Slashdot Mirror

"Is there precedent for different types of encouraging licenses similar to the software world? (Share only, derivatives allowed, etc.)"

Creative Commons has the Attribution-ShareAlike license. Which is sort of like the GPL for non-code.

There is also the Free Art License:

http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/

I put my stuff under CC BY-SA as well:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%22drew%20Roberts%22

And people use it:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Peter%20Rodgers%22

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%2C%20Thorsten%20Wilms%22

Plus, a group of people on the Linux Audio Users mailing list is starting up to make music together under a CC BY-SA license.

Does that help you at all?

all the best,

drew

In the meantime, consider producing works under licenses such as the GPL, the GNU Free Documentation License, the Free Art License, or a Creative Commons license with a "share-alike" provision. This is not perfect, but this would use copyright restrictions for preserving freedom. Those wanting to produce works under permissive licenses would have an advantage denied to the producers of proprietary-licensed works.

It is also worth considering the role of money in politics.

Assuming the artist wants to be compensated in the first place. Or are you suggesting taking money from people who legally download a song which the artist has released on a license which allows copying?

take a look at this Free Art License based on the GPL, but aimed at covering the Copyleft distribution terms of any artform.

it's the only one to make a difference between an original artwork and its copies, which may seem irellevant applied to digital art, but allows "real" physical artworks to be used and reused as GPLed code.

here is the Free Art License,the translation of the original License Art Libre
and the website in french.

the license is in perpetual evolution.and more and more people use it.

i can't resist to some autopromotional example of FALed works with my own personnal website ;)

njoy'n'share!

take a look at this Free Art License based on the GPL, but aimed at covering the Copyleft distribution terms of any artform.

it's the only one to make a difference between an original artwork and its copies, which may seem irellevant applied to digital art, but allows "real" physical artworks to be used and reused as GPLed code.

here is the Free Art License,the translation of the original License Art Libre
and the website in french.

the license is in perpetual evolution.and more and more people use it.

i can't resist to some autopromotional example of FALed works with my own personnal website ;)

njoy'n'share!

take a look at this Free Art License based on the GPL, but aimed at covering the Copyleft distribution terms of any artform.

it's the only one to make a difference between an original artwork and its copies, which may seem irellevant applied to digital art, but allows "real" physical artworks to be used and reused as GPLed code.

here is the Free Art License,the translation of the original License Art Libre
and the website in french.

the license is in perpetual evolution.and more and more people use it.

i can't resist to some autopromotional example of FALed works with my own personnal website ;)

njoy'n'share!

take a look at this Free Art License based on the GPL, but aimed at covering the Copyleft distribution terms of any artform.

it's the only one to make a difference between an original artwork and its copies, which may seem irellevant applied to digital art, but allows "real" physical artworks to be used and reused as GPLed code.

here is the Free Art License,the translation of the original License Art Libre
and the website in french.

the license is in perpetual evolution.and more and more people use it.

i can't resist to some autopromotional example of FALed works with my own personnal website ;)

njoy'n'share!

What's so great about Hollywood blockbusters? 99% of them suck too. All they do with the extra money is put it into special effects. Almost zero thought goes into the plot or anything else. In fact, if the writers put any thought into the script, the hollywood execs can't understand it and force the writer or director to take it out.

Look at the tv series Andromeda. At first it was a resonably decent series, then they fired the writer and Kevin Sorbo took over. Now it just looks like a poorly done 50's sci-fi serial with modern special effects. Bad acting, bad directing, and bad plots.

The comrade comment is funny. Are you really trying to say a world without the entertainment cartel would be like communism? The cartel companies are the ones who are communists. They conquer every industry that is able to distribute their "content" and try to force out any competition out of the market. Then they funnel money from organizations who make "digital audio recording devices and media." So if you buy a CD burner or blank CD--even if you only use them to burn data you have a legal right to--such as computer backups, your own original creations, and music that you are licensed to copy (look up Licence Art Libre and the Open Audio licenses)--you still pay money to the cartel. They take away your rights and put money that belongs to others in their pockets. Sure sounds like communism to me.

They have legal measures they can take, but they don't want to. I remember when the Napster story came out, and they said they wouldn't prosecuted the "fans" who were "sharing" their works (the copyright infringers), but they would sue universities for giving internet access to their students and those creating communications software (innocent third parties). If they would have taken action against the copyright infringers, 90% of them would have stopped their illegal actions. If they would have left innocent third parties alone and not be unjustly trying to take control of the internet / computers / distribution methods, I wouldn't be so pissed off at them.