People // Indaba Music // Blog

Dr X, I'm convinced that you have absolutely no idea what it is that you're talking about, I think you're just spouting things out because you want to appear insightful and knowledgeable about the topic.

Dan Zaccagnino "missed your point" because you didn't actually make one.

We all signed up for this website, and so did you. If you find the contracts so oppresive then don't use the web site, otherwise you're supporting the same "regime" or what-have-you. So those are your options.

Invalidating someone;s point of view doesn't win a debate. Daniel, what is it specifically about Dr X's position that you disagree with?
Now that we've moved the discussion here, let's actually have it.

my biggest pet peeve is rudeness. I think that his comments were both unnecessary, ignorant, and yes, rude. To answer your question:

the contract isn't backwards it's actually quite straight-forward. "no one owns the music, even if you create it". If you want to suspend your ownership over something you've created that's your prerogative. I don't have a problem with that, but that's only your perspective on it. You can't impose that on others, saying that it's an absolute rule. Because other people want credit given and control over their art/work means they're behind the times? I'm only left to assume that "the big 4" are record labels? details would help. If that's the case, then remember that Radiohead still owns their music. In fact they've now signed with XL, a record label. Labels suffer because they can't get over their greed for money. What's-his-name for Motown said in an interview regarding Radiohead's decision to let people pay whatever they want, "they should be charging people MORE because their art is worth it", maybe we can agree that this is the attitude that is hurting the industry more than ownership issues? Talk about someone completely missing the point...

It is my belief that the Artist owns the music, but that does not mean that once a work is obtained and remixed then the entire work then belongs soley to the one who remixed it. That person is only responsible for a particular job, the song has not, in theory, become a whole other song. But I think that what Dr X is trying to get at is that neither party owns the music.

I can see the idealistic point of view in having free music without ownership constantly changing shape, it's an interesting concept, but that's not all across the board and you can't scorn others for not following that philosphy. Suggestion, without sarcasm: Start your own online community dedicated to a free "remix culture". There's a place to do it.

Maybe I'd join and maybe I wouldn't, because maybe I don't want my music to end up like that, maybe I like it just the way it is. And that's just like the Berklee contest. They provided us music to download and remix for a particular purpose. That's what everyone agreed to, that's what everyone did. No one seems have a problem with that, except Dr X who isn't even a contestant.

The idea behind the contest is that we remix someone else's work, for them. The issue was raised as to whether or not we can download/distribute the remixes. There is no problem with allowing users to promote their particular remix as long as proper credit is given and it's not for commercial use. This is because the music doesn't belong to me, it belongs to the people who made it and claimed ownership. I understood this when I downloaded their files and uploaded mine. So what's the problem, Dr X? I don't understand, you can make a remix, put it on your web site, and just give credit! it's all free! you just have to give credit where it's due, beyond law it's also common decency and simply respectful of others.

Indaba has already stated that future contest rules could change in light of it and I agree that Indaba is very progressive. That's the beauty of law; it's felxible, and is always subject to change. If you have a problem with something, you can argue against it and lobby for a change. I personally think that a very behind-the-times way of thinking is to be an absolutist.

I think Indaba has already replied to the comment by Dr X, covering all ground, and then covered again by Dan Z. who probably put it better than I ever could, or have here in this post.

"No one said anything about personal profit"

because no one intends to make any.

"If the work is still copyrighted under the old, antiquated regime, then you are supporting it".

Define antiquated regime.

"If you want to consider yourself forward thinking then, start to walk the walk"

A monk who claimed to be enlightened is called upon by Bodhidharma. Seeing the monk is proud, Bodhidharma tells the monk, "you have not achieved enlightenment.". Disturbed, the monk asks Bodhidharma to free his mind. "Show me your mind and I will free it for you" proclaims Bodhidharma. The monk searched for his mind, but could not find it. He returned, distressed, to Bodhidharma saying "having not found my mind I am left to assume that I have no mind", to which the Zen Master replied "Thus I have freed your mind".

My comments were intentionally flippant - but they were in no way rude. You think they are rude because I did something that no one else had done - challenge a decision you made.

I will correct my tone, so that you don't get hung up on my delivery, but rather the message I'm delivering.

