Slashdot Mirror
EFF Releases Public Music License
Robin Gross, one of the very nice people at the EFF [?] wrote to us about their new public music license. As the press release states: "...EFF's Open Audio License allows anyone to freely copy, share, perform, and adapt music in exchange for providing credit to the artist for her gift to humanity. EFF's Open Audio License enables musicians and society to build upon and share creative expression, creating a rich public commons. Artists who chose to release a song under the public license can build their reputation by offering unfettered access to their original works in exchange for recognition. Open Audio works are designated as "(O)" by the author and may be lawfully traded on file-sharing systems such as Napster or played by traditional and Web DJs royalty-free. Numerous musicians have traditionally taken advantage of super-distribution of their music, such as the Grateful Dead, a band that attributes much of its success to its encouragement of fans to freely copy and share its music. "EFF's Open Audience License hopes to use the power of copyright to protect copyright's ultimate objectives: a vibrant and accessible public domain, incentivising creativity, and promoting the free exchange of ideas," said EFF Staff Attorney for Intellectual Property Robin Gross. "EFF's public music license strikes a new deal between creators and the public, granting more freedoms to the public to experience music while ensuring the artist is compensated." You can read more details in the FAQ and more about their Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression.
Espra, which is a music-sharing program build on top of Freenet has a little button by each song that says "tip artist" (you can see it in this screenshot). I've not tried Espra so I don't know how it works (or if it's even implemented yet), but from an interface point-of-view it sounds plausible that many people will use it. This is all assuming micropayments become practical soon, so you're not paying more in service charges than you're giving to the band :)
Legally no, the band turns over all rights to the music when they sign with a recording company. Most bands aren't even allowed to play their own music without express written consent from their label.
Basically, how this works is the labels passed a seedy law that declares the band's music a "work for hire" which means the record company owns the rights to the music, however they don't actually pay the bands outright (just give them a tiny cut of the sales and an advance that they have to pay back), which is one reason so many bands go broke so quick.
The upshot is, most bands seem to have the legal savvy of a brain dead bacteria, and for some reason they don't hire lawyers to look at the contracts they sign, or perhaps record companies avoid signing people who seem to know how to read.
Come to think of it, this is not the first time this has been mentioned on Slashdot, maybe you should check the archives for a more complete discussion on this topic.
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
I read the internet for the articles.
It's not so much the fact that Sony or BMG or whoever could grab whatever they liked and flood the market with it giving only credit (and sure, you can undersell them and go 'mine is the official version!' but think for a second about what your distribution network is like, versus what theirs is like)... to some, this would be problem enough, but there are musicians out there who'd accept such a bargain hoping to trade off their hoped-for popularity...
No, the real booby-trap is what I call the 'Singing Munchkin' problem. Basically, if you use this license, you are not simply giving blanket permission to other musicians to work with your music (arguably a good thing, if they're not Puffy), you're also giving, say, Burger King permission to take your music and overdub singing munchkins singing "Whopper whopper yummy whopper yum yum whopper mmm mmm good!" to YOUR MELODY.
This is deadly. (and not just to listener's sanity)
The fact is, you can compose music, write melodies all you want, but when you marry words to them it fixes the melody forever in the listener's mind by providing verbal 'chunks' that are associated with the tune forever. To this day I still associate "Hall Of The Mountain King" with the words "We are all in seventh grade, seventh grade, seventh grade, we are all in seventh grade in Diamond Junior High" thanks to an evil bitch of a music teacher. This is a _horrible_ potential problem.
It's only worsened by the plain and simple fact that if _anything_ really good gets out under (O) licensing, the next move would be for advertising services to pop up that monitor all that content, know some clever audio hacks with Pro Tools and connections with background vocalists, and to set up very competitive commercial music supply based on this source of unencumbered original music- and the ease of editing, remixing and overdubbing onto that stuff. Normal commercial music costs quite a lot by comparison. This 'open music' would drastically change the market for commercial music. What's a little line of original author credit? Nobody reads those when they appear in TV commercials. You might as well have it say 'Original Author sold separately' for all the difference it would make.
Personally, I am going to continue to put "all commercial rights reserved- noncommercial copying OKAY" on all my CDs.
If people want to put stuff on Napster, I'd gladly testify that I consider that noncommercial copying. If people want to put on singing munchkins without my permission and make an ad, surprise! That is COMMERCIAL use and if they want to play that game they have to play by the OLD rules which give me a certain amount of leverage if I don't sign it away. And if someone wants to rip a few bars of rhythm section to use under their rap song or whatever, and they're another artist- for Christ's sake, why not ASK ME? I could fairly easily do a separate mix of just the rhythm section for pretty much anything you want, tailor the mix to the new purpose, _collaborate_ rather than act like some passive victim of copyright violation. All this license nonsense really obscures the fact that some musicians are more than happy to work with others. If you are an artist and want a few bars of my song, don't invent new licenses that would give you permission ahead of time, ASK. You are not alone, you are part of a community if you allow it to happen...
If you've got other music which you're selling (under a different license, of course), being acknowledged is publicity. Even if you're other licensing your music differently, if you also sell CDs of it for people who want to actually buy it, the situation is essentially an above-board version of the Napster situation, which we all know leads to more people buying your music.
Can someone create some open audio sites for me to post songs to. I'm too busy/lazy. Otherwise I would.
Perhaps someone with actual music contract experience could comment (there's a thought!), but my understanding was that the recording industry works pretty hard to pre-empt this kind of thing. In that, sooner or later every successful musician would like to sign a contract for commercial distribution, but that all such contracts contain clauses turning over complete control of distribution to the recording company, and explicitly prohibiting the artist from using any other form of distribution. And that these contracts have recently been amended to specifically prohibit distribution via Internet, just in case the musicians start having any uppity thoughts about going out on their own.
True, or just another Internet rumour?
sPh
They can sell it, but they have to allow their customers to copy it as well (clause 3). Same as the GPL. They're allowed to sell, but won't be able to exploit for extreme amounts of money.
LetterJ
Head Geek
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
"Exploit" implies exclusivity. Redhat doesn't have exclusive rights to package and redistribute those components. The fact that they are included in other distributions exemplifies that. There is nothing preventing the developer of YetAnotherMP3 player that gets included in Redhat from building his own distribution with a newer and better version of his app.
RIAA bargains for the exclusive distribution rights. This license doesn't.
LetterJ
Head Geek
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
But that's my point. You have to have a definition of source code. In a license, allowing arbitrary redefinition of terms is a bad thing. In software, source code isn't a particularly debatable term. A license specifically written for photographs would eliminate the ambiguity of terms like "source code". You wouldn't need to say, "Well, for paintings, source code is "X". You'd say, you can make prints and copies of the painting, but you won't be given an oil painting on canvas at your request (the real "source code").
Even GNU has written a new license for documentation. Email me when you've translated the docs.
LetterJ
Head Geek
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
The GPL is useful because it covers a specific domain: software. It covers the situations involved with software development and addresses those specific issues. The language all refers to programs, source code, running programs, source code distribution, etc. Many of those elements have a parallel in art, literature and music, but they come with their own unique situations. Applying a software license to things other than software puts the status of those items on shaky ground. Why do you think lawyers recommend against just using cookie-cutter legal forms and crossing stuff off and writing in the margins. It's not because they're after legal fees. It's because doing that leaves situational loopholes a mile wide. For example, if I apply the GPL to a photograph, what do I need to provide to comply with the "a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange" clause? Photographs don't have source code. Yes you can deliver prints or digital files, but to a photographer, those are the equivilant of binaries. That leaves that clause a bad fit and leaves both a loophole and a potential problem. What about a painting? sculpture? New licenses that deal with the product domain specifically, but still keep the spirit of free licenses provides a far greater advantage than badly adapting an inappropriate license.
So you like Perl. Would you actually try to build an OS with it? Wrong tool for the job. Sure, in some strange twisted way, it might be possible, but it's not the best tool.
LetterJ
Head Geek
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
no, it doesn't right now, seems to be /.ed
But a lot of GPL software is released because the writer wants their software to be used and appreciated, to make themselves known, or perhaps even to get a job by proving their programming abilities. These motives seem to match why a musician would release their music.
There are just too many licences already! Do we need another? Off the top of my head, I can think of Open Content, the LDP's documentation licence, the GNU documentation licence, that group of teachers who wrote a licence for educational stuff, and of course the plain old GPL applied to non-software works.
Of course music may need its own provisions to reflect performing rights and the like, but that does apply to some other forms of art too. Couldn't the Open Content people extend the scope of their legalese to make it suitable for music too? And if the FSF and other documentation writers could join in, that would be great too.
Probably the YAL problem isn't as serious as with software, since you don't have an equivalent of 'linking'. Usually when two copyrighted works are distributed together it would count as 'mere aggregation' (to use the GPL's terms). Even so, it does look a bit silly.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I am confused as to how this is different from previous free music sharing? Why can't a live concert (not ripped from a commercial CD) be spread on the net (if the band is allowing it)?
:)
I like that they are making it "official" but the Grateful Dead (and others, SCI, WSP, Ekoostik Hookah, etc) have been doing it for years and there are no problems!
Nice idea, but old hat
It really didn't come across that well. Perhaps because you didn't go far enough over the top.
Sorry. It's not you personally, it's just that *nobody* seems to be able to get this right!
The rewriting or adapting of musical works has, for a very long time, been a primary means of learning composition in European art music. Some of Bach's early organ works were transcriptions of Vivaldi concerti, for example. It can also be part of the appeal of the music itself: to take some well-known melody and skillfully give it new life.
If the score (printed music and lyrics) were treated as "source code" and the performance as "binary/executable", then maybe it might be more like the GPL.
Errm, isn't that the link that is cited in the writeup above?
That would make it Redundant - how did this get a score of 4?
Slashdot moderator : "OOh a link! That must be useful, better mod it up."
Wake up people!
It'll be interesting to see what the FSF will say about them saying Open rather than Free.
What does suck about this license is that someone can sell your music for profit. I'm not sure I like that. Regardless, my band will release all our material under this or an improved audio license... anyone have one?
