[pdb-discuss] Re: PD Burn

Sat Feb 24 09:45:26 UTC 2007

On your suggestion, let's continue this on-list. I'd be very interested to
hear other active participants' views on ORG's potential involvement with PD
Burn. In fact, it would be great to have a list of names as to who's doing
what...

Becky and I met with Tom Chance on Thursday night, who was receptive to our
suggestions, although keen to point out he's not a prime mover on this
project.

On 2/21/07, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
>
> Michael Holloway wrote:
> > Thanks for your prompt response, i'm pleased to have started dialogue on
> > this...
> >
> > On 2/21/07, *Rufus Pollock* <rufus.pollock at okfn.org
> > <mailto:rufus.pollock at okfn.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     Michael Holloway wrote:
> >      > Hi Rufus
> >      >
> >      > As mentioned at the last board meeting, we'd like ORG to formally
> >     manage
> >      > the PD Burn project.
> >
> >     Formally manage or formally get involved with? The Open Knowledge
> >     Foundation and everyone else involved in the PD Burn project would
> no
> >     doubt be delighted to partner with ORG but I'm not sure would be
> happy
> >     for ORG to 'take over'.
> >
> >
> > Would be useful to know exactly who is involved and what their
> > respective roles are. We certainly would NOT want to 'take over' if that
> > would make people unhappy.
>
> Currently the only 'official' organizations involved are the Open
> Knowledge Foundation (OKFN) and Free Culture UK (Free Culture UK are
> (may be) disbanding). The project has always been run on 'open' lines so
> that anyone who turned up and contributed actual work was part of the
> project. The OKFN (and I am sure FC-UK) would welcome the involvement of
> any other organization and that participation would be on equal
> meritocratic terms with decision making by consensus wherever possible.

Very agreeable to the use of 'open' principles.

> Following on from that the best way to proceed here would probably be to
> post this sort of discussion on the public list (there is nothing very
> secret about what we are discussing) and that way we'd know everyone was
> happy with ORG getting involved etc etc.
>
> In fact with your permission I'd like to start forwarding these kind of
> emails to the list.
>
> [snip]
>
> >      > In particular, i'd like to discuss
> >      > 1. Possible inclusion of protected compositions (contingent on
> >     MCPS-PRS
> >      > involvement)
> >
> >     Not sure what you mean but we always planned to include as many
> types of
> >     work as possible in the database (they just wouldn't be on the PD
> list)
> >
> >
> > What is the existing scope of works intended for inclusion?
> >
> > If the project is PD-only, that restricts us to pre-57 recordings, and
> > compositions whose authors died pre-37, which is rather specialist if
> > we're after popular impact. My suggestion is that we keep the PD aspect
> > in terms of recordings, so will not make available anything less than 50
> > years old, but try and work with the MCPS-PRS so that we can include
> > compositions still under (C) protection.
>
> The PD Burn project early on was split into two parts:
>
> 1. Build a *open* database of artistic works (probably focusing on
> recordings) with the ability to label works as in the public domain or
> not. This has become termed the Public Domain Works Database (PDW DB)
>
> 2. Go out and burn pd works and then make them available (this also
> included running 'burn' parties etc etc)
>
> Thus the database would always be able to include non-PD works. It would
> just be that your focus would be on entering data for works that were
> likely to be in the public domain. (This means you could also do a
> variety of other things with the database once you had it such as look
> at orphan works -- this was something that was useful in talking to the
> OSI and the British Library).
>
> Currently we are focusing on item 1. We'd move on to 2 once 1 was on its
> way to being sorted out.

Thanks for that clarification. I see now that our focus is on creating the
PDW DB, rather than collating the recordings, or considering their
subsequent re-use. Do we have a timeline?