Copyrights hurt artists. Period. Of course, that was not their intention, but that is what it has grown in to. Copyrights do not protect you as an independent. Why? You don't have enough money. Copyrights are a blunt tool used by corporations to retain control over someone else's work. They don't not foster innovation, but rather they stifle it.

It seems as if many of the artists participating on this this site are clueless about what copyrights really mean, and why alternatives such as Creative Commons, Copyleft, Public Domain, and others like it (GPL, etc) are the way to go. They probably don't realize the history of the Copyright rules, when our culture outgrew it, and how many artists had their own copyrights stolen, used against them, or generally bastardized.

If you care about your art, making a living from it, doing it as a hobby, or just want to see what I'm talking about, do some research on this topic, and see what side you end up on.

I personally license my art with the CC system now, and sometimes with the CL system. These allow me to selectively retain some rights, while allowing other creative people to create derivative works, and use them to promote their derivative works as their own - with a nod in my direction as the only notice given that it is even a derivative work. They can even sell their work - what does it harm me? I get free promotion! Sounds like win-win to me.

See the heart of the matter is one of outlook:

Scarcity vs Abundance thinking.

Scarcity thinking says "I only have a certain amount of creative output in me, and must protect every inch of it"

Abundance thinking says "The more I give away the more I'll get. There is no end to my creativity, and I can always create more"

Copyrights were created in a time when resources were scarce - Books were expensive to reproduce, and bootlegs would cannibalize the market for the originals. That is no longer the case in the day and age when users can copy and paste and the original work is neither harmed nor reduced.

In other words you can't use up a work of art.

What I was advocating for this contest, was the use of more liberal licensing. Not the blunt end of your copyrights. How many of you actually read the terms and conditions before starting to work on your Mix?

Probably not too many hands are raised, huh?

Did you notice this part of those terms?

" ... the Sponsor owns the Submission(s) ... "

Congrats! All of you just gave your copyrights away. I don't know... Maybe you don't consider the version you did as your own work of art, and hence didn't think they were a copyright that you owned.

To be fair they do go on to say:
" ... the Sponsor and the applicable Contestant may use the Submission(s) for non-commercial purposes outside of the Contest without the permission of the other party so long as, in connection with each non-commercial use, the Sponsor and the contestant make appropriate attribution to each other. ... "

This is almost identical to the CC-BY-NC License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/

Except that before they did that - they OWNED YOUR DERIVATIVE WORK. Even before it was created. And every one who submitted a track, gave them up with out a fight.

This is something that the CC License doesn't do. It doesn't want to own the works you create from the originals - and yet "The Sponsors" (the term used in the "burdensome legalese" to describe a couple of musicians, and school for musicians) - Sorry, JoLynn - but there is no other way to describe the language of the contest rules - written by the legal counsel of Berklee more than likely - would still get to stipulate how the derivative works could be used (in this case for non-commercial purposes). And do so without trampling the rights of the participants to own the works they create.

We've outgrown the Copyright System. It only serves copyright holders, not the artists. Seek other ways of licensing your art, and you will be rewarded. It is my hope that sites like this would lead by example - instead of propping up a dying system. This, Dan, is what I mean by the old Regime. You took it personal - instead of stepping back and trying to figure out what I was getting at. But it got your attention, and I hope that this message will inspire you all to get real about the nature of copyrights and then choose for yourself whether or not to buy into the old system, or to work with the freaks, the geeks, and the renegades in forming a new basis for sharing our works with the world, and allowing it to inspire remixes, and other great art - art that stands on its own two feet - independent of whatever source it may have drawn its inspiration (and possibly even the whole basis) from.

Hello again, and thanks for the comments. I just want to point out a few things and then I'll respectfully bow out of this conversation.

First, dr.xnlb+ is exactly right, the use of derivative works that we stipulated are almost identical to the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 license. We would have prefered to just call it that, but in this case, the artists providing the tracks wanted it spelled out this way and that's what was necessary to make this opportunity available. I'm happy it was and that we were all able to use tracks from such great artists. That's the end of the story - this is what we had to do to get the artists the protection they felt they needed. We didn't decide that and Berklee didn't decide that and I feel some of these comments are misdirected at these two organizations who are both striving to help artists make a better living in the future.