And yes, someone could create derived works and sell them without paying anything. But not without your name on it. Sony and random remixers alike must give credit. These two items are the substance of the license we're discussing. There are other ways to "apply the GPL" to music, of course, but I would argue that without freedom to use and derive from a work commercially, you're not talking about the GPL.
If that's not for you, that's fine. You have plenty of other options. But please, say what you mean without fabricating supporting arguments out of thin air.
While the EFF's license seems like an excellent response to the non-sense of the recording and related music publishing industiries, I think it has a negative side-effect of legitimizing the notion of "music as a licensable thing". Why is music something that I must license? Why must a legal contract exist between myself and a large number of other parties in the event that I hear some music?
I worry that this flurry of licensing issues will result in the de facto assumption by law makers that a license exists in all music transmission actitivities (listening to music, playing music, reading music, discussing music etc.).
I'll have to give some thought as to whether I want to adopt the Open Audio license for my own music, but it's always nice to hear of such iniatives, even if they don't prove revolutionary in and of themselves -- they are still indicators of a refreshing trend. It also would certainly help if the EFF were able to get a few big-name musicians behind the Open Audio License, to raise awareness.
I'll also mention that people interested in open/copylefted music should check out my website -- there's a good selection of mp3 ranging in styles from house/drum & bass to hip-hop and psychedelic punk.
"EFF's public music license strikes a new deal between creators and the public, granting more freedoms to the public to experience music while ensuring the artist is compensated."
That's a strange definition of compensated. Does compensated usually mean, "People get your stuff, and you get jack shit?"
Then again, this is similar to the bastardization of the word "free", I suppose....
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I second this post.
Quote: "Artists who chose to release a song under the public license can build their reputation by offering unfettered access to their original works in exchange for recognition."
This shows that the whole thing is completely stupid. NO artist I know (and I know many) can pay his rent from "recognition".
Again this is the "I want freedom at someone else's cost" game. To pay with "recognition" is certainly a thing that many would love, while they spend their money for other things. This is a license for music done by mediocre musicians. Sorry guys, but it remains true: great music in genreal comes from musicians who spend all their life learning and improving their skills. They need to earn some real, cold *money* with their art. "Recognition" certainly is not enough.
Actually, even big names make a hell of a lot of money touring and selling merchandise. All those backstreet boys t-shirts and britney keychains add up.... (I seem to remember reading that these pop acts make insane amounts of cash selling promo items during their tours ... I am having trouble finding a link to back this up, however).
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
But really, isn't just more eveidence that the music industry is media/profit-driven? It is, of course, but what true artists will respond to a policy where they'd have to all-but-confess to this?
Sadly, not many .... I like the idea, though ....
Speaking of Miles -- I'm running out of search queues to find his music on Napster/Gnutella (i.e., Myles Dayvis, etc.) .... any suggestions?
"He who questions training trains himself at asking questions." - The Sphinx, Mystery Men (1999)
You're a troll. The GPL doesn't prohibit charging for the work. The GPL insures that the people who get your work have the same rights, whether or not it's sold. Nice try.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
FC Closer
If someone steals your music and sells a million records, after you sue them you will be
rich and famous far sooner than you would have been otherwise
Every artist believes that his songs are the best. So why would any respectable artist steal
someone else's material?
The second reason above is why many artists may be hesitant to use the OAL. Music is art, not technology. Most artists wouldn't be interested in the idea of having others rewrite any parts of their songs for any reason. Though this clause also allows people to sample OAL works, which is cool, it just doesn't seem to have much appeal otherwise. And I don't think too many people would actually take the time to make modifications to anyone else's music unless it were some kind of remix (which I suppose would be cool.) The other weird thing that OAL states as a benefit to it's licensing terms is the ability to publicly perform an OAL artist's works without paying royalty. You can do that anyway. Anyone can play anyone else's music, AFAIK, live without paying royalties as long as that performance isn't recorded and sold without permission.
It's an interesting idea, but I don't see too many ways where the benefits of the GPL can work in the artistic world... IMHO.
-M
Think back to ~1984 when the GPL was first written (someone correct me please if necessary) and note the state of the industry. Now do the same thing with the Open Audio license and project 20 years.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
I don't see the point of this at all. As someone who knows professional musicians (not signed musicians--working musicians--choir directors, Jazz musicians, pianists, composers, bands, etc.), it's hard enough for them to make a living making and playing their music. This type of license seems inappropriate. The minority of musicans that become part of the pop machine will do well (some of the time), signed bands that don't do well will lose their shirts.
Composers (people who write serious music--not pop/rock) have an open sharing of ideas. This is the basis of all musical change. It is not as important for musicans to share actual sound, words, and verbatium chord progressions (which notes and chord progressions in the abstract are not copyrightable).
I applaud the EFFs efforts to create a digital commons.
Perhaps there isn't a demand for this license in the mp3.com/Napster domain, but in specialized fields this could be valuable.
Getting reusable/repackagable musical jingles for open-source games has always been difficult. For example, the great public domain game Abuse (being ported to the SDL) has only sound effects -- no music -- because of license restrictions the music from the Electronic Arts version can't be used.
Many publishers put out material expecting to lose money on the material itself. Think about religious material, for example. Or outsider musicians like Jandek.
The analogies to GPL seem quite imperfect. GPL is designed to assure that software stays "free" in the Stallman sense, to facilitate the process of use derivation of software, while assuring that those works are made available as a result of its distribution. That process is far less meaningful in the music business, in part because of the nature of musical work and phonorecord copyrights (which are different kinds of assets, with different protections, and are often owned by different people), but also in part because of how music is "derived" in practice.
In short, the license, which seems more meaningful with respect to facilitating copying and file sharing, is too much. A mere "consent to copy and share the file" would suffice. The license, which doesn't really hit on the nuances of how musical works and samples are used in the business for artistic works, is not enough.
I don't see why anyone needs Open Music as conceived in this license, or why anyone aspiring to develop open music in the sense of "free" music would use it. In short, my concerns fall into the following, most simple question:
What are they really trying to accomplish with the license?
We should measure our concerns about the license in that light, after the question has been answered. Then, we will know whether the flaws identified on this site by others are relevant, and if so, whether changes are necessary. We will also be able to far more easily discern whether the license will be used in such a manner (from a practical standpoint) to achieve those ends.
P.S.: Note that you cannot use this license for a recording unless you have also gotten the author of the musical work to agree, or the musical work is in the public domain. Further, given that most musical work phonorecords entail plural performers, technicians and sometimes plural composers, these notices are going to be moby.
>>"GPL" your music. THEN go to RIAA and see if they will distribute it.
They won't even talk to you - and they don't have to. There are plenty of other "artists" waiting in line. The greedy ones are always very cooperative.
How many bands out there today show signs of actual talent? Very few I think. The conclusion I draw is that talent is not as important as the willingness to cooperate.
There isn't a solitary element to the Open Audio License not covered by simply releasing music into the public domain. Not one. And even nasty old copyright can work the same way.
Except, of course, he didn't have the hip little (O).
Stupid publicity stunts aside ("Hey, let's patent a trademark for the public domain!"), there are two intellectually defendable theories of intellectual property. One is that a person can create a work and place any conditions on its use and distribution that the creator wishes (and people who dislike the conditions can do without the creation), including giving that control to someone else. The other is that once a person allows another to have some method of copying or otherwise emulating a creation, that person can make no demand on what any other person does with it.
Notice that "Free Software" (as folks like Stallman snap if you accidentally call it "Open Source") is actually an example of the first type. Actually, releasing any work under any license besides "We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do" is just selecting what conditions you place on it and what demands you make on anyone else who comes across it.
It's ridiculous to claim that copyright or any other license is "wrong" unless you agree that all licenses, all licenses, are immoral violations of free speech. You can't cheer pirating a commercial piece of software if you can cry foul at someone violating the GPL.
So, absent any honest, significant opposition to the premises of some form of intellectual property, why don't we just discuss the aspects of licenses that we like or dislike and choose which ones we support (by spurning works with restrictions we dislike) without any pretense of moral superiority?
The fallacy of the excluded middle relies on the presentation of two options falsely described as the only options. There is no fallacy if the premises allow no middle ground. I did not say that systems other than that of consistent IP rights and nonexistance of IP could not exist or did not exist. The current copyright system would be an obvious counterexample. I did say that the two positions were the only intellectually (ie philosophically) defendable ones for the reasons I described. It is not consistent to allow creators of works any control over the distribution, attribution, etc. of those works and not allow them to set the terms of control that they prefer.
I have to point out again that you, like many, miss an important point. RMS is not on the opposite end of any spectrum from 'absolute copyright'. RMS is squarely in the IP camp. The GPL makes some very specific and non-negotiable demands of me whether or not I sign any contract, just as copyright does. All that's required to be bound by either is to possess a copy of the work. (And you conflate IP issues with shrinkwrap licenses - the controversy in that case is of the nature of contract, with IP simply not relevant.)
The issue of free speech vs. intellectual property is an important one, especially if you agree that IP rights exist. "Fair use" is merely the realm of communication about works where IP can't properly be said to apply. It's a "my right to flail my hands ends at your face" issue, though not nearly as clear-cut. Both sides of the Evil Media Corporations vs. Whiny Software Pirate debate (to cast it into the typical stereotypes) tend to try to claim the right to infringe the one right of their opponents by virtue of themselves possessing the other right.
Sadly, the incoherent nature of the copyright system and modern IP law in general truly creates this problem. It sets down one major license with conditions that various interest groups fight to alter for their own benefit in the courts and Congress. It amounts to unilaterally rewriting a contract and forcing the other parties to be bound to it. Without government forcing everyone to follow one major licensing agreement (which tends to be used to "power" alternatives - look how many copyrights Linus and Richard have) and instead enforcing intellectual property based on licenses, Whiny Pirates and Evil Suits could come to their own peace on licenses they mutually approve of. Instead of wondering whether copyleft could ever survive a court challenge, FSF fans could rest assured that selling proprietary Linux was illegal.
(And yes, it might require altering the Constitution to do it. And yes, what I'm proposing is really just consistently applying principles of the common law and property rights (hence, "IP").)
Hmm... Shouldn't be too hard.
GTK
GIMP ToolKit
GNU Image Manipulation Program ToolKit
GNU's Not Unix Image Manipulation dammit!
