A Critique of the EFF's Open Audio License

Brett Glass writes: "This weekend, the EFF is staging a public concert in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park to promote its "Open Audio License" (OAL), a music license based loosely on the GPL. But is a license intended for software a good starting point for a license for music? And is the EFF's license a good choice for composers and performers? This critique discusses the intended and unintended effects of the EFF's license, and suggests alternatives that might be more beneficial (and more palatable) to musicians, composers, and performers." Some of Glass' critiques seem a little silly - they're intended goals of the license, not flaws.

In fact, let me make a brief response to Glass' points as he makes them in the critique -

OAL gives away too much: No response to this. It's for the artist to decide.

No credit to performer: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. The performer is free to seek an alternate license from the author if he/she wants to profit off of the song.

Potential damage to reputation: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. Like the GPL, this license assumes that free and open should be free and open to everyone for every purpose, even those you find distasteful. "Oh my god, someone is using my GPL'ed program called grep to search for abortion providers in the phone book!"

Viral nature: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. Again, if you want to incorporate chunks of someone else's work in your own, you are free to a) be infected by the OAL, or b) seek a different license from the author. Free with restrictions, or, presumably, pay the author for a different deal. Without this license, only b) is available. The OAL only ever provides a possible alternative for people wanting to use a work.

ASCAP and BMI don't enforce the OAL: This is an issue to take up with ASCAP or BMI.

Irrevocable: Silly criticism. Even without this clause, you couldn't "take back" the license, at least for people who've already made use of your work - they took advantage of the license at the time.

Most of the rest of Glass' criticisms are general criticisms of any Free license - it gives away the rights of the author. Well, duh, that's what it's supposed to do. These are criticisms of the aim of the license rather than flaws in the license. What Glass is lacking here is a general BSD-type license for music to compare this against...

Comments

GNUArt !

[mirko]

> But is a license intended for software a

good starting point for a license for music?

Yes.

We, at GNUArt, directly use the GPL to protect Art.

After discussing it with RMS, we agreed it would be possible:

• The art to be protected is considered in a virtual, infinitely copiable form
• The source code of art is clearly defined as "whichever information needed by another artist to modify the original"

Lots of artists trust us, just browse our gallery for free "GNU" Art...

Re:as a musician I think this is ridiculous

[gnovos]

Bands are poor, bands need as much money as they can get to perpetuate themselves unless they don't mind working a dayjob.

Hey, I am poor. I would love for someone to come along and pay me for my *cough* Creative Talent. But, guess what? Money is not an entitlement. You have no god-given right to profit off of your creative juices just becuase you are you. You have to earn money just like the rest of us.

Think of it this way: I am an artist, I go to work and create beautiful, elegant art all day long, and I don't get to put my name on any of it and I only get a salary for what I do. NO copyright for me! Does that sound wrong to you somehow? I'll tell you why: Becuase I say "artist" where you would say "programmer".

Just becuase your "art" is useless and mine is functional does not make us any different. The difference is that I have to go to work for hours and create art every single working day of the week. You on the other hand are only asked to create art for a few hours every so often. You have ZERO right to make money just because you think you deserve it. You have to earn it just like the rest of us.

The real problem is, organizations like the RIAA have built up the notion in your (and my, and the whole world's) head that being "creative" is some magical ability that few people possess in any quantity. Nevermind that for hundreds of thousands of years humans have been artistic just fine without the need for superstardom. Today you we taught that musicians/actors/artists/etc. are so special and rare that we must pay a hefty percentage of our GDP to thier masters simply because who knows when such talent will ever been seen on this earth again, right? Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but we are all talented, we are all artists. We can't help it. Making money off of art is like making money of of breathing. Everybody does it, no one has some "right" because they happen to have asthma.

By trying to make a living off of music, you are simply perputrating the notion that music is something that is rare enough or difficult enough to make a living doing. You are contributing to the death of music and humanity's musical soul far more effectivly than any sort of "Open Music License", my friend.