The obtruse legalese referenced is there to protect you, protect the artists, and protect Indaba under the best terms reachable in a certain situation (and was most certainly not written by Berklee). If something goes wrong and that language is not clear then there is a chance that this whole community goes away. That doesn't seem very progressive, does it? We do what we have to do because we live with the same outdated laws you do and we're trying to appease a number of parties here.

I understand, and largely agree, with many of the points made by dr.xnlb + , but we acknowledged that up front and said that we would do our best to remedy this type of situation next time. I don't agree that if we couldn't do that then this contest wasn't worth doing.

I also don't agree that we don't walk the walk of musical progression and, while I don't think you were being rude and take no offense to your comments (it's a passionate subject!). I do, however, feel like you have undervalued what I've spent the last three years of my life working hard on and assume that you know where we stand on such issues because of one example which was largely out of our control... I am a strong supporter of CC and I donate to them personally. We are trying to create a more fair place for musicians to work together in new and interesting ways where they feel comfortable putting their music online and that's a challenge and we hope you help us with it (as you are!).

My only other comment, for everyone, is that I think there is often a significant oversimplification of the legal system in the mind of our generation of digital musicians. There are a lot more challenges to think through with copyright than are often suggested and, while it needs to be updated, severely, I don't think that removing legality from who owns what is the answer. CC was created because the current legal system can't move fast enough to keep up with the demands of copyright law in music and other media and it doesn't allow for sharing of rights, etc. Nevertheless, these choices to share or retain works are still the choice of the artist and I don't even think people at CC would say that standard copyright should be destroyed for people who choose not to share their rights (although I agree that I think people should). This is a challenging time and there are other business questions artists have to answer for themselves before they decide if standard copyright, a CC license, or public domain is in their best interest. These things can work together and they have different pros and cons and can change as the business of music changes. I've done a fair amount of legal work and research into the topic working on behalf of independent artists, artists on Virgin Records, Capitol Records, and others represented by Proskauer Rose, LLP and after spending years learning about copyright law I can assure you that it is not nearly as simple as it is suggested here and the future of how ownership works, who controls it, and how people profit off of it needs many minds thinking openly about it to come up with the solution. CC is the best step in my mind and is an incredible organization.

Anyway, I offer all of this with the most sincere intentions and I would prefer if the conversation continued in a more positive and open way - we can all learn from one another here. It's your community and we're excited to build it out with whatever features you want, in any way you want. The most helpful thing you can do it talk to us and tell us what you want to see here. Feel free to send me a message anytime with ideas, concerns, or feature requests. That's all for me, thanks!

Can you shed just a little more light on some of your comments, Dan?

- - - -

Dan Said:

"The obtruse legalese referenced is there to protect you, protect the artists, and protect Indaba under the best terms reachable in a certain situation (and was most certainly not written by Berklee). "

Who wrote the terms? And why were they this way or the contest couldn't be done? This is still unclear at this point - and I think would forward the conversation in a positive way.

Dan Said:
"If something goes wrong and that language is not clear then there is a chance that this whole community goes away. That doesn't seem very progressive, does it?"

Well that is a huge worst case scenario. And only when the parties involved are going to get uppity about the terms and wants to be litigious.

Dan Said:
"We do what we have to do because we live with the same outdated laws you do..."

Statements like this seem there wasn't any other options - and perhaps there weren't in this case. "The Sponsors" obviously had a fear that some how the value of the contest to them would be compromised by anything less than total ownership of the music given, and received.

And then there is the value to you - New Sign-Ups and renewed community activity. I wasn't a member before Mic Mell invited me to vote for his track. Being long time friends with him - I was willing to jump through this hoop to try to help him win the Berklee course. I even spent some of my day yesterday setting up my Indaba profile and adding some of my own tracks to your system.

"... and we're trying to appease a number of parties here."

Well that never works. :)
More about that here, at least from a web app perspective: http://gettingreal.37signals.com/

Dan said:
"...I don't agree that if we couldn't do that then this contest wasn't worth doing."

I never meant to really imply that, but it does bring to light - what is more important? Furthering the copyfight, or giving in to corporate sponsors? The bottom line is that this contest was influenced by business decisions on all the parties putting this on - including you. Now I'm not saying that this is some how wrong to do that - trust me, I'm not talking out of my ass here - this is what I do for a living ( http://xentek.net ). Which is why it was probably more obvious to me than most about how these promotions work, and the motivations behind them.