[snip]
>
> >      > 3. Starting the archive with BL's archive / desposit
> >
> >     BL = British Library?
> >
> >
> > Yep. If they're no good, perhaps Kings College, London or a
> > 'more-progressive-in-this-field' US deposit.
>
> This has already been discussed quite a bit. We started out using the BL
> sound archive catalogue as a source (unofficially). I spent about 8
> months talking with the BL and though interested there were various
> problems as it turns out the BL:
>
> a) does not necessarily own the data in their own catalogues (they buy
> it in from elsewhere in the case of the sound archive)
>
> b) license their catalogue data for quite a bit of money and are
> therefore reluctant to make it open
>
> On the library of congress see:
>
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/pdb-discuss/2006-August/000086.html
>
> Contact with CHARM is also in an email to the list.

My suggestion to involve BL or KCL or another archive was not in terms of
the PDW DB, but in terms of their sound recording archive. I hoped they
might offer a digitised chunk of recorded-music history that would get us
off to a flying start on the 'collating recordings' side of the project.
However, Tom said that these kind of archives simply don't exist,
although the prospect of raising funds to digitise sections of a particular
archive is a possibility.

Given current priority is constructing a free resource of sound recording
meta-data, can you give a detailed update on where we're at with that aspect
(or point me to similar resource)?

>      > Becky and I are meeting Tom Chance tomorrow evening to discuss,
> >     amongst
> >      > other thing, PD Burn. It would be great to have your input
> >     (blessing and
> >      > knowledge!) to inform these discussions.
> >
> >     Sure and it would be good to involve others on the list. Tom has
> been
> >     involved with this since the start.
> >
> >
> > Absolutely. We're asking yourself and Tom first, as you've led the
> > works, but (as suggested above) would be great to know who else is
> involved.
>
> See my comment above about putting this on the public pdb-discuss list.
>
> > PD Burn  – Towards a funding proposal
>
> We prepared 2 page intro proposal which got sent to OSI last summer:
>
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/pdb-discuss/2006-June/000060.html
>
> I have since turned this into a 'shiny' pdf document. If you want this
> let me know.

> > Purpose of ORG engaging with the project
> >
> > 1.    Investigate 'value of the PD' – much talk in legal academic
> > literature about the worth of the public domain and (c) balance, but not
> > enough practical projects which explicitly realise this value .
>
> Yes this is a good point. We do not even know how much stuff is out there.
>
> > 2.    Raise funds and profile of ORG and OKFN (nb I think FCUK are now
> > officially disbanded?)
>
> I am not sure but it does not really matter since no-one from there is
> really involved anymore.
>
> > Project description
> >
> > See Appendix for FCUK's original spec / funding application. Need Tom
> > Chance's iCommons presentation asap.
>
> See comments above. I can send you the 'source' as well if you want.

Yes, please do send more literature on the project. I should perhaps read
the archive of this list too.

> PD Burn's practical benefits (in addition to the concerns above):
> > 1.    Users (individuals or record labels) have free access to PD works
> > and associated info
> > 2.    Users can ascertain copyright protection info for specific works
> > (cf 'registry')
> > 3.    Users gain understanding of copyright as a mechanism
> >
> > In practice, we maintain a non-profit database of PD material ,
> > containing info as to the (c) status of the works, as well as liner
> > notes-esque info on the artists and the recordings - supplied either by
> > punters or by institutional archives – alongside digitised examples
> > which are free to use.
>
> A really interesting which I proposed it in the FC-UK meeting at
> Limehouse last March (at which John Buckman was present) was that it
> would be really nice to have a big 'sponsor this' button next to each
> public domain work. Whoever paid for the digitization would then have
> their name listed on the website forever (this would be rather like
> Oxfam's 'buy a donkey for Africa' stuff but for pd recordings).

Very nice suggestion. Both Becky and I have discussed the project with
Buckman in the last month or so, and he is still keen to support in some
way...

> Rufus' new model is to lift a lot of data from http://musicbrainz.org/,
> > which saves an awful lot of data-entry. However, we will need to design
> > a front-end / user interface, as well as work out how to get all the
> > data together. There is a wordpress site at
> > http://www.publicdomainworks.net/, which is being populated with related
> > info by me, Tim C and Rufus.
>
> We should also create a wiki asap.

