly one can find plenty of startup groups distributing their music under a CC license and best of luck to them. But the majority of the music you hear isn't under a CC license, do CC licenses have any thing other than zero effect on the music market place? I suspect not. What CC licenses do in the music industry is give an excuse to justify downloading music from P2P networks. I recall Charles Nesson making just such a claim no more that a month a go "Penalizing innocent infringers for downloading music blights creators of music who want to freely distribute their music." http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/05/peer-to-peer-defendant-seeks-supreme.html?showComment=1275013139245#c2634227307833538599 I doubt the local basement startup band actually needs to distribute 5MB songs over a p2p network. That the bandwidth used would hardly trouble their hosting site. Its such nonsense by Nesson and others at PK and the EFF that ASCAP want to counter. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l