------
"Energy fools the Magician."
And there's nothing in there that I saw to prevent your song from appearing as background music in an advertisement for who knows what awful product. That doesn't seem right either.
I think it's a great start, but there seems like a lot of room for abuse. It seems a very BSDish license and not so much a GPLish license, despite the terms about derivative works having to be distributed under the same license.
Who wants a free copy of the "derivative work" that consists of a voiceover telling you how white your shirts can be while your song plays in the background?
Bang the head that doesn't bang!
I know many unsigned bands, or bands that have formed their own labels to distribute themselves, and they need the 'publicity' more than the money, independant bands make money by doing day jobs, and trying to save up enough to tour, or make an album. The money they might make by playing a show is spent on food, gas and other items needed while on tour. Most smaller indie bands sell more cd's at shows than from any other method, and so to sell more CD's/tapes/12"/7" they need more people to see their shows. Releasing their music free on-line will lead to more people at their shows, and hopefully those people will buy merchandise at the show to support their bands.
sorry for any incoherance, need sleep or coffee
The following sentence is TRUE. The previous sentence is FALSE.
That's probably true for major label acts, but not necessarily true for smaller acts. I've known bands that have made a release for under $500 dollars including recording and producing the media. This band has sold way more than 50 tapes at $10 each, which means $$profits$$. Of course those go into paying venues for the ability to play there. And the loop continues...
The following sentence is TRUE. The previous sentence is FALSE.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
On the other hand, I guess it would be cool to be on a commercial :-)
Except if it's for
Eue de Goat
"Smell like a real Man's Man"
then Your Name in 48pt and an (0)!!
Ack!!! [/;-)
While this is all nice and good, I'm not sure how much of an impact it'll have. I mean, for many, many of the mp3.com, besonic.com, et al groups, their music was always 'available free of charge, so long as credit is given' .. and in the situations where our music is ripped, the people who rip them arn't going to care much that your music is under (O). Since there will be no money, there's no big powerful (0) licesing watchdog to protect the interests of people under it. The problem with the industry right now is that business takes the 'all or none' approch, and the courts side with this. Either everyone pays fees for copywritten music (including Girl Scouts), or no one does. Far more useful would be to pursue better fair rights definitions, which define fair use as any situation where people listening to music are not customers of the broadcaster (like the Girl Scouts.) and where the group it is being boadcast to fits a certain minimum of ears per day (so, lets say places like funeral homes would be fine, but radio stations and malls would have to pay.) I mean, it really just comes down to some common sense that seems to have been abandoned in favour of law and precedence; should huge, rich, successful corperations get to charge you for cell phone ring tones? So long as we are not blocking these corperations' traditional path of making money (CD sales, radio broadcast), they should be made to accept that some forms of distribution without copyright payments are acceptable, and that being super-mega-rich instead of stupendously-stupidly-mega-rich will have to do.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Was Vincent van Gogh a serious artist?
No man, if you enjoyed the privilege of being an American and better yet a adherent to the ideas of of Ayn Rand you'd realize that the dollar value of a thing is its one and only value. Consider the eschatological consequence of that. As Mr. Van Gogh didn't sell any of his paintings during his life (well, two) it follows logically that as an artist, specifically a painter, he was a plain and simple failure.
Yet some Japanese fellow paid a hundred million dollars - a glorious hundred million glorious dollars! - for a single canvas of his a mere few decades after his death. This means that without a doubt he must have been a singularly potent success as a painter. Just not within his lifetime! He became a success after he died. Now it's only common sense that nonexistence is synonymous with impotence. QED, we have irrefutably proven the existence of the afterlife!
Hallelujah, WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
umm - except that this is also called "recoupable", which means the band, if they ever earn any money, will have to pay for it.
The standard record deal is a basically a loan-shark operation. :-(
well actually most bands get most of their money from signing bonuses and advances. And perhaps merchandise, if they were lucky enough to retain those rights. The chance of actually seeing any money beyond this is slight - even for big stars. Witness Courtney Love's lawsuit, TLC's bankruptcy, etc. (and it's been going on for a long time - listen to Moneygoround by the Kinks, which should be the marching song for those folks trying to start a musicians union.)
The only way forward for music as an art form and as a cultural force (other than as a purely commercial product) is to give control of music back to the musicians. The EFF licence is well-intentioned, but it concentrates on the perspective of the audience, and we need to establish a creative partnership between artists and audiences and eliminate the need for any other parties in the equation.
The bottom line is, musicians need to support homes and families - and their audiences totally understand this - "open sourcing" music only makes sense within a framework in which voluntary payments are brainlessly easy, and socially encouraged. Putting an (o) beside your track should be the same as saying - here's some music we made - give us money and we'll keep making this crazy shit. The street performer protocol is somewhat misnamed , because street perfomers don't withhold music until they are paid, the give it away, and keep doing it as long as enough folks are paying.
So here's the pitch - we're working on an open source business process for musicians - see potlatch.net - the projects kinda been on hiatus for a month or so, but we need it now more than ever. There's a mailing list set up to discuss and develop a 'potlatch protocol' which aims to provide a basic transport layer for voluntary payments.
Everybody needs this - It's now or fucking never -
this is what the potlatch protocol is trying to do - create a means for artists and creators to be rewarded - and honored - for releasing their gifts to the world.
what's to prevent Nike or Coca Cola from taking your music and sell their brand with it?
that's a double-plus barf-out in my books. enought to kill the idea dead. In fact, the first time this happens, it will. oh well, back to the old drawing board...
Why would an artist want to give rights to their music away to everyone? How do you expect people to enrichen the world with their artistic talents if there is no outlet for them to make a living doing so? People might have artistic talent, but it still takes work and devotion to their work to make it "just right". Think of bands like Tool, who spend years working on their albums, re-record their tracks, and expend increadible effort so that the product is something they are happy with. Can they do this if they cannot keep rights to their music? Would they want to? (Probably not considering today's little faked-leak) Why does everyone want everyone to give away everything they labour to produce? Why does the public need/require/deserve rights to other artists work? If you want to cover another bands song, you are free to do so as long as you don't do it to make money. What is wrong with this? It wasn't your work that created the song. It was the original artist. Why should you be entitled to make money from someone else's work without compensating the person who expended the original effort??
five fingers make a fist amalgamate and resist
This is definately a huge improvement. Now all of the musicians out there being screwed by bad copyright laws and shitty record companies can release their music for free! I bet any day now we will see important artists worldwide start giving their music away under this license! Sure they won't have money for food, instruments, or recording more music, but music is information, so it wants to be free, right?
/. post. Excuse me for being unimpressed.
This is totally silly and unworthy of a
What is source code? A human-readable description of a program which can be translated into the program using appropriate technology (a compiler). So you should provide a human-readable description of the photograph which can be translated into the photograph using the appropriate technology (a camera).
"Find a girl. Make sure she's really pretty. Get her to stand next to a well wearing a sun-hat. The well should have some blue flowers hanging over it. Oh, you'll need to find a dog too..."
I agree. I would rather my music was forced to remain open than modified and sold without redistribution or any money going to me. I didn't read this license, maybe it requires all works to be distributed for free. But I would have some serious concerns if someone could take my creative energy and profit off of it as the RIAA and their affiliate record labels have been doing with artists for decades.
But in the end I guess it all doesn't matter until I make something that sounds good. I know I will never sign any contracts with anyone affiliated with the RIAA, ever! My creative energy is worth more than money.
You, Sir, are a genius! Mod up, please... If you have time can you explain a little more or include links to info about THX/dolby and compression? I'm more of a coder than a musician, but I'm trying to learn.
I guess you've never heard techno.
Okay, maybe it would bother me if someone took some of my music and turned it into a country song or something, but similar to the freedom of speech. I don't like the way you change my music, but I will fight to the death for your right to change it... I don't feel quite this strongly, but if I was given a choice between a world without the GPL or the concepts of open source and death I'd probably choose death. I don't like capitalism and how it affects my life. Luckily the GPL and other similar licenses give me a choice, an alternative to the rat race the corporate world is creating.
I'd rather my music belonged to an open and free movement (even public domain) than to an affiliate of the RIAA. You have the same choice, so do what you feel is right for you.
Yes. But your name will be in tiny white type next to the (o) at the bottom of the tv for two seconds. Feeling "incentivised" yet?
(Speaking of "incentivised"-- When did the EFF become a bunch of neologism-drooling self-aggrandizing ineffectual dot-yuppies? Oh wait...)
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
Probably the single most evil thing I see happening with the music world is DVD-audio, because we all know that those RIAA bastards will implement music region-encoding. Preventing legally purchased movies unique to a culture from crossing continents is bad enough, but to do the same with music is an obscenity. Music should be free to cross cultural barriers, and that's simply not going to happen with region encoding. Fight the good fight, GNU people!
Sure they'll make money, but if they're not paying for it, there's no reason they should get away with gouging us $15 for half a dozen songs.
Red Hat isn't selling Linux itself. That's just the vehicle. What they're selling is The Disk, The Manual, The Good Feeling some people get from owning A Software Box. and most importantly support.
They certainly pay for these things. Just like any other company.
Linux can be gotten for free (or media cost) just about anywhere. Or hadn't you heard?
-Andy
P.S. If you're so upset about it, go over to CheapBytes and buy your OS from them. Only a fool would buy from Red Hat if he didn't care about the support/manual/box.
If you scratch out the (c) on an MS Office CD, it doesn't mean that it isn't still covered by copyright, just as if you put out your own distribution of Linux but don't include the GPL doesn't mean it is no longer covered by copyleft.
Any IP can be abused. This is to give people a way to put music out in a way that hopefully removes the reasons (financial, IP protection, etc) to abuse it. It is a legal solution as opposed to a technical one. Anyone using a technical solution to abuse free (beer and speech) IP should be forced to work for AOL tech support.
I was just listening to a skit called Welcome to the Internet Support Desk by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie on MP3.com. It has that in there. If you haven't heard it, it is hilarious!
The best thing about it that I have had to say nearly the exact same thing to some of the people I talk to.
"No, that's my fault. First turn the computer on, and then try to login."
True, but it has become shorthand for the copyright charater (which I was too lazy to look up the ascii for, and am still too lazy to).
