Each week on Spark, Nora mentions that the show is made with Creative Commons music. But we’ve never really talked about what that means. So on the April 30th episode of Spark, Amber Mac will explain Creative Commons in a nutshell: what it is, why it matters, and how it affects you.
FYI, it’s because of Creative Commons music that the version of Spark you can download as a podcast is exactly the same show that goes over the air. If we used commercial music in our show, that would be impossible.
Every week, we post links to the music and sound effects in the show notes. Like something you heard? Chances are, you can download a copy for free. Most of what you hear comes from these great online CC communities:
Do you use Creative Commons media? Have any good CC sites to share?
Original photo by BotheredByBees.
Not only do I use Creative Commons media, I create such media!
Every one of my properties on my website, which is linked to the main page at 50webs.com, has been released under the Creative Commons Share-Alike Attribution License.
I am a strong advocate for the freedom to share, the freedom to collaborate, the freedom to access whatever we create, not to mention the money we save, especially in these hard economic times.
I’ll note that during Nora’s interview with me this week on “Spark,” you can hear some of my Creative Commons licensed music in the background. The particular track is called “Striking Silver,” and you can download it free here:
http://www.penmachine.com/podcast/audio/Entries/2007/12/19_Striking_Silver.html
I’ve recently discovered this nice ambient online radio station that only plays CC music:
http://www.stillstream.com/
And let me say thanks again to the Spark team for playing some of my stuff too!
The commentary by noted copyright scholar Amber Mac was factually inaccurate in numerous respects (arguably violating CBC’s journalistic guidelines) and amounted to straight-up Creative Commons propaganda. In retrospect, this to be expected, given that the title of this post claims that _Spark_ ? Creative Commons.
_Spark_ ? Creative Commons so much (as does _Search Engine_) that producers at neither program cannot even *see* that such support amounts to a point of view. An opposing point of view has to be aired, too. You seemed to be happy to get two points of view on the topic of net neutrality. Why not this?
Let me venture a guess: Because who in their right mind could possibly be opposed to Creative Commons? Have I got that right? Is that why the report was one-sided?
@ Joe Clark,
The idea of Creative Commons being loved by many is more of economics rather than propaganda.
The use of commercial media on your blog, for instance, requires permission from the author, and possibly royalty payments, which could mount into the hundreds of dollars. Imaging having to account for that in YOUR blog budget!
I love Creative Commons for the implicated freedoms when it comes to usage of the material, not just the economics.
Who might be against Creative Commons? Anyone with an unlimited budget for media creation as to the time and money needed to obtain licenses, pay attorney fees (which could amount to the thousands of dollars), not to mention the legal headaches of worrying about whether you are infringing on someone’s copyright or not.
Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions, but who would be against this kind of freedom anyway?
I love Creative Commons just as much as most everyone else here on this show, and my website and its associated properties are all released on Creative Commons. I have developed this site on a shoestring budget since July 1996, and have always used Creative Commons, and I live in the States.
Anyone may use “commercial media” under the terms of the Copyright Act. There is no distinction between “commercial” and other media; perhaps you’re thinking of U.S. fair use, which doesn’t exist here.
The Act is missing some necessary components – a parody exception would certainly help – but it is merely a reiteration of Amber Mac’s falsehood to claim that copyrighted works are locked up like jewels in an opaque display case, awaiting Larry Lessig’s magic wand to make them available to the impoverished. Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.
I don’t think you’ve spent much time actually reading my blog, Horneker. And having American citizens dictating Canadian copyright law is a problem, not a solution. In case you think the MPAA and RIAA are the chief malefactors in that regard, keep in mind that Creative Commons is so thoroughly an American concept it had to be rejigged to make it barely passably legal under Canadian law. (Don’t know what I’m talking about? Look up moral rights.)
Nora,
I suspect you already noticed that one of the copyright lobbiest groups have spread FUD about your use of Creative Commons music for the show — see it at http://www.creatorscopyright.ca
This is an umbrella group of creator groups who largely like the way that copyright and the cultural industries worked before the Internet, and often promote policies which would either back us up or otherwise remove the benefits of new media.
I blogged about this issue yesterday as well, referencing your show and this issue.
Recognizing a policy problem doesn’t suggest agreement on solutions
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4650
Joe Clark,
According to your logic, having a podcast at all is promoting a specific point of view and shouldn’t be allowed by the CBC.
Considering an opposing “point of view” is expressed by other media companies through the lack of a podcast, or the use of “DRM” policy http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4654 to make the files less usable, this should allow the CBC to provide some level of balance.
By the way, I am the non-lawyer that first alerted the Canadian lawyers doing the localization of the Creative Commons licenses to Canadian law about the Moral Rights conflict. You can check the archives of the lists, or the folks at Creative Commons Canada to verify this if you wish.
While I don’t think Creative Commons is perfect, it is providing a critically important service of having license agreements which non-lawyers can understand and apply to their works (or use the works of others with a level of certainty).
Copyright law is excessively complex, and in need of clarification and simplification — the opposite of the direction proposed by recent governments. I have heard actual copyright scholars and lawyers make what I consider to be as many mistakes as you accuse of Amber. Considering Amber isn’t a lawyer and hasn’t immersed herself in this area of policy like others have, I believe she did an amazingly good job.
McOrmond has trouble differentiating between a program and its content. I don’t.
He may have warned the Americans behind Creative Commons about moral rights, but it’s a problem that can’t be fixed – unless you the creator simply waive them, a brute-force solution at odds with the entire ethos of controlled release of rights that ostensibly underpins Creative Commons. N
I’m hosting a radio show in french that mostly plays Creative Commons licensed music. It’s been a year now, and I truly believe that the CC is a powerful tool for artists and netlabels to promote their material.
I’m still buying music with traditional Copyright, but I find it harder every time to support an industry that sues students and send subpoena to network printers. I prefer to buy the albums directly from the artists, at least I know that my $$$ are going to the right pockets.
CC is an idea whose time is now.
As an individual who writes texts for use in worship services in The United Church of Canada, I searched for ways that would allow me to share what I had written while maintaining some control over its ‘commercial’ applications. Creative Commons is a tool that lets me be really specific about how far I can let go.
On the other end of things – as one who uses text, images (thank you, flickr!) and music that is licensed under CC – the congregation I serve wouldn’t be able to use the technology we have at hand in such a powerful way without CC.
Peace – rb
Most of our tracks have been released under a non commercial creative commons license and made freely available for radio stations, podcasters and independent filmmakers to use in their shows/films.
We are an independent record label not a big bad corporation out to sue you for file sharing, we WANT you to spread our music around.
With such an overcrowded market place giving away your music is essential in my opinion. The biggest problem for emerging indie artists today is obscurity, not piracy. To find out more listen to The Antiqcool Podcast
http://antiqcool.podbean.com/2010/01/22/the-antiq…