coffee.geek.nz

Google decided they couldn't pay the royalties that some record labels demand for youtube content, so google choose to not host those label's content.

Then someone set up http://www.fairplayforcreators.com/

Which, as far as i can tell is some kind of demand that google both host their content, and pay their royalities, no matter how high the royalties are.

Fair Play for Creators was established after Internet-giant, Google, made the decision to remove some music content from YouTube. Google's decision was made because it didn't want to pay the going rate for music, to the creators of that music, when it's used on YouTube.

The owners of fairplayforcreators are MCPS-PRS Alliance, a UK collecting society.

It uses emotive language and red herring statements like this

Music creators rely on receiving royalties whenever and wherever their work is used. Royalties are vital in nurturing creative music talent. They make sure music creators are rewarded for their creativity in the same way any other person would be in their work.

This is all true. -- but placing this statement where they did implies that Google wanted to host the content without paying any royalties at all. This is blantantly untrue, and a quick read of the "supporters comments" section shows most of the supporters have been mislead into thinking google were intending to host the contennt without paying.

Yes, Artists Build On The Works Of Others… So Why Is It Sometimes Infringement?Source: dullhaven.comThe history of creativity has always included the concept of taking the ideas of others (those who influenced you) and building on them. That’s the history of storytelling. It’s the history of joke telling. It’s the history of writing. It’s the history of music. It’s the way art is created. And that...

I'm a big believer in the right of copyright - My favourite opensource licence is the GPL. This wasn't always my favourite.

The core of the GPL is the right to copy it coupled with the duty to share-alike - so if you modify a GPL licenced "thing" then you're morally obligated to share those changes - and if you're selling that "thing" you're more than obligated, you're required to by law.

Most of my code in recent years has been GPL - there's a little "artistic licence" and a small bit of BSD and one WTFPL

I like having the powers to control what folks do with what I create - I like having legal recourse to protect - and so far the fear of the law is always more powerful than the law itself, so folks respect the GPL fairly consistently worldwide.

Never do i think that my creation of some lines of GPL code give me the right to search sniff everyone's internet traffic and analyze the packets, search computers, summarily disconnect computers, take down website only on my say so, or deprive a whole hospital of internet access.

And neither do i think that creating "things" like Police academy, windows vista, or dancing with the stars should give people the powers listed above. Never is anything, even a show as awesome as startrek, worthy enough to justify the loss of privacy, and the bypass of natural justice.

Quoting 3% of a magazine article below:

Creative Freedom Foundation: HomeSource: creativefreedom.org.nzThe Creative Freedom Foundation advocates on behalf of artists whose creative freedom is affected by major Governmental decisions made in their name, and in the name of protecting creativity. Read more about our goals →    launched today