Though I would argue that it is "meaningless". Just about everything a person writes is copyrighted. The notice is just a formal claim and date of copyright. While IANAL-ADWTB (And don't want to be), I would think that putting in "(c)" would indicate the intention satisfacorily for a court, if it went that far. Especailly since the ascii character may not show up in all fonts/browsers.
I don't see a direct benefit to the original artist from derived works.
;-). But submitting changes and having them integrated into a song like the software model is just ridiculous. Music is a creative endeavour pursued by people/person with a vision.
I think you guys are missing the point. The benefit of writing Free Software is being able to actually use it and have it used and not sacrifice liberties and freedoms. Improvements via patches are only to improve the software in some way. Music is the same in that the purpose of music is to enjoy it. It elicits strong feelings and emotions(NOTE: if your music doesn't do this for you, look for better music
The purpose of allowing modifications and derived works is to permit the creation of new songs based on inspirational ideas found in other songs. Some people may not like the guitar or the arrangment you used and so create a new mix. Different versions will appeal to different people. You might even like the remixes of your song in that they may provide a completely different and refreshing feel to something you created, so they would benefit you as well. The point of Open Music is maximizing enjoyment for everyone, including the artists(who can draw inspiration and ideas without legal worries), just like Free Software is about maximizing the usefulness of software while not compromising your freedom to do what you want with it. THAT's the point.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
I'll speak from what experience I have: electronic music. I'm sure you know of MIDI files. Patterns and melodies can be taken from those as the sounds themselves are provided by external hardware. If other people want to use the patterns, they can provide their own sounds, instruments, or whatever else may be needed. You're not in this to baby them, you're in this to satisfy yourself and distribute your music. There's no clause in the license requiring you to ensure the people who download your music can start up there own studio and make their own songs. That's their responsibility.
If you wanted to provide your recorded tracks then by all means do. There are Free lossless compression algorithms that will take AudioCD and reduce the size by a good 20-30%. Since most songs are composed of individually recorded audio tracks and these tracks are stored on HD's then mixed down to DAT's, ADAT's or CD's (once again, the way I do it), then you could just post your tracks. Once again, if you wanted to.
As far as inspiration goes, I can make music today that is inspired by other music without copyright worries. (Using the lyrics and musical arrangement does create problems though).
Inspired, yes. Derived, no. And reusing lyrics and arrangments is the whole point I was trying to make. What if you want one little thing changed in an otherwise perfect song. You can do it if you really wanted to. Before you were just stuck with it.
The problem with music is that it's not code. Code is functional. It is useful to get a job done. Music is ( art | entertainment ), and does not serve a functional purpose.
I think you're missing the point too. I acknowledge the fact that code is different. I explicitly said that the purpose of writing a program was to use it for something. Then I said, the purpose of music is to enjoy it, or to be entertained to use your terms. Exactly where are you disagreeing with me? Perhaps if you re-read my post you'll understand. This Open Music license isn't to facilitate sharing of mixes or tracks, it's to facilitate the enjoyment of music whatever way you like to enjoy it, whether by creating it, or just listening.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
When was the last time you heard real techno on the radio? The radio stations that people actually listen to play either oldies (aka "trademark music") or rock.
.xm/.s3m/.it, but not everybody likes techno.
I live in Toronto, Canada, and "techno"(in your sense) is very popular here. I meant to say that I create this music, not that I just listen to it.
MIDI (at least General MIDI 1) is very orchestral-biased. Sure you can release your techno as
You're misunderstanding. I don't use MIDI for listening to the music; I use MIDI to control my external sound hardware(which is what it's designed to do). If you have an electronic keyboard(or sound card with built-in sounds), and you download a MIDI file you can assign any instrument to play the pattern coded in the file. So if you wanted to disseminate a drum pattern, or piano melody, all you need to give is the pattern and you can play with it however you like.
Except that in the case of rock music, external hardware to produce a recording from the composition involves wetware (humans to sing and humans to play guitars), and use of wetware is billed by the hour (minimum wage laws).
Yeah, so? If you want to create a remix of a song-and do a good job-you need to spend time and money. The music would still be provided in finished form(ie. mp3) for listening, but if you want to create your own mix, or version, you could just download the patterns as MIDI files(for electronic music anyway). Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant?
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Thst's all fine and good, but until I get free guitar strings, cables, and tubes for every song I write, I'll keep trying to make a living from it.
Allow me to make a substitution. "until I get free computers, cables, and monitors for every Free program I write, I'll keep trying to make a living from it." Now just like Free Software isn't for every programmer, so the Open Music License isn't for every artist. It's your music, do what you like with it. I am of the opinion that there is always a way, if you really want something. So despite the apparent difficulties you seem to forsee with the distribution of rock, it can be done.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
maybe I'll actually get around to finishing some of my songs and releasing them... its only taking me 5 years...
One Can Never Own Enough Musical Instruments...
Oddly enough, I do not work at Burger King. In fact, I work as a formulations development chemist for a rather influential pharmaceutical/biotech/drug-delivery company. Being a serious musician has nothing to do with that.
My 5 years of work will most certainly not be worthless. If people like what I have done, and appreciate the work I have put forth, that's all I ask - I don't need music to support me, but I'm not exactly giving up music.
So, laugh all you want. Its people like you that I don't need.
One Can Never Own Enough Musical Instruments...
Burger King, 2001
FAO all recruitment agencies,
We are now automatically hiring anyone who has released any music recordings under the GNU Pulic Music License. If any suitable candidates are found, please forward their details to recruitment@burgerking.com.
Note, you may want to consider laugh and their gullibility first first.
-- Andrem
There has been a major scientific break-in
-Legion
Depends what you mean by "most bands". Small bands probably don't sell (m)any albums, so they make 100% of their income from concerts. At the other end of the spectrum people like U2, backstreet boys etc make a fortune from concerts, but they also make a fortune from record sales. In the middle, the money mainly comes from album sales. Single sales make little, if anything. They are primarily designed to advertise the album.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
--Brett Glass
i had thought about this acouple of years back, which means that someone probably thought of it before. the reasonm i decided to not bother trying to do a 'GPL for tradition art' (audio/visual/text - arts), is that, i personally would perfere to have control over who plays the music that i compose, in fact i'm somewhat of a bastard about it, and although i'll likely only charge for my music if someone (for some strage reason) where to try to put it on an album. i can also see that the argument for this is the likely to be the exact same one as the arguement for free software; i support free software, it helps people, and they have the ability to reciprocate. to make music equivolent, you would have to make some form on notation (sheet music) availible (freely and likely online to save on postage). not only does this remove one source of income for compossers (royalties), but would add the expense (social and moneytary) of either having to transcribe and public every peice, or to be ridiculaled (like the freshmeat people). even if they can find a way to make this pracitle, i don't think i would support it, i've never run across a situation where i needed a peice of music that did something and wished that it wasn't closed source. i do not think i will support this.
Phish actually used to setup a patch-bay where you could plug in your own DAT at their shows. They quit when some guy couldn't get a good signal, and decided to rewire some of the equiptment (and disrupt the show) :)
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
Similaraly, someone could dowload my tunes, add a few breakbeats to them, and claim they've made a derivitave work and sell that work under a different name.
Thats the exact problem GPL software has (in my oponion) ... your not profiting from your work because of your altruism, but Red Hat and Mandrake are.
I think what it comes down to is, if the creator is not profiting from his music, why should others profit from it.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
Coders can get paid kick ass wages for a regular day job, then have the luxury of giving away code they like.
A typical musician does not get by so easily, and certainly doesn't have the luxury of getting paid near six figures by playing the club circuit (and no comparable benefits either).
Of course there is still room for the amateur musician to contribute, but you'll get amateur results generally.
I just don't think musicians have the spare time and money to throw away what could prove valuable. The conditions and wages these guys put up with in the hopes of making it are worse than we could expect doing tech support.
t
Sure they could just insert an (o) into the file name, but that would be an overt act of theft. There would be no possibility of an ambiguous defense like, "I only download mp3's that I have on cd already."
t
Sparky,
Just because you cannot comprehend something does not necessarily make it stupid. Generally, halfway decent moderators, like I usually think myself to be, mod things up when they are useful, but don't punish the people when that particular thing ceases to be useful. I was going to say, "Stick around and you'll learn," but given how low your user # is, I'm guessing that the actual scenario just did not occur to you.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
Here.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
One of the main differences, is that I've tried to work into the license protection from others profiting from your work, because as an artist, that's what I fear. I'm alright with people passing my artwork around, but if they've got a way to make money with it, they need to work out a deal with me. I'd be interested in hearing comments from other artists (and non-artists) - how they feel about this.
The site also includes a voting system that allows collaborative filtering. I haven't promoted it at all yet, so there's not a large selection of stuff in the database, but if anyone wants to take a look, or to add stuff to the collection, they're more than welcome.
Peace.
Seriously, though, it all depends on which definition of "free" you are talking about, and about how much freedom qualifies as free. There's no such thing as complete freedom, even with the GPL or BSD licenses.
The freedom I'm offering with my license is freedom to do anything except earn money off it. That is quite a bit of freedom, when you think of it - certainly more than most art being distributed these days.
My other observation though was that if you still want to keep the financial "freedoms", why isn't current copyright good enough?
I think there's some confusion here - copyright is the foundation of licenses - even the GPL relies on copyright. Copyright simply states that the creator has "final say" in what happens to their work. The license then states what that "final say" is.
the license is stating that no one can make money from distribution of your work
Actually I'm just stating that if they want to make money from distribution that they have to talk to me first. It would then be dependent on the situation, but I'd probably say, "Sure! As long as I get a fair cut!".
I think that there is a possible market for media promoted in this way - perhaps one could get popular through free (as in beer) grass roots distribution, and then a publisher offers to pick up the work and sell it to the Wal-Mart crowd, giving the artist a cut. It's not too different than what happens now, except the artist is in control instead of the publisher.
I'd be glad to hear any further thoughts you have!
No, you may not perform others' music without paying royalties. It's done all the time, but it is technically illegal, and the RIAA has done such unsavory things as sending threatening letters to summer camps for singing copywritten campfire songs without paying royalties (back in '96, someone posted a link around somewhere).
