ContentSphere - Music & Media in an Online Culture

[English translation of part 3 is coming soon. Due to organisational tasks at all2gethernow, it will take an additional one or two days to translate. Since the text is available in German already, I just posted it in advance for all German readers.]

Teil 1&2 findet Ihr hier:
“Die GEMA-Vermutung als Markteintrittsbarriere (Teil 1/3)”
“Die GEMA-Vermutung als Markteintrittsbarriere (Teil 2/3)”

Glaube ist gut, Wissen ist besser.

Gleichgültig, wie das Urteil eines (notwendigen) Sachverständigen zum Thema aussieht, der Beleg für die Verfügbarkeit einer hinreichenden Größe frei lizensierten Materials muss vor Gericht erbracht werden. Denn die GEMA-Vermutung ist gängige Rechtsprechung und wird erst vor dem BGH endgültig widerlegt werden können. Aber die Schwierigkeit liegt in der Nachprüfbarkeit. Der GEMA liegen neben ihren stets aktuellen Geschäftszahlen natürlich auch die Zahlen der zu verwertenden Titel vor - wo aber sind die belegbaren Zahlen frei lizenzierter Stücke?

Aufmerksamkeit.

Darüber hinaus hat die GEMA Pressesprecher und Lobbyisten. Nicht die Künstler, die ihre Werke GEMA-frei anbieten. Für die Verbraucher existieren letztere Künstler nicht. Selbst wenn international renommierte Künstler wie Trent Reznor oder die Smashing Pumpkins Titel unter Creative Commons veröffentlichen - die Masse des Publikums nimmt es nicht wahr. Es erscheint unwichtig. Die meiste Beachtung für diese Aktionen, Marketingstrategien und teilweise auch Geschäftsmodelle wird den Künstlern durch das Web zuteil. Continue reading "The GEMA Presumption as an Entry Barrier (Pt. 3/3)" »

For parts 1&3, please go here:
Part 1, Part 3


There are two issues, and each one constitutes a well functioning entry barrier in itself. But, in conjunction they are seamlessly joint: The GEMA presumption, and closely linked the free licence composers’ and providers’ scattered acting.

Why are they that closely linked?

First off, GEMA is responsible for maintaining the GEMA presumption. Secondly, GEMA does not allow members to license selected works under Creative Commons. Free licence composers are kept out of the market without having any organisation representing them. It is plain to see why Germany’s collection society does not want to offer billing and administration of Creative Commons licences (although they could get a good revenue by doing so). But, in the end this results in increasing the demand an alternative to today’s common collection society. Latest by launch of an alternative platform, organisation or institution the GEMA presumption is going to fall. Now this isn’t at all what GEMA wants. Continue reading "The GEMA Presumption as an Entry Barrier (Pt. 2/3)" »

For parts 2&3, please go here:
Part 2, Part 3

Note.

Quite often, in any part of this article I’m using the term “free licensed” or “free licences”. That might be a bit misleading. Please take your time to understand it in the meaning of “independently licensed from any collection society (in particular GEMA)”. It does not mean that for example Creative Commons licences are always free of charge. The range of Creative Commons allows for different licences (in contrast to GEMA by the way).

Most of them (at least with music) will probably be free of charge for private use. However, commercial use in most cases depends on certain conditions and the explicit permission of the author plus paying a licence fee.

I’m aware of the fact that the line between private use and commercial use is not that clear, and it is not explicitly defined by Creative Commons. The definition rather relies on the author being the licenser. But in case you are about to license a work - just ask the author if the purpose you are intending is considered private or commercial use. The metadata of any work licensed under Creative Commons should allow for a contact option.

A slight case of overbombing.

Unfortunately, usage of content licensed by Creative Commons or other free licences in Germany pretty often fails because of the so called GEMA presumption. As of now, due to this presumption, if played, performed or copied for commercial use or in public in Germany, every work of music has to be reported to German collection society GEMA. This applies for composers playing their own music as well as for songs not licensed with GEMA - say, Creative Commons. This is confirmed and supported by German jurisdiction.
Continue reading "The GEMA Presumption as an Entry Barrier (Pt. 1/3)" »

[UPDATE: This article is linked and commented by Michael Masnick on TechDirt].

Sorry if I'm a bit late on this one, but I've taken some days off. However, this one is by far too barefaced to be believed. I'm afraid it's no April fools' joke.

You will remember my article on music distribution platform Jamendo going with Creative Commons. Today, I just read news from a week ago that they are about to integrate a new search tool. It supports promoters, agencies, movie makers and game manufacturers by providing search categories like mood, occasion, genre and language.

Artists participating in Jamendo's distribution model can opt-in for Jamendo PRO. Business customers of Jamendo who would like to make commercial use of tracks offered can purchase licenses within Jamendo PRO. This differs from private customers who may download everything for free. Most importantly, it's an additional source of revenue for artists (and Jamendo) that adds to income from ads.

The new tool helps business people interested in searching for the right music - instead of thoroughly relying on communication and recommendation via Jamendo. Any process like this is destined to be too time consuming.

... and then there's GEMA, Germany's collecting institution.

Continue reading "GEMA vs. Jamendo et al. - Get Money for Nothing" »