Really, my only beef was the use of - in my opinion - draconian terms to run a contest - in light of ALL the alternatives. I realize that the value you saw this contest bringing you outweighed the consequence of you playing by some one else's rules. But the beef is more with the concept of a copyright, how it affects musicians and artists, then with your site/contest choosing to use them. Especially when you admit that the sponsors didn't give you any other option if you wanted to run the contest. I can only imagine the conflict between your personal belief and monetary support of CC and choosing to play ball and go with (C) - and I genuinely hope that you got all the value you were seeking.

"a significant oversimplification of the legal system in the mind of our generation of digital musicians"

I too have done my homework, and your forum was not the ideal place to fully explain all of the complexities - in fact I told people to do research on their own in my comment, largely because there are many sides to this issues - and none of them truth - some are just more truthy then others ;)\

And while my writing style is very opinionated and often absolutist sounding - I never purport to know everything about anything.

"A wise man is not the person who knows everything, but the person who knows everything he doesn't know."

In the future, I invite you to stand for CC being used on your site, in your contests, and giving the users to mark their tracks as such when they upload them to their profiles. Sure Berklee or other sponsors may walk when you don't want to play ball with them - but the more independents to stand for CC, the more it will be used, taken seriously, and in the long run help get the Copyright laws revised for all options.

love,
dr.xnlb

- - -

P.S. - I just caught your buddhist story in your other post. :)

dr.xnlb = doktor xenlab = zen lab

I'm a doubly ordained clergy man - a multi-faith spiritual humanist with an atheist streak and a 13 year background in Zen Buddhist study and the practice of No Mind. I thought that was interesting, as you probably didn't realize that when you quoted that at me. :)

Oh and one more thing - I think you've built a great platform, and applaud the hard work you and your team have put into this site. My comments weren't meant to detract from the value your site provides, but to provoke thought around an issue that I feel sites like this could be promoting more - especially when their founders are aware of and believe in them.

Compromise is a bitch, isn't it?

ha, i must of pasted that in by accident. well, obviously i did. i was doing two things at once. that's what i get. well, no of course it wasn't directed at you. I'm also a Zen practitioner, though I don't typically boast about it.

Hello All,

Important post here, please read.

We don't want to stop the conversation about CC and ownership of music because we think it has value for everyone, but we do want to propose a solution to this particular issue that we think will solve many of the issues we have been discussing about this particular contest.

We've discussed this question internally and we have decided to update the terms of this contest to more clearly represent what our intentions were all along while still remaining consistent with what the contestants, artists, and organizations agreed to. While the terms under which you can use the submissions will not change in any way (non-commercial use only and you must acknowledge the other artists involved), we have updated the ownership status so that each individual owns their own submission, subject to the other terms stipulated. The only change is that rather than Indaba "owning" the submission, it is owned by the contestant and licensed under Creative Commons. We hope this addresses the raised in this discussion and we are glad that we were able to bring your questions and concerns to the other necessary parties and get such a positive response from them. If there are any questions whatsoever about the following terms please message Dan (http://www.indabamusic.com/people/dan) directly and he will be more than happy to discuss them with you. Otherwise, let's continue the conversation about ownership and music in this crazy digital world! For more information about Creative Commons and the licenses we are discussing here check out www.creativecommons.org. We appreciate your support as well as your willingness to help us shape this community and are excited to see where it goes next!

"LICENSES AND RIGHTS: Contest participants shall have the right to add to, alter and otherwise modify the tracks named above and provided on the Contest Page to create Submission(s). All submissions are hereby licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 license. The Sponsor and contestant may use the Submission(s) for non-commercial purposes outside of the Contest without the permission of the other party so long as, in connection with each non-commercial use, the Sponsor and the contestant make appropriate attribution to each other. The Sponsor and the applicable Contestant must seek and obtain the written permission of the other party in order to modify this license in any way. By entering the Contest, you agree to the terms of this paragraph and to the entirety of the Official Rules."

My work here is done. Thanks for taking the plunge and standing up for what you believe.

Kudos to all involved - from the sponsors to the the creators of this site.