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
True, music is not like software in that you don't normally "upgrade" or "patch" music, ie, create derived works that are improvements on the original. However, say you (unknown artist) write Cool Song, and release it under the Open Music License. Then Puff Daddy takes Cool Song and makes the hip-hop version of Cool Song (for free). His version will have to be under the Open Music License, and he will have to credit you for Cool Song. So now everyone will think that you are cool since you wrote the song that Puff Daddy's megahit is based on. So you could potentially benefit from a derived work.
Structured data. Structured searching. The Enzyme Project
Actually, at least in the U.S., the law was changed about ten years ago so that works are automatically copywrited, whether they say it or not.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
Your 5 years of effort will be worthless if you release under this.
There is still a way to make money off this: release the first half, take orders for the CD, and release the second half ONLY if you get enough orders.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Honestly, most musicians make little or no money off royalties and simply live off advances
In that case, the Street Performer Protocol (release the preview, deposit full version in a safe place, take orders for the full version, and release the full version if and only if you got enough orders) would compensate musicians just as much as or more than the RIAA regime does.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This gives you several rights, the most important one is that anyone can distribute as long as they give the original author credit (which is very important with an artform like music, it would bite to hear your song later and have someone else claiming they wrote/performed it).
You just described MIT- and BSD-style noncopyleft licenses. (I am a musician and have released musical works and sound recordings, mostly folk song covers, under a slightly customized version of the XFree86 license.) The "attribution" requirement in (O) is similar to the language "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software" from XFree86.
The difference is that this is a copyleft. From (O): "Any new work that in whole or in part contains or is derived from a work (or part thereof) made available under this license, must itself be licensed as a whole under the terms of this license."
Will I retire or break 10K?
I'll speak from what experience I have: electronic music.
When was the last time you heard real techno on the radio? The radio stations that people actually listen to play either oldies (aka "trademark music") or rock.
I'm sure you know of MIDI files.
MIDI (at least General MIDI 1) is very orchestral-biased. Sure you can release your techno as .xm/.s3m/.it, but not everybody likes techno. In my experience, .mid and the various MOD derivatives do an entirely inadequate job of reproducing rock music, which uses vocals and electric guitar heavily. There's a reason MIDI rock sounds like video game music.
Patterns and melodies can be taken from those as the sounds themselves are provided by external hardware.
Except that in the case of rock music, external hardware to produce a recording from the composition involves wetware (humans to sing and humans to play guitars), and use of wetware is billed by the hour (minimum wage laws).
Will I retire or break 10K?
So should I submit the multitrack tapes along with the original mix? Think of a 4 minute song in WAV format - pretty big file, and only 2 tracks. Now consider a 4 minute song, uncompressed, with 8, 16, 32, maybe 96 tracks of audio. Sure, you can compress it
In that case, each instrument can be compressed individually using a model for each instrument. You can get away with a slightly lossy model for distribution of multitrack audio because the THX audio production standard needs only 75 dB of SNR (about 13-bit precision) in the final mix. In fact, some instrument parts (drums and electronic instruments) can be compressed 1000:1 into MIDI data.
As far as inspiration goes, I can make music today that is inspired by other music without copyright worries.
Not if every sane chord progression or melody is copyrighted. (Remember the "Yes We Have No Bananas" case?) For example, there are seven notes in any mode (major, minor, lydian, etc.). Start at any note and move five times, and you can make any six-note melody. Combinatorics says that there are only 6^5 < combinations of five moves with six destinations, that is, fewer than 8000 six-note melodies. It's almost as bad as the situation with patents, where the probability of reinventing a patented invention is so great that it's holding up "the progress of science and useful arts."
Will I retire or break 10K?
The copyright industry? Puh-lease tell me this is just a poor choice of words rather than somebody's cockeyed view of the world.
I've used this term before. It refers to the entertainment industry in the sense that it controls popular culture with the iron fist of copyright. Why again does Disney still have a monopoly on Mickey Mouse?
largely spearheaded by (c), Inc.
"Copyright Inc." is not too far off base. There are companies whose sole purpose is to milk copyright for all it's worth, such as ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, and MPAA.
First :-) gets patented
No, :-(® is a trademark, not a patent. Right office, wrong monopoly. Trademark #75502288 on ":-(" applies only to "Printed matter namely, greeting cards, posters and art prints."
Will I retire or break 10K?
If a radio station is playing music distributed under this license, ASCAP and BMI effectively will earn money from it anyway. That doesn't seem right.
Except ASCAP and BMI pay out royalties to each songwriter based on how much each song is found in the stats.
And there's nothing in there that I saw to prevent your song from appearing as background music in an advertisement for who knows what awful product. That doesn't seem right either.
In that case, the entire audio track of the ad would fall under the (O) license, and you would be credited in small print at the bottom of the screen at the beginning of the commercial. It'd be an advertisement for your product also.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If artists would put donation buttons on their web pages, I would be willing to donate if they didn't have a CD.
MP3.com has a system called D.A.M. An artist can throw ten tracks onto a CD playlist, and anyone who buys that playlist will have a CD burned and shipped with both Red Book and MP3 tracks on it. I have actually bought a few D.A.M. CDs.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If you're concerned about a certain scenario resulting in the artist being screwed over if they use this license, send your question to the EFF. I had the opportunity to be present at the expo where this license was announced. Many similar questions were asked there, and the EFF deftly answered them all. By sending your questions to the EFF, you'll also help to raise their awareness that certain frequently asked questions are missing from their FAQ.
Is it just me, or is this a strong candidate for Non Sequitur Of The Month?
Was Vincent van Gogh a serious artist? Dmitri Shostakovich? Did Solzhenitsyn suddenly become a serious artist on the day he defected, after years of churning out worthless tat?
Sure, lots of highly respected artists have made plenty of money from their art, and I don't for one minute denigrate their success, but plenty more have failed to sell a single work and died penniless.
I'd guess that you come froma culture where money is considered not only the paramount, but actually the only virtue. Such a shame, life can be so much richer if you broaden your horizons a little.
TomV
Here's the dead's policy. It's pretty straightforward
But also a special case because it's embedded in 30 years of taper culture. Even before they put out the statement we all knew what the policy would be. A lot of us flatly refuse to buy boots of the Dead. And those who do usually make a point of then redistributing the material as widely as possible to demolish the bootleggers' markets.
(note that I had to remove some "====" spacers from the quote because the lameness filter didn't like them. They appeared to the left and right of the heading, plus a full-width row at the bottom of the quote)TomV
First, let me say that the proposed EFF license is solving the wrong problem. They're going for something that's a complete parallel to the GPL, down to free commercial use. This is not going to attract established artists, given the differences between software and music, and the differences in how software developers and musicians get paid. You can make a living from GPLed software -- it is not clear that you can make a living from GPLed music.
If the EFF wants to get into the license writing business, they should go for a license that combines free non-commercial use ("don't fight potential customers - you never win") and narrowly tailored open business models for various commercial uses. For instance, "anyone may license this song for commercial distribution on CD upon payment of applicable royalties", or "broadcasters may play this song for free." Such a hybrid model has the advantage that it preserves the artist's income from commercial use and can provide a measure of protection against unwanted uses of recordings (e.g., for advertising). Making publishing non-exclusive (or less exclusive than it is today) would prevent the big record companies from standing in the way of progress (online sales of individual tracks; custom CD kiosks; multi-album DVDs) and make it harder for any one company to, by its own actions, keep an album out of print.
And they should drop the (o).
I do have some issues with your philosophical arguments.
You're committing the classic fallacy of the excluded middle. Either authors must have absolute control over works, or society must ensure that they have no control over works. But it doesn't work that way. The Founding Fathers made the decision that authors do not have property rights to their works, but that Congress can grant them exclusive (monopoly) rights for limited times as a means of promoting goals that are of benefit to society. This is not an intellectually dishonest position, but it is one that you dismiss by claiming that the only choices are either RMS's preference (i.e., no copyrights) or the unConstitutional, absolute copyrights that would likely be the preference of the copyright maximalists.
As for Free Speech, there is inherent tension between copyright monopolies and the First Amendment. This is accomodated in two ways: first by the Constitutional requirement that the (optional) copyright laws be a means of promoting the progress of the Arts and Sciences; second by provisions such as Fair Use that limit the aspects of the monopoly that could most seriously interfere with First Amendment rights. The Congress has broad authority in formulating copyright laws -- but not authority to grant copyrights for unlimited times, not authority to place private interests before public interests, and not authority to disregard the interaction with the First Amendment.
You are also equating a license that is written to work with contract and copyright law (the GPL) with so-called "licenses" whose goal is to bypass basic requirements for contract formation and create a "contract" where none exists.
Wow, the ridiculous EFF has done it again. Don't you people realize what we've been trying to drill into your head all along? Copying music is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Think about it: would you steal your mom's music just because she marked it (O)?
Next up, think of the artists! Yeah, sure, you may think this is a voluntary thing. They'll only make it (O) if they want to. Oh, yeah, sure. They already don't make any money because the RIAA takes it all. Now there's a competing music distributor called the EFF, who they can apparently go with and make no money because their music has to be (O). So, obviously, the only way to distribute your music is by not making money. This is a choice!?
Next, the money's in support. The only way they'll make money off this is the way we've been harping on all along-- providing preinstalled copies of the songs with handy utilities, or offering tech support when the song doesn't work. You know, like if it sucks. Then they'll just give you a version that doesn't suck.
Finally, unions are evil cartels. If artists everywhere start using this, it'll restrict use of this music to a select few: anyone who wants to use it and not pay any money. This is freedom? This isn't how America works, and it's not how the world works. If you're not a goddammed commie, you owe it to yourself and the world to prevent artists from using the (O).
Note, I'm not saying that to be inflammatory, and also note, I have not read your license.
I base my claim simply on that if you want to reserve the right to determine how others use your work, then you are not distributing your work "freely".
The real point of a free license is that you are giving end users (so to speak) the same rights you have yourself as the author. If you want to distribute your work in a way that does not allow the end users the same freedoms as you, then you aren't distributing under a "free" license.
