…about copyright and licenses.
Or rather, two. Reading back over the past couple of blogs and comments, and seeing some new stuff on Twitter has triggered a couple of postscripts.
1. What the copyright abolitionists want
I can’t speak for them but it appears they want availability and access, and they blame copyright for getting in the way. As I have said, it’s not copyright that gets in the way it’s licenses.
In fact, what the abolitionists want is happening. But it’s not happening in Big Content. The entertainment and arts media is splitting into two layers: independent, cottage industry artists (such as DIY music) on one hand and Big Content on the other.
Media stories discuss Big Content as though it’s the whole story. It isn’t.
So, somewhat ironically, at the same time as the web copyright abolitionists start laying into copyright owners for their anti-social licensing behaviour most new artists are using copyright in a completely different way. One that features availability and access.
2. A timely example of that media bias
On Friday Billboard.biz ran this story Copyright Alert System Coming Within Weeks. But it most definitely is not a copyright alert system. There can never be such a thing.
I have hundreds of copyright works and some of them are indeed online but nobody will ever get an alert about listening to or sharing my music files.
The CCI CAS system is wrongly named. It is in fact a Licensing Alert System. The fact that CAS is sponsored by a narrow group of content interests (CCI includes the RIAA but not me or thousands of other independent artists) tells us they don’t represent copyright. What they represent is their own licenses.