Slashdot Mirror
Wired Releases Creative Commons Sampling CD
An anonymous reader writes "In this month's issue of Wired Magazine, there is an included CD featuring songs from The Beastie Boys, David Byrne, among others. The unique thing about the CD is that all of the tracks are released under Creative Commons Licences, making them legal to share."
Thats actually a good idea, with RIAA complaining that file sharing hurts the music industry by letting people get songs for free, this may promote people buying CDs again. (You hear 30 seconds of a song, you like it, you buy the CD, etc.)
It means Wired is only one lawsuit away from RIAA...like they know what type of license it is, They know one thing: $$$
These songs are licensed under the Creative Commons license-- which means not only are you free to share these songs, but you're free to tinker with them. Extract samples, make new mixes, whatever. In stark contrast to the norm.
This isn't just about "good free music" (though it looks like it is that). It's about artists and labels "getting it" about what creates a culture of creativity and walking the walk.
Seeing this makes me happy.
RD
MPAA is Motion Picture Association of America, has nothing to do with music, I believe.
Most of these songs are licensed for commercial sampling, but a handful aren't.
Chuck D and the Beastie Boys, two bands who have built their careers on sampling (like most of the artists on the CD) won't let you sample their work commercially. (The other band that doesn't is "My Morning Jacket", but I don't know who they are.)
Bizarre.
I thought all "artists" gave copyrights to the company for their works ... can the artists do such a thing because I doubt that RIAA would :-\
just my 2 bytes
I don't see any CD. Are we talking about the October or November issue?
Not all the songs allow sampling...
Sampling Plus: Songs under this license allow noncommercial sharing and commercial sampling, but advertising uses are restricted.
Noncommercial Sampling Plus: Songs under this license allow noncommerical sharing and
noncommercial sampling.
o_o
You missed april fools by 6 months.
So it sounds like a job for Bittorrent!
You mean "a" Creative Commons licence. There are a variety of them, and what you are permitted to do varies between them.
For example some of the tracks on the disc are only samplable (?) for noncommercial purposes which is probably a restriction that doesn't fit with some peoples ideas of "freedom".
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Music, photos and film/video footage gain value the more they're heard or seen; they can't be diluted or depleted like physical property. Ultimately artists who approve sharing and sampling of their work will sell more music. Free downloading has worked well for us, a historical film archive, and led to more business. See http://www.archive.org/movies/prelinger.php.
I don't see any CD. Are we talking about the October or November issue?
RTFA
Clip magazine, November issue (get the CD free with your copy, on newsstands now!) end clip
The truth shall set you free!
Plus, they're listing theirs under the 'Noncommercial Sampling Plus: Songs under this license allow noncommerical sharing and noncommercial sampling' which is fine and good for them; I'd be curious to know how many songs they've 'bitten' over the years that never got attributed.
Paul's Boutique was an excellent example of how sampling should work, and how completely new works can be made from old - that was a fantastic record.
Then we've got P. Duddy to show how old works can be ruined by 'sampling' *entire songs*. Ugh.
It IS great to see that there is some attempt at a revamp of copyright, and this CD will only increase the exposure of CC. At least until the songs get on P2P and are all mixed up with ones that are not legal to share...
Funny, I don't see anything from Metallica on this CD.
The evolution of The Beastie Boys' consciousness is truly amazing, almost unbelievable. Their last album silently installed DRM code and now it is released under a Creative Commons Licence for everyone to share! Isn't it wonderful that there are people who really can listen to our community and adapt to the information era instead of trying to halt the progress like the RIAA? This CD will be a perfect Christmas gift for anyone who doesn't realize that not every rights are "reserved" and that copying and sharing is not inherently illegal. Anyone got a torrent link?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Is it possible to order only that one issue of Wired internationally instead of subscribing for 12 months? I would like to get few copies of that CD for Xmas gifts for my DJ friends for sampling but I don't want to buy like ten subscriptions for $700! :( Any way to get only this one issue to central Europe before Xmas? Thanks!
More choice = more confusion! Now "Creative Commons Licensed" means nothing, because it can mean lots of different things.
sulli
RTFJ.
MPAA is Motion Picture Association of America, has nothing to do with music, I believe.
They don't have much to do with movies either. Just with suing people.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The nice thing is you can give Chuck D a call and ask him about it yourself. He hosts Unfiltered, a talk show on Air America Radio. I believe it airs every weekday and can be heard either on the radio in 30+ markets or via RealAudio or MS streaming.
Chuck D's been pretty vocal on the side of pro-music sharing, so I'd be interested in anyone who might ask him why he doesn't want to be sampled...
My Morning Jacket ROCK. I've only seen a few bands in my many many years of seeing bands *truly* enjoy and get into what they're doing as much as these guys - and they're all really really good at their instruments. very well rehearsed (or partially psychic) and talented individuals. They rock hard when they play even though their music isn't the most rockingest. great band.
All of you should check them out, and support them if you like them by going to see them if/when they play in your town, because thats where most bands get their income, not from cd sales.
It's a simple acknowledgement that one size does not fit all.