If you want to distribute your work over the net, but still stay in the catbird seat when it comes to financial negotiation, copyright as it stands is for you. That strategy is simply good business. Lots of people do it. You build your reputation with free (as in cost-free) stuff, then if anyone likes what you do, and wants to use what you do, you can demand a paycheck.
A free license for creative work is definitely a different animal than one for software. But like all agreements, you have to know what you're getting into before you sign on. If you don't realize that a certain license allows anyone to make money from your work without having to pay you, and you use that license anyway, well, you're screwed. You were ignorant, that's the way it goes. In cases like that, you'd best remember that Kipling poem about being a man, you won't get much more comfort.
The (o) symbol dangerously changes this: suddenly the default assumption is that material is not free/public-domain unless clearly marked as such. If you copy something without the (o) mark, assumption will be that you are committing an illegal act unless you can prove public-domain status, instead of assuming free unless proven otherwise.
This is one more big step toward socialism: you can't do anything unless permission is given. No (o), no copy. So much for the freedom to copy (unless the (c) is present).
The EFF and "information wants to be free" folk have just broken their own backs.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
What if someone makes a copyrighted song with part of an OpenAudience song in it? Is it like the GPL where someone cant use open code in their own code unles they make their code open too? What if someone makes an Open song with, say, the bass line to a metallica, and someone else makes an open song with the drum part... Could someone play a metallica song as Open because they got all the parts for it from different Open songs?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Sure Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys can make money on promotional materials and tours, but what about the smaller bands out there. I still have trouble seeing why anyone would buy a relatively unknown artist's promo material. They probably have to give it away to generate interest at radio stations and such. Or if they do sell stuff, it's just enough to cover the costs. People must want to buy stuff in order to sell it. I don't see a lot of interest for JonKatz's scented bath oil or a 12-months of Slashdot calander.
Why does music need "Major Artists".
Whats wrong with a whole lot of really good "minor" artists
The Recording Industry has turned music into a Mcdonalds like commodity. The choices are limited to those who can get published by a major record label
We listen to the same rendition of the same songs over and over and over and we don't know anything is wrong because this is the way it has been in living memory. (and I am 50 years old).
Imagine the artistic explosion that will occur aided by modern technology and not held back by recording industry monopolies
Question Reality
When I read a story like this I think maybe there is some hope for humanity after all...
In lieu of the recent napster debacle, this open music license is exactly what was needed.
Now the question remains, how long will it take to gain acceptance among musicians?
- Toby
(The other side of bootlegging is where you tape a show against the band's will - i.e. they don't allow taping, but you go in with stealth mics and do it anyway, and then trade/sell it).
wishus
---
Yes, the RIAA is evil. I want my music to belong to me.
wishus
---
The Grateful Dead encouraged the trading of recordings of their live performances. "Tapers" would tape the show, and then trade it about the community.
The Dead didn't condone "bootlegging," which, in their case, applied to people who tried to sell copies of these tapes for a profit.
One time, a certain independant record store that was selling GD bootlegs came to the attention of the band. Rather than sue the store and put it out of business, they simply bought the store. The store clerks kept their job, the store stayed open for all the people who chose to shop at that store, but the bootlegs disappeared.
My point is, that because of their taping policy, the Dead are often used (like in the above article) as a champion for music sharing. But trading live tapes is alot different from trading studio albums. I'm not sure what the GD's opinion of file sharing would be, but using them as an endorsement simply because of their taping policy is not sound.
wishus
---
I don't see a direct benefit to the original artist from derived works. The way I work (and I can't say for any other musician) is that I get a piece of music (lyric, etc.) the way I like it and then it's "done." Yes, I enjoy improvisation every time I perform the piece, but it's essentially the same piece of music. The presentation may be a little (or a lot) different, but the "essence" of it is the same. Capturing that essence in each performance is the fun part.
Someone else, who may or may not capture that essence in their performance, does not benefit me either way.
Musicians still have to buy guitar strings, blank media, drum heads, cables, tubes, etc. Peer support and fame are all well and good, but musicians that don't have to work a day job can focus on making more and better music.
How about a AEL (Artistic Equipment License) - send me a pack of light gauge phospor-bronze acoustic guitar strings for every 10 songs you download. Optionally, you can send a Horizon 10' instrument cable every 20 songs.
wishus
---
So should I submit the multitrack tapes along with the original mix?
How are they going to get the guitar out without the multitrack tapes? EQ can only go so far. If you want to follow the software model, allowing people to change the original work, then you need to treat the multis the same way as source code.
And then you run into a problem, because, unless you're using a DAW, most multitracks are not easliy distributable. I suppose you could create a hardware/software solution that would transfer the contents of ADAT along with SMPTE codes onto your harddisk in an internet-friendly format, but using any sort of lossy compression scheme on it would be a bad idea.. And the files would be very large. Think of a 4 minute song in WAV format - pretty big file, and only 2 tracks. Now consider a 4 minute song, uncompressed, with 8, 16, 32, maybe 96 tracks of audio. Sure, you can compress it, but you won't want any lossy scheme when you're working at the track level. Not to mention we'd all have to buy the hadware/software to "share" the multitracks.
That is assuming all the world uses ADAT. What about the DA-88 folks? What about the analog folks?
As far as inspiration goes, I can make music today that is inspired by other music without copyright worries. (Using the lyrics and musical arrangement does create problems though).
The problem with music is that it's not code. Code is functional. It is useful to get a job done. Music is ( art | entertainment ), and does not serve a functional purpose. Yes, you can argue that code can be artistic, and that is true, but the basic reason to write code is to create a tool to do a job. People don't read code or run software for enjoyment. (Software like games can provide entertainment and enjoyment, but that comes from playing a game, not executing software).
I think I've rambled long enough.
wishus
---
Most rock songs are recorded to ADAT, not hard disk. ADAT is an 8 track media format, great for recording, but you don't mix down to it. Very few commercial rock albums are made on DAWs - most are made on ADAT or DA-88.
I suppose our difference is that you make electronic music, and I make rock. Other than synths and possibly drums, MIDI is pretty useless for rock. I've used it before, with a drum box and a synth, to fill in when I didn't have a drummer and bass player, but the feel just isn't right for rock.
This Open Music license isn't to facilitate sharing of mixes or tracks, it's to facilitate the enjoyment of music whatever way you like to enjoy it, whether by creating it, or just listening.
Thst's all fine and good, but until I get free guitar strings, cables, and tubes for every song I write, I'll keep trying to make a living from it.
wishus
---
Sarcasm aside, most people will still want music the big labels, not just because the labels dominate what is promoted on the radio (although they do, and that's part of it), and not just because the labels can spend more on production (although they can, and that is also part of it), and not just because they control the retail pipelines (again, they do, and it's part)... The main reason why people will continue to buy from the labels is the same reason why "Armageddon" sold more tickets than a lot of superior independant films. Major labels are filters.
If you are the sort of person who actually enjoys bubblegum pop like Britney Spears (and millions of people are), you are far more likely to find stuff you like at the mall CD/DVD store than at the indie shop downtown that also sells bongs and tie-die shirts.
Independent music boosters: pop quiz. In ten seconds or less, name 3 indie albums that a 14 year-old girl would spend her lunch money on.
Sure, you like better music than what a 14 year-old girl does... but she spends more on records, tickets, t-shirts, etc than you do. As long as major labels keep producing albums that she would like, and promotes them in ways that will get the tunes stuck in her head, they will continue to me a media empire.
On the other hand, only a small handful of performers win the "teen idol" lottery each year. For every Britney Spears, there are thousands would-be pop stars who sing, dance, and look every bit as good as her, but will never make a penny. Most of the music world is divided this way: superstars and people with nothing.
But also for every Briney Spears, there are a few dozen really good bands who just manage to get by selling albums at shows, and never expect to make the "big score" of a label deal. (And they know that most labels that express interest in them are just out to rip them off.)
For those people, the rare middle-class of the music industry, this new license idea is quite a boon. College radio died somewhere in the middle of the 90's, and Internet broadcasting is slowly beginning to fill the void.
Lars doesn't want you trading his MP3's, but the bands playing in the bars just off-campus near your local university need you to trade their MP3's, because it is the only way their music will reach anybody new.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I am personally for free speech (With sensible restrictions, of course). I'm also not stupid, who would turn down free beer? (In moderation, of course) However many people here seem to equate freedom of speech to simply stealing a persons property, which is an abhorent act! This seems to be why we are now seeing "licencses" such as this, which appears to have the soul purpose of allowing college kids to repackage someone elses hard work, and then defend their theft under the banner of "Free Speech".
I think you are missing the point of this License. It cannot be used to make "theft of music" magically legal (i.e. I cannot go out and put Twisted Sister's "We're not gonna take it" under this license any more than you could). On the other hand, if I create an original song/story/play or whatever, and decide I want to release it for free ("free beer"), then this gives me a way to do it while still keeping my rights to the work. You could then legally copy it, burn CDs, trade it via Gnutella/Freenet/whatever as much as you wanted to. You wouldn't be allowed to make money on my work or claim it as your own.
I do not see how me allowing my works to be distributed "free beer" style is an abhorent act as long as it is my decision to do so. I could even choose to distribute my works like shareware (preview up to 30 days, if you like it/keep it pay me x amount, otherwise delete it). IMHO this is a great idea.
Beware of Sleestak
You may want to put a song free to draw attention to yourself - small bands do this sometimes to build a listener base. Get people to come to a concert, then sell CDs, etc.
Another reason may be an amateur musician who writes and performs a neat song that he thinks others may enjoy. He is not into music as a profession or even a part time job, and is not really thinking about income (at least at this point).
Beware of Sleestak
Where does that first quote end at? It just goes on and on as there is no end quote. I am so confused now :-P
This is silly. You think people that already infringe on copyright law are going to uphold this? HA! Oh, and the GD only allowed trading of live concerts, the released albums & studio material was always off limits to free trade, although it happened. I don't know about you, but if some artist is going to use MY material, possibly even profit from MY material, I want more compensation than just a few scribbles on the backside/bottom of some small print. I gotta eat, too ya know.
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
Since when is doing something for the fun of it a worthless act?
,aside from mega-pop stars, comes from public performance anyway.