Can ORG help with this? We have a volunteer list willing and able to sort
just this kind of work.

> There are some legal questions regarding the shape of the UK public
> > domain, which initial funding would resolve by paying for research time.
>
> Sure, though these are fairly limited and I have asked the Professor of
> IP here at Cambridge about some of the major ones (so if there is still
> no answer it is because there isn't an answer in many cases).

My prompt for assuming certain legal questions remain unresolved was your
Copyright FAQ. If that FAQ is up-to-date (in terms of your communcations
with IP academics), then i'll go through and highlight outstanding issues.

> Issues / questions for discussion
>
> 1.    Still need input from
> •     Tom Chance - meeting 22/2/7
> •    iCommons presentation plus feedback thereon in particular
> •    Comment on draft proposals
> •    Rufus Pollock – approaching 21/2/7
> •    Comment on draft proposals
>
> 2.    Project will be non-profit so seed-funding required to establish
> (6 months? 1 year?) but soon become self-funding via various
income-streams
> •    Donations (e.g. nominal amount per download?
> •    'Premium' subscriptions (With what 'premium' content; differential
> quality?)
> •    MORE IDEAS NEEDED

Advertising?

Provided its done in a non-intrusive fashion ;)

> 3.    Seed-funding options >
> •    Becky to lunch 22/2/7 with John Buckman (Magnatune) and discuss
> funding

John Buckman was talked to about this a year ago at Limehouse but we
should chat again. I have spoken with Vera at OSI about this quite a
bit. Tom Chance has been (trying) to chat with iCommons about it.

> •    Arts Council
> •    OSI
> •    Lottery
> •    Young Foundation (Launch Pad)
> •    Maybe chat with Rich Mix (via Lubna Azhar) for suggestions
> •    Corporate sponsorship – AIM? Merlin? Last FM? eMusic? (Big firms
> who want to be on the 'progressive' side of digital music.
> •    Discuss Venture Capitalists with Christian (not the preferred option,
> •    (Not a suitable project for JRRT or Ford)
>
> 4.    Where do we source PD recordings? The original project spec
> (reproduced below) envisaged public digitising and uploading materials,
> but I'd like to supplement by getting the ball rolling with British
> Library's archives (maybe KCL if not)

I've had extensive contact with British Library, some with KCL and quite
a bit with Julien Masanes of europarchive.org

> 5.    How do we market? In the first instance to academics, geeks and
> musicians … then move beyond once tried, tested and popular in niche.
> Certainly use net labels , PD labels  and social networking types. Maybe
> also LMC.
>
> Key marketing point: real problem that music from this era is not widely
> available, which makes it more likely that it will be forgotten, that it
> will die out (cf. 1920s film apparently lost already because not
> preserved adequately; on a similar note, BBC managed to lose a bunch of
> 70s culture)
>
> 6.    How do we encourage participation (to give project life of its own)
> -    Encourage public to submit text
> -    Encourage public to submit original recordings
> -    Encourage public to submit versions / remixes and other uses of the
> recordings

Wiki nature of the db should make it easy for people to upload. The
other stuff is more like remixreading.

> 7.    What kind of music are we expecting? Folk, jazz and blues if
> PD-only, but much wider if we can work an MCPS-PRS link.
>
> Potential partners
> -    British Library (archive partner)
> -    MCPS-PRS (trivialise licensing of PD recordings whose compositions
> are still protected)
> -    Resonance FM / London Musician's Collective (promotion)
> -    Wikipedia (community of editors)
> -    iCommons (Tom Chance demoed the projects at Rio 06)
>
> Appendix 1 – FCUK's PD Burn Funding Proposal

[snip]

-- 
Michael H Holloway
+44 (0) 7974 566 823

http://www.openbusiness.cc/
http://www.openrightsgroup.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/pd-discuss/attachments/20070224/43f47208/attachment.html>