The whole MPR example is actually irrelevant to this discussion, and misses the point entirely.

With all due respect, I think you’re missing the point of the MPR comparison. It is not an analogy. It is an example of a non-licensing-based revenue model that is actually working. And it is relevent.

MPR is not solely committed to employing hundreds of artists/writers to promote their own work and collect revenue and profits for them so they can pay their mortgages

Actually, it is. That is exactly what MPR does. Read their mission statement if you don’t believe me. Those “artists” they employ are reporters, DJs, authors, voice actors, etc. And MPR is, in fact, soley devoted to employing them and collecting revenue so that they can pay their mortgages … and so that their work can keep reaching as many people as possible.

If MPR were also devoted to giving shareholders a return on their investment, then they would be a for-profit corporation. It is actually the fact that they are soley devoted to employing people to produce and distribute content that makes them a nonprofit.

I think you may be confused about what “nonprofit” means. It does not mean that the company does not make money, or that it does not pay money to its employees. It is a technical distinction that has to do with what happens to corporate profits — which does not include the profits of individual employees.

MPR is an example of exactly what you’re talking about, if you have eyes to see it.

Again, I don’t want to ask for donations for my music. I want to generate profit in a commercial sense.

Those two statements have nothing to do with each other: that’s my point. You want to generate profit? Asking for donations is one legit way of doing that. Licensing is another. You don’t want to ask for donations? Fine. Don’t. You’re free to reject certain potential revenue streams out of hand, though I’m not entirely sure why.

today, no automatic, direct or efficient sync between mass creative rights management and current distribution mechanisms exist.

You’d be interested in the Snocap project. I have doubts about whether it will work, but they’re thinking what you’re thinking.

I’m just saying that licensing exists primarily to generate revenue for all types of industries, and I don’t see it disappearing any time soon. It will remain a big part of the mixed bag.

Agreed to that. My points are just (1) not all revenue necessarily comes from licensing, and licensing may not even be the primary source of revenue for some; and (2) CC and licensing are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Open source developers generate their revenue from sources other than licensing. Licensing plays a very little role in direct revenue-generation for these people. My comments were limited to Paul’s statement “…but that doesn’t mean other people don’t want licensing revenue for their software….” Yes, that’s right. They [proprietary developers]do want licensing revenue from their software. My response doesn’t say that open-source developers don’t have revenue. Rather, they don’t get revenue from licensing. The people that have no use for CC are proprietary developers–right or wrong, their model for business centers on licensing. Period.

The whole MPR example is actually irrelevant to this discussion, and misses the point entirely. MPR is not solely committed to employing hundreds of artists/writers to promote their own work and collect revenue and profits for them so they can pay their mortgages; I don’t qualify as a non-profit organization, because I want to profit from my songwriting. Again, I don’t want to ask for donations for my music. I want to generate profit in a commercial sense. Good or bad, right or wrong: licensing, among other methods, is a legal mechanism for doing that.

BUT today, no automatic, direct or efficient sync between mass creative rights management and current distribution mechanisms exist. This is the model for business I was referring to originally.

CC may play a partial role in a mixed bag of creative strategies for the musician in the future. I’m just saying that licensing exists primarily to generate revenue for all types of industries, and I don’t see it disappearing any time soon. It will remain a big part of the mixed bag.

“…but that doesn’t mean other people don’t want licensing revenue for their software….”

You’re right. And those people won’t use CC. They have no use for it. I should have qualified the distinction between software and open-source software.

Incorrect. Many people (JBoss, Hibernate, MySQL for example) give out their software away free and open source, and then make money selling documentation, support, and consulting.

“…MPR makes good money giving their content away for free and then asking for donations.”

MPR is a nonprofit organization.

Irrelevant. Non-profit status has to do with what happens to revenue, not whether there is revenue: MPR reinvests it entirely into the company, and they are therefore a nonprofit. They make quite a bit of money giving their content away for free; it is what they do with that ample money that makes them a nonprofit.

You want a model that pays your mortgage? MPR is paying the mortgages of several hundred people by — did I mention this? — giving their content away for free.

So, other than viral marketing and distribution, what can CC offer to the artist?

You mean other than doing the two things that form the bulk of current record company’s expenses (and most of their reason for existing) essentially for *free*, what can it do? Uh, not much.

Hope for good behavior! Expect infringement. Evaluate your risk.

That’s good advice — regardless of whether CC is involved. Any realistic approach is going to have to be pragmatic about the realities of technology and culture. I argue that CC is one possible avenue.

The simple fact is that the model is changing because the tools and access to distribution are evolving. The RIAA doesn’t like this because as the 800# gorilla they can’t change quickly. As with most large bodies of people they are not nimble. All of this is a huge threat. When threats occur, people and companies and institutes react. They are battening down the hatches in hopes that they won’t have to deal. Throw the laywers at our customers. That’s a great model.