Musicians don't make any money as it is, and all the money any musician makes
Setting down clear rules on how free music can be traded is the first step toward creating opertunity for musicians who want to try to build their fan base by distributing music over the Internet.
I'm don't work for the record industrie, but from all the interviews and such with musicians, most don't seem to make any money unless they make huge sales (here in Canada you have to go gold just to break even on a major label record deal).
I suspect that to make money in the states the states you have to sell a least 250,000 copies just to break even (and I know for a fact most of the bands I listen to sell than that).
Well, there is a certain mindset out there that might appreciate the more exotic T-shirts, for example, rather than the bland stuff released by the big named stars...
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
I am very excited about there finally being a way for me to release my music in an open/free format. It would be really cool if we could get some label and artist to put out a actual CD on the (O) licence! Imagine a top 40 song that had free/open content. In my opinion this would help strengthen our argument about free software as well!
This is all well and good, an honourable outreach of the FSF into realms other than their own familiar world of software. However the "opening" of music doesn't yield the same advantages that can be had with the analogy of software.
:) and that probably wasn't even their aim in the first place, merely a legitimate form of copyright to proect artists who wouldn't have the backing of a record label. Maybe I should go read the damn thing now... =)
With software, the idea is that you can access the source to be able to make your own modifications, see how it works, learn from it, and so on. THAT's the primary aim. It's not the only one of course, others include keeping the source together with the compiled program, keeping it free (beer), etc...
In the case of this music "copyleft" on the other hand, you don't get the benefits they had in mind when they created the GPL; it doesn't lend itself in a useful way when music is the IP in question. It's not like you're not getting all the pre-mastered project files from Cakewalk/ProTools/whatever. You don't get the benefit of seeing how it was made, from which to glean useful tricks of the trade and learn and build up your own knowledge.
[This is, of course, all possible - with the myriad MODule formats created in the last 15 years (MOD ULT 669 FAR STM S3M XM IT and now BUZZ, and so on). That's what made it possible for so many bedroom artists to hone their skills (without huge amounts of gear I might add), and what encourages people to get into composing in the first place - in line with the whole demoscene philosophy, not too far off from the hacker/geek one really, to which it owes its existance incidentally.]
Without all that, I don't see this (o) thang as being hugely relevant; sure, they sound like they're trying to liberate music to its former state before it became simply another commercial industry, but the people that want to release their music into the public domain are already doing that. It's just not introducing any of the revolutionary ideas that the GPL introduced / built on, ie. the ability to (re)use the code in your own way, learn from it, the potential harnessing of myriad programmers around the globe, and all that.
Of course, I haven't *really* read the whole thing properly yet
--
Revolutionaries, schmevolutionaries..what are they going to revolt against when anarchy becomes regime du jour?
WTF is "incentivising"?
This seems like a nice thing on the surface, and I guess if any artists actually decide that they want to use the (o) instead of the (c) they're welcome to do so.
But I think this can be twisted in its interpretation until it amounts to a If this is taken to be such a concession, then it may in fact be a step backward: (o) will secure freedom but won't be used, and (c) will take all the freedom away, and when people complain about it, the copyright people will say, "Look, if the artist wanted you to make copies for personal use, he would have released this under the (o) license."
The EFF should concentrate on preserving existing freedom, and not coming up with a new terminology to replace the eroding freedoms under the old terminology.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Shrink-wrap music licenses [shudder]
If the OML (?) becomes commonly available, wouldn't that encourage the music industry to start wrapping CDs, SDMIs, etc. in a "You agree to these terms" package, or a "Click to accept" license?
Today the notion of a license for music is considered pretty ridiculous, even for Joe User; but if this became commonly available, the industry could say "Well, the Free Software folks believe in a license, so we have ours too!" Yuck.
Someone please tell me how we can avoid this outcome!
sulli
RTFJ.
> Photographs don't have source code.
It all depends on your definition of source code.
I know I should translate the docs in GNUArt so that you may understand my point of view.
We'll discuss it further once this will be done if you wish.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
FYI, the GNUArt Project which consists of GPL'ing Art has become reality on http://gnuart.org (charter) and http://gnuart.net (gallery) on January 1st, 2001.
The advantage of GNUArt is obvious as, instead of having yet another license, we just exploit a valid existing one.
It is still being translated to english at the moment but you have the fish until then.
The charter was co-written with Richard Stallman.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Just wondering if the RIAA has put out a press release yet with regard to this new Open Source format. I wonder if there are any loop holes in this format. . .not that we would ever think to exploit them (faster guys!!!!)
Nonetheless, long live the MP3 format.
Fruit flies like bananas... Time flies like the wind...
This is primarily due to the fact that there was no way of reproducing music besides _playing_ it. Musicians would learn a song from other musicians, from their religious centers, their family, or at the pub (so to speak). Gifted and dedicated musicians were able to make a living through their trade -- a living more or less as rewarding as other trades of the times. Very gifted musicians might find a patron who would support them to a degree in exchange for having a live-in musician (remember, no recorded music for most of history). Most of us can think of an example of such an arrangement, a particular favorite of mine would be William the Blind Irish Harper, who gave us "Shebug an Shemore" (sp? my Gaelic is poor).
When written music came along, the primary restrictions on copy were related to finding and paying someone who could copy it.
All of this is, of course, a gross over-simplification of the history of music distrobution, but my primary point is, that the job description of a musician has been, until very recently, to _perform_ music, not to record it. Technology, for a while, allowed the musician to profit from a single, highly refined performance. Technology is now eroding much of that profit. The job -- and primary source of income -- of a professional musician will always be performing music.
As a final case to illustrate my point, I offer Rock Fest, a 4-day concert here in Wisconsin, dedicated to fabulous musicans who sell almost no records: White Snake, Bon Jovi, Ratt, etc. Concerts like Rock Fest are the primary source of income for these artists, who once profited mainly from record sales: even w/o Napster, eventually, performance is all you have.
Q: What do you call a drummer who broke up w/ their girl/boyfriend?
No. "Compensated" usually means "People *pay* for your stuff, the record companies *make a profit*, and after you pay back your loan to them, *THEN* you get jack shit." This license is trying to change all that.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Ed R.Zahurak
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
"Numerous musicians have traditionally taken advantage of super-distribution of their music, such as the Grateful Dead, a band that attributes much of its success to its encouragement of fans to freely copy and share its music."
...as well as, for the record, metallica, who was given much praise and even compared to the dead when they set up a special area (called the "snake pit") specifically for people who wanted to record during one of their tours.
not to run that one any further into the ground, but i saw the reference and thought i'd throw this out there.
to email, take off every 'zig'
...Ani DiFranco and ChuckD would use it. Honestly, most musicians make little or no money off royalties and simply live off advances. It i is as bad as indentured servitude. Sure there are examples like the Stones who rake it in, but they had to get burned hard before they struck off on their own.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
This is all well and good, but it won't be viewed as something useful by most musicians unless they can see that they can recieve support with this in place.
What needs to be done is that we, the people who are aware of the issue, need to make a special point of downloading, listening, giving feedback, and pass on the music that people release with this license. If this is done, it will force a change in the business. However, if most of these folks are ignored, the musicians will be forced to go back to the record companies.
Yes the link does work.
--
--hongpong.com
Heil Sig! -Rob
This is nice, but I still wish someone would make a license or social contract that emphasizes voluntary payments, rather than just saying in a footnote, oh yeah, we don't actually prevent you from making money, we just care about other people's freedoms. What we need is both the freedom to share music and computer programs, and the philosophy that if something adds value to your life, you should pay for it. If you don't, shame on you, but you can still enjoy the music/software/art. Kind of like public radio or public TV. Or like tipping your waiter or service giver. Or paying for your gas after filling your car up instead of zooming away.
I believe many people are willing to pay for something, even if it is easy to copy. Imagine a world where CDs could be copied for any purpose legally. Would CD sales drop to zero? I don't think so. I for one would continue to buy them. In fact, much of the music I listen to (mostly electronic/IDM stuff) is available on artist web sites and Napster, but I still shell out for the shiny disc. If artists would put donation buttons on their web pages, I would be willing to donate if they didn't have a CD.
That's true, you CAN do that. But realistically, how many people are going to do this? Musicians, like professional programmers (I'm not including college kids where), work hard to create their product. If there's the slimmest chance of earning some compensation for their work, why on earth would they ever relase their work for free?
Ok, all you computer saavy congressmen, who will step up to the plate on this one?
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
This seems to be why we are now seeing "licencses" such as this, which appears to have the soul purpose of allowing college kids to repackage someone elses hard work, and then defend their theft under the banner of "Free Speech". I'm not clear on why you consider this license to be promoting theft. There's nothing forcing anyone to use this license, so I assume that anyone who uses it is explicitly stating that copying as permitted by the license does not constitute theft. As a musician, I was already planning to start releasing things under terms like these so that my position would be made clear. Of course, I could also release some stuff under the new license and some under a more traditional, restricted license if I chose to do so. The useful thing about the EFF's license to me is that, if I release music under this license, it is that much more likely that any given person will have heard it and know who created it, and so might like it and pay to come to performances (and possibly buy things at those performances).
Granted the artist created the music, in many cases they don't have exclusive rights to it. They would need the labels OK. Do you honestly think they would give their OK like that?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
It is not clear to me that there is an equal benefit with music, derived works (e.g. typically cover tunes) benefit the deriver more than the orignal. Other than radio DJs lamenting how much better the orignal tune was, even though they never played it anymore, and the cover gets lots of air play so they can lament for the good old days.
While I won't reject it out of hand, I'd like to hear from some actual artists whether this derived music is viewed as a benefit by them.
Too bad I don't have a community radio station programme any more, I'd would be interested in doing a OAL music format show. All Open, All the Time.
As long as Pepsi attributes it somewhere in the ad (most likely in the aml print at the bottom), they can use it under the license.
I've been in the planning stages of a "record company" that would use the SPP. I was debating licensing the music under a modified GPL, but this makes it easier for me.
It's not entirely what I was planning on doing, but it's pretty close. I'll probably end up using this license.
Does these mean that Pepsi can use one of my Open Audio songs for a massive marketing campaign and I am not entitled to any royalties?
Kind of like AIMster using pig latin in napster, although I much prefer napigator.
