Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Critique of the EFF's Open Audio License

Posted by michael on from the all-we-need-is-a-scary-bearded-guy dept.

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...

8 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Frist Prost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    for me

  2. Looking for an honest answer by Zico · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    You say that you give your music away, but in all honesty, is it something that anybody would pay for if they had to? It's kind of easy to be on the side of giving stuff away when there aren't any income possibilities for it.

  3. Errrrr, that should be "critic," not "critique." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Damn hangover...

  4. michael is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    just because you don't agree with Brett doesn't mean you're right.
    You can't prove to be right or wrong on a subjective field, alls just comes down to perception.
    Personally I think GPL and everyting like it totally sucks arse, but that's my view; it's not right or wrong compared to anyone elses view, it's my view, just like yours is yours.

    Personally I think michael is dumb because he makes personal attacks on Brett, while Brett expressed his feelings on a license.
    michael is clearly a rabid GNU zealot since he cannot accept Brett's opinion.

  5. The OAL appears to have some real flaws by blamanj · · Score: 4, Offtopic

    Well, if Glass is correct in his summary, then I would have to say that the very first bullet point:

    • You cannot allow free copying of a recording but keep the rights to the song that was performed in the recording.

    represents a fatal flaw. This would imply that you could not release a "teaser" MP3 , say one ripped in a lower audio quality, and still retain your other copyrights to the song. That seems shortsighted and unfair.

  6. *BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    *BSD is dying

    Yet another crippling bombshell hit th beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of ll servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick nd its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For ll practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

    *BS is dying

  7. michael is smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    Just because you personally don't like michael, it does not invalidate his thoughtful response. Read again what michael said. It is well reasoned and intelligent. I can't help but agree with him.

    Please don't fall into the trap of ad hominem argumentation. It ain't logical.

  8. Re:"But is a license intended for software a..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    and u r a trool. gimme ur ass i want to fuck it hard n show u not to be a trool ne more.

    the real j'raxis