In our consumer, capitolistic society it’s really about good marketing. So the artists that tap into this will win. This opens up all kinds of new ‘middlemen’ to come into the space. Imagine if you just paid someone to market for you and you did the rest yourself. The marketeers wouldn’t own your work. You would. Artists deserve to have say over where their music goes and when. I’ve seen many artists succeeding in this model without the recording industry. There might be fewer superstars, but that just leaves more opportunity for the Fugazi’s of the world to be out there making music and a living.

It’s all in flux right now so it’s pretty hard to say what will and what will not work.

Isn’t that splitting hairs a bit? Revenue is revenue. ;o)

TWiT just interviewed Simon Steadman. They had to major label contracts and got burned on both, and then decided to just give away all 150 of their tracks online and reap the subsequent publicity via podcasting. Will it pay off? I guess that’s the answer we’re waiting for…

“Hope for good behavior! Expect infringement. Evaluate your risk.”

one also needs to consider the type of infringement. A kid giving a copy of your MP3 to another kid = that’s infringment, but does that actually hurt your bottom line? Do you benefit MORE from the viral marketing aspect? Honda using the song to sell cars = another infrignment, and something you should certainly be compensated for.

Our motivations for why we engage in creative work are obviously different: we have different expectations of what we want to achieve.

In response:

“…but that doesn’t mean other people don’t want licensing revenue for their software….”

You’re right. And those people won’t use CC. They have no use for it. I should have qualified the distinction between software and open-source software.

On that note, has anyone ever tried to navigate an open-source licensing agreement for software that relies on other open-soure agreements which rely on yet other agreements? It requires a lot of faith in other people. And no one guarantees their code is truly open source. Ask any attorney specializing in software licensing, including Google’s Chief Licensing Counsel: careful review of code and licenses is imperative so they don’t stumble into liability.This same problem applies to other creative works: you’re putting your faith in the person extending you a CC license that they haven’t appropriated or copied work they haven’t used. To keep that relationship clean, they would need to extend you some sort of warranty–which is something the CC license doesn’t do. In fact, there’s a nice big all-caps disclaimer in it.

“…MPR makes good money giving their content away for free and then asking for donations.”

MPR is a nonprofit organization. As a musican/writer in a commercial sense, I don’t want to ask people for donations when they listen to my music. I want to create a revenue stream. I can choose CC for my own marketing purposes, but I still need a mechanism to collect royalties when presented with a bona fide commercial opportunity. I would suspect that most artists would approach it the same way with their work, unless they don’t believe in capitalism.

“Licensing of individual copies is incompatible with viral distribution.”

Again, you are correct in today’s paradigm. Therein lies the crux of the problem. I view the viral nature of the internet as a means of marketing, while embracing it to limited extent. I don’t want to give everything away. And I don’t want to rely the single revenue stream of performing my own songs and collecting money at the door for that or tangible merchandise. As a pure songwriter, the only means of revenue I really have is (1) the outright sale of song to artist/publisher (2) negotiating points on the sales contract for the CDs of the artist’s sound recordings or (3) get a royalty for their distribution.

“…as soon as somebody wants your tune for an ad jingle or a feature film, CC does not apply and they still have to reach a licensing agreement.”

Yes. So the value in CC has carried you that far. Which is good! So, other than viral marketing and distribution, what can CC offer to the artist? That’s where I think it falls short. ASCAP /BMI handle a lot of your licensing woes. Like an insurance company, they’ll enforce your copyrights on your behalf, and send you the royalty checks when your music is used in the stream of commerce by a third party.

“I think you’re making two conceptual mistakes: first, presuming that all revenue from art must trace directly back to licensing; second, equating a CC license with releasing something in the public domain.”

Not all revenue from art must trace back to licensing. Apologies for not making that clear. I just think that in today’s world, licensing plays a huge part for music. There’s other methods of creating revenue: outright sale,/assignment, merchandising, live performance, asking for donations. However, I can only perform so many gigs and sell so many rock and roll t-shirts on my own.

I’m not equating CC with work in the public domain. But, entering into a CC-type of agreement certainly introduces a different type of risk for you as an artist. And in my practical nature, I take a more pessimistic view than Garrick. Hope for good behavior! Expect infringement. Evaluate your risk.

But licensing (and enforcement thereof) is what drives THE value for any creative work (An exception exists for software because collaboration is the primary inherent value of the open source approach…) Maybe I’m behind the times a little….

Yeah, I think you are. Software is not so different: some software’s bread and butter is collaboration, but that doesn’t mean other people don’t want licensing revenue for their software.

Licensing is not THE value mechanism; it is A value mechanism. Look, for example, at public radio: MPR makes good money giving their content away for free and then asking for donations.

Licensing of individual copies is incompatible with viral distribution. If you want the net working for you, you’ve got to give it away, at least in some limited way.

Licensing is NOT incompatible with CC, however. If you use a non-commercial share-alike license, other artists are free to use your work and people are free to share it, but as soon as somebody wants your tune for an ad jingle or a feature film, CC does not apply and they still have to reach a licensing agreement.

I think you’re making two conceptual mistakes: first, presuming that all revenue from art must trace directly back to licensing; second, equating a CC license with releasing something in the public domain.