The idea is cool, akin to the GPL or GNU, but at first glance, I can see some problems arosing from it. BUt mabye that;s just my corprate mind at work. Or manbye it's the paranoia. Either or.
01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
VA Linux - LNUX
Red Hat Linux - RHAT
I know stock prices aren't everything, but take a look at the 52 week highs on both of these. Giants indeed. Look up MSFT if you're feeling particularly self depreciating.... sigh.... An army of Visigoths needs to sac Redmond.
This has been another useless post from....
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
If you look at the language of this "license" (I really question its legal status, particularly whether you could legally enforce the terms of this license under any real-world circumstances) it is not claiming to supercede any existing copyright protection. It is rather a voluntary waiving of certain copyright protections that an author can selectively apply to his or her own works. While the EFF holds a philosophical belief that it is of benefit to society to reduce or remove restrictions on the interchange of music, they do not advocate the violation of existing laws.
An attempt to use this as a way of contravening existing copyrights would fail anyway - recent cases like Napster have demonstrated that in the eyes of the law anyone providing a service of duplicating/exchanging digital information carries the burden of insuring that they are not contributing to piracy.
So while I disagree with your assessment of the intention behind this, I think that it ends up being basically worthless, partly because of that potential for misuse. Anyway, its redundant and unnecessary - people have been selectively modifying their copyrights forever with nothing more than a brief statement to the effect that others are free to duplicate and make use of the information, with whatever restrictions.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
You know, I was going to give one hell of an arguement on why this won't work, But now I think it could work a bit.
;)
Branding of an "image" (artist) is the most important thing. So going along those lines, an artist could develope his brand on the free base model. Upon hitting a certain fan base, he could then go out and get a record contract. At this point the artist should be somewhat good, and the labels should be running after him.
Thanks for the IDEA
ONEPOINT
p.s. sorry, no royaties for you
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
It's nice to think that free music will increase the listener base and allow artists using such a license to make a living from concerts. However, it's optimistic to think that music under an open license will become popular with the general public. This is because: - Cheap/free distribution methods such as the internet are the only economically viable way distribute it, this isn't how most people access their music - The general public will listen to what they are told to listen to, thus most will continue to allow their musical taste to be governed by commercial sources (i.e tv, commercial radio) - It is possible that the internet will become inundated with poor quality free music, thus giving everything under the open license a bad reputation Thus, I don't think musicians who release their work under the open license will be able to survive from the concert profits alone. Having said that I think that the open music license is definately a step in the right direction towards placing the power back into the hands of the people.
Except for so-called "superstars," most bands make 85-90% of their income off of CD's. In fact, most bands (again, except for "superstars") actually *lose* money on concerts. The whole point of touring is to generate sales of CD's. Since record companies want to sell CD's, most record companies will actually compensate the band for their loss (this is called "tour support").
--
Home is where you hang your @.
You're right, I appologize for posting before researching.
--
Home is where you hang your @.
After all, they generally appreciate the free exchange of musical ideas for what they are: inspirations of genius... not moments to be exploited by large money-grabbing corporations.
After all, it's the trading between people and organisations that has given us this great wealth in the western world.
Its nice to get things for free but in the long run I think it will hurt our economies and in the end, us.
Your wrong...
Same goes for software, show me the support employee that makes even average. There is money in support but not very much.
Amen.
:-)
There are even people that call this Free economy
The idea that some people should give their work away for free (developers, for example Larry Wall(perl)) so that others can make money on it (support people, for example Redhat) are just ridiculous.
"They said the same thing about Open Software and just look at giants like Red Hat and VA Linux."
Yes, just look at them. The people who _developed_ the software hasn't made any money, just those capitalists who can get their products for free (free labour). Do you really think this is a good thing?
Open source has really shown that free as in speech also means free as in beer.
Redhat and VA Linux sells products and services for quite some figures, they also spend allot so it don't do that good so far. The developers who developed all the software don't get anything.
Practically they have free labour. Don't you think this is unethical?
""Exploit" implies exclusivity. Redhat doesn't have exclusive rights to package and redistribute those components. "
I know what you meant but my point still is:
A few big companies are selling those products for high numbers and the people who are developing it doesn't get compensated at all.
"abundant economy - which is best served by a gift economy. "
:-)
You CANT be serious?
Where do you suggest those people are going to get money to buy food for? Pay bills?
Troll?
Why do you think that the correct parent-post analysis is a troll? Anything wrong with it?
Please explain.
The copyright industry? Puh-lease tell me this is just a poor choice of words rather than somebody's cockeyed view of the world.
Then again, I've read reports that the copyright industry's efforts to enforce royalty payments on the copyright symbol (largely spearheaded by (c), Inc.) are gaining momentum. First :-) gets patented, can (c) be far behind?!
Hey, I majored in music composition. Now I design and develop software--the mortgage don't pay itself!
At the same time, they'll probably be able to make themselves knownn by their target public much more easily, since this public will be able to search for their kind of music freely. Kind of a first contact, one might say.
Of course, if they became big and/or famous, they'll sign with one of the mainstream distributors.
After all, GPLing some code that you wrote as a kid doesn't mean you must make all of your work available under the GPL as well.
Linux *is* user friendly. It's not idiot-friendly or fool-friendly!
True, to some extent. Most major acts don't tour enough to make much money, and their expensive gigs act as a loss leader, hence the "promotional tour".
Smaller bands( obviously the unsigned ones) make most of their money touring, if they make any money at all.
Life? Don't talk to me about life...
How is it that the EFF has thing one to say about distribution of music? How many of them make their living as musicians? How many are even amatures? The gall of this is apalling! Let the musicians use their own liscences as they see fit. I can't fathom how the OS crowd (The PRODUCERS of OS software, music, code, film, etc)can put up with SO many people telling them how they should, or have, to distribute their creations. Stay out of my buisness EFF!!! I don't need YOUR help to sell or give away my creations. If this liscence takes off like the GPL did, it will only LIMIT my choices like the GPL does, releasing anything counter to the GPL these days gets you rebuke from "the revolution". The best thing the EFF can do is stay out of the policy making buisness and keep to the defence individuals that define their own (legal) policies.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Ideas like this always have good intentions, but rarely are they taken advantage of. Major artists will not let their music succumb to something as "low" as an open-source music industry. Smaller artists might like the free publicity, but they can hardly afford to give their music away for free. And then there are artists trying to get signed, doing self-recordings, etc.. nobody will want to listen to them! We already have many outlets such as mp3.com and farmclub.com, not to mention Napster and its relatives. What makes anyone think that the world will listen to us now? Kudos to a great idea though.
"I either want less corruption, or more chance
to participate in it." -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Firstly, a regionally known band can actually make money off the CD's they produce themselves. A major-label artist may only make 35 cents a disc, but an independant can make dollars a disc and be showing a profit after only a 100-200 copies if they keep recording costs down. It may be good to (o) a couple songs as loss leaders, but beyond that you're hamstringing yourself.
Second, most musicians make penuts off live performance! If a band gets $500 for a show at a club and sells 10 CDs at the show at $10/disc, that's 1/6 of their take for the night. The only band in the St. Louis region that catually makes a living gigging w/o disc sales or label advances is a Disco/funk cover act and they run a night club on the side.
Finally, trying to apply the same economics/logistics to music recording as to software development is rather shortsighted. Most progeammers draw healthy salaries to code for their employers weather the source is open or not. Musicians are considered lucky as hell if they can even survive in the practice of their craft. I wish I were so fortunate as to be a 60s one hit wonder who collects two cents/minute for radio play throughout my retirement!
GNU, GPL, EFF, Napster, MP3.com = Good
RIAA, Government, Big Brother = Bad
Have you heard of Project Clayton?
Resident Alien
Magazine Girlfriend
Mother Nature We Surrender
"That's where Time magazine lives... way out there on the puzzled, masturbating edge, peering through the keyhole and selling what they see to the big wide world of Chamber of Commerce voyeurs who support the public prints." -Hunter S. Thompson
That's where Time magazine lives... way out there on the puzzled, masturbating edge, peering through the keyhole
Why do I have the feeling that because of the EFF, we're not only going to have 5432 Napster clones, but now we're also going to have 3525 versions of the same song? :(
What does an artist do when another group starts playing their (O) tunes and sounding a hell of a lot better than the original? Which concert is one going to see?
I'm all for protecting rights, and if that's all this is designed to do, great. I can still see people having issues and being jealous anyway. It's just human nature.
what would be nice is for radio stations to occasionally play some (O) tunes, and denote them as such. Have an "EFF Music Hour" once a week. Something like that might encourage this... until the RIAA feels it's a threat too.
And it's not piracy if you (o). Woohoo! Now we can call musicians who use (c) evil bastards just like we call programers who don't GNU away their work! So, does this mean it's okay for, say someone else to release: Billy Bob - Spoon Clapping(o).mp3 Then I can release: Billy Bob - Some Song I Wrote Instead of BB.mp3 And pretend to be Billy Bob, or will Billy Bob have to... Billy Bob(tm) - Spoon Clapping(o).mp3 And when is someone going to figure out that to protect people from Windoze XP hosing mp3 they have to... Billy Bob(tm) - Spoon Clapping(o).mp3+(c) :P Y'all sux0r.
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most bands get the majority of their pay from concerts? If I'm right than the open license is an excellent strategy: Get 'em listening, then next time you're in town they'll come see you perform.
Stop Continental Drift! Reunite Gondwanaland!
I've been reading this site for a few weeks now, after a freind mentioned it. I've seen plenty of conversations that debated the diference between "Free" and "Free". At first, I thought it was simply misunderstanding on my part as to what these arguments were about, but it is not. I've finally come to the conclusion that the people who argue the destinction between "Free beer" and "Free speech" are simply misguided.
I am personally for free speech (With sensible restrictions, of course). I'm also not stupid, who would turn down free beer? (In moderation, of course) However many people here seem to equate freedom of speech to simply stealing a persons property, which is an abhorent act! This seems to be why we are now seeing "licencses" such as this, which appears to have the soul purpose of allowing college kids to repackage someone elses hard work, and then defend their theft under the banner of "Free Speech".
"Freedom to steal" is not in the US Constitution, bear that in mind please.
All I ask is that you stop and think.