In our ongoing quest to help lay the foundations for a modern and fair way to redistribute royalties collected in your name, Younison is currently talking with many policymakers at the highest level in the EU commission.
We hear from all sides that there is a lack of knowledge from the artists, which leaves only collecting societies having a voice when it comes to decision making.
The result is this - while the EU Commission wants to write a law that gives authors a better set of rights and should make a real modern pan-EU copyright management system possible - it's the collecting societies that are blocking any progress, fearing that any change will affect their own interests and profits!
The EU is planning on releasing a first draft of the law by the end of this year, and is asking all artists to voice their personal concerns and opinions before finalising its work. A few moments of your time could mean a world of difference.
Please share this link with all your artist friends, because every voice counts!
4. How should the EU handle the problem of free filesharing over the internet:
8 replies added
On 2010-10-8 at 10:32 vincentnoiret said:
This is the first time i've been informed about the new law being written, i am surprised!
On 2010-10-8 at 10:53 friendlyfires said:
are they really working on a EU approach?
artists are known to be disinterested , but not even letting me know about it is really out of line
On 2010-10-8 at 11:34 bonusk said:
let it be noted that we never are consulted on anything that could change the system for the better.
crumbs are what is in it for us
On 2010-10-8 at 12:40 Alla said:
Thank you very much for your activities.
Here,in Russia, at the moment I’m preparing to launch a project “Music for Business†– first commercial service in Russia for business sector operates in public places.
We use “Automated reporting system for performance of phonograms in public placesâ€. This system was especially created for this project.
This system allows:
1. playing phonograms, licensed on direct Agreements with right holders.
2. recording and tracking the information about phonograms played
3. creating the “transparent†reporting system and enable charging and payment of remuneration to the right holders.
Our potential clients use a huge amount of musical content not only Russian music but also foreign musical compositions. Currently we are making direct licensing agreements with the Russian right holders. And very welcome foreign right holders to join our project.
All our attempts to find a right way of cooperation with Russian collective societies failed. Main reason - non-transparent system of their activity. They don't want to be clear and transparent because of the above mentioned reasons.
On 2010-12-11 at 18:49 TheMicronauts said:
For question 4 "How should the EU handle the problem of free filesharing over the internet", I answered "other - ...suggestions below" so I suppose this is where I should write my suggestions:
I'm all for an ISP tax but it's not sufficient. People are paying loads of money to have internet acces. And they want it because thanks to that, they have access to a lot of free content.
So all companies which are making billions by selling goods or services allowing internet access should be taxed to pay all the creators. That's the ISP, but that's also hardware manufacturers (Apple was moribond ten years ago and has now $50 billions on the bank), Google, etc.
On 2010-12-11 at 19:02 TheMicronauts said:
I'm not sure to get what question 3 is about. Is it the ability for a recording owner to license the same track to a Engish label and a German label for instance?
On 2011-3-24 at 00:05 FiziWorks said:
For question 4:
I think it should be an education campaign, but not to emphasize (again) legal repercussions about file sharing.
The problem is that no one on the Audience side is sympathetic with the production labels but roughly everyone is sympathetic with the Artist / Independent Audiovisual Producer for the added value a "Creation" represents to people's lives. Not the "Distribution" of it.
At question 2, so far 100% of the respondents have answered it is similar to a black hole how payments are calculated by collecting societies. The same is true for the role of distributors in the audiovisual industry and how is calculated what is paid to producers. I am more experienced in the audiovisual sector but the principle I think stays the same, and audiences understand this too:
In the Cultural Sector approximately 90% of revenues get distributed to "Facilitators" whilst "Creators" receive only 10% or less. To me is the main feeding ground for piracy and in this equation perhaps even justified as well?
The appreciation of Audiences is not in the distribution or facilitation of a work, but in the creation and performance of the work itself. And therefore obstacles that are in between Audiences and Creators, and Creators with Audiences, should move away. Audiences are already doing so, the Analogue word for this is "piracy". Now Internet offers Creators the same and they should (some are) meet the Audiences halfway, let's call this in Analogue terms "divorce"?
Any education campaign in the future directed at Audiences should be focused on the "coming out" of Creators and the announcement of divorce with obscure institutes as collecting societies, and propose an independent business plan for Digital relations between Creators and Audience.
On 2011-3-24 at 17:11 FiziWorks said:
Just in: 13 Record Companies suing Limewire for $75 Trillion. Planet's entire money supply is $75.75 trillion. http://bit.ly/f5fp3q.
And it is a mystery why Audiences don't want to fund these organizations anymore?
This is absurd of course and entirely counter-productive. Audiences will respond. It's an act of desperation of an Analogue industry that is dying.
I recommend an article written by John Perry Barlow, last updated in 1993, but is still as current as if it would be written in 2020. It's "The Economy of Ideas" and basically boils down to that legislation is too slow and that enforcement is too complicated. Internet is a global market place and doesn't lend itself to be bound by Analogue legislation. Link: http://bit.ly/epQq4u
Ones again, it is not about the Creators, it's the Facilitators in between of Creators and Audiences that are causing an increasing dissatisfaction on both sides, and Audiences already no longer want to comply.
Creators could do themselves a great favour by meeting Audiences half way, bypassing Analogue Facilitators, and enter into a direct co-partnership with Audiences. Digital provides all. And now I am done pleading.
Log in
If you want to leave your thoughts here, you have to login first!