In fact, by assembling a variety of licence options under one roof and explaining the options in a consistant and coherant way (and with comics), they go a long way to helping people really understand the issues.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
These kind of cds are what started my cd collection some 10 years ago. It's a great way of discovery new music you hadn't heard of before. Like half the bands on this cd i don't know and it's a great opportunity for them to get me interested in buying their latest and greatest.
Sample this!
If they're legal to share, they should also put up links for us to download the songs.
This is good point. How can I order one issue of Wired?
I'd rather have high quality FLAC and encode my own damn Vorbii. :-)
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
In the olden days, promote interest in the industry and provide standards. I built a pre-amp in the record days, and it had to compensate for the audio curve records used to attenuate the low frequencies and boost the high frequencies to increase the over-all frequency response. This curve was the "RIAA" standard, and that was my first time having anything to do with them.
I'm confused, what else are "Associations of America" supposed to do besides sue people?
Isn't that our national business?
No!
That would be reality shows!
But hush! That's all only until the hairdressers and telephone sanitizers take over.
It could be legal problems -- If they live by sampling, they'll have to get the rights to release the samples that they're using.. They may not have been able to get a release for anything more than non-commercial sampling.
As for the flip-flop, they may be experimenting to see which approach sells more records, or they may be trying to get back into the good books of all the fans they would have pissed off with a DRM'ed CD.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
i.e just like John Carmack and the Doom source (the music in that game's case), they
can't give you sampling rights because they licensed them themselves...
Sorry, but the commercial world, she's a bitch.
From the corporate perspective, the Hollywood studios are starting off from a stronger position than the music industry, though. CDs were always easy to copy analog, but most DVD players will MacroVision scramble (possibly multiplied with other copy proteciton systems) a program so that the everyday consumer cannot copy it. Yes, there are hacks for these protections and codecs for pulling off the Mpeg-2 video into a DVD+/-R-friendly format. But it's not as easy as making a tape off an album was.
But it can't last. With digital television and broader-band internet (e.g., WiMax) coming, something is going to have to give. Mandating chips into players and burners only can go so far. It cannot last forever against the democratic marketplace of Open Source and Creative Commons economics.
But it will take time, and pain. For music, it's proving to be not as painful as it might have been for the musicians, though the tassled-loafer boys living in Bel Air might be feeling the pinch. But with movies, a lot more people are involved in each project. And what this spells for the big movie, I don't know. (If the blockbusters go, no real loss, some would say.)
We are in a time of upheaval, and one of the biggest sectors of our economy -- entertainment -- is going to be pretty much unrecognizable to our soon-to-be-outdated perspective in just a few years.
media girl
The file sharing client Morpheus supports Creative Commons, and properly tagged mp3s are recognized in search results in the client. Creative Commons will soon begin tagging all their mp3 files in the Copyright id3 tag. On Morpheus, you can even search 'cc:sampling' and 'cc:sharing', and you'll find and be able to download all properly tagged Creative Commons content.
Your signatures belong to me.
The Creative Commons organization always had multiple licenses with different terms; it never meant just one thing (so the complaint was never valid). But more importantly, this matches "free software" licensing and "open source" licensing which are also varied in what is allowed and what copyright powers are retained. You can't know that a program is "free software" or "open source" and know that everything you might want to do with the work is allowed (most licenses don't cover software patents, for instance); you can't be sure what is allowed downstream for derivatives from your derivative (some licenses don't have a copyleft, for instance).
How is this new set of CC licenses new? I can't answer that for everyone, but only one thing changes for me: I host "Digital Citizen" on alternate Wednesdays from 8-10p on my local community radio station (WEFT 90.1 FM). On my show, I air only things which can be copied and distributed (at least verbatim). CC-licensed music and talks make up a good deal of my show (in the language of CC licenses, I make a "Collective" work).
The Sampling license doesn't allow the entire work to be copied and distributed. But the other sampling licenses (Sampling Plus, and Non-Commercial Sampling Plus) do allow the entire work to be copied and distributed. So, for the first time, knowing that a work is a CC-licensed work is not enough to merit inclusion in my show. I have to make sure a CC-licensed work is not licensed to me under the Sampling license.
This isn't a big deal, but it is a change.
Digital Citizen
The MPAA organizes the Rating System, and the RIAA awards whether an album goes Gold or Platinum. They also do a lot of lobbying.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
is that the artists are flaming liberals.
Well, before the phonograph, musicians had to *gasp* PERFORM to make money. Then came a sort of golden age, where you could theoretically make a few records, then sit on your ass and watch the money roll in.
Now it seems like that golden age is coming to an end, forcing artists who can't perform live out of business. A good development, IMHO.
Meep.
Of course, it also means less half-naked people too !
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Metallica are selling FLACs of their live concerts here. In their FAQ they acknowledge that they know they aren't DRM protected and can be shared.
The main problem with this is Slashdot itself. When I discovered this at least six months ago I thought this was pretty major news as Metallica were one of the main, vocal opponents of DRM free music, which of course means it easily can be distributed via P2P file sharing. Do you think my Slashdot submission was noticed ? I don't ever remember seeing it.
Maybe Slashdot has secretly been taken over by RIAA, and don't want Metallica's change of heart to be known about by anti-DRM proponents.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
... that would be biodiesel. Brew it yourself from waste cooking fat. If you live in a warm enough country (Scotland is warm enough for 9 months of the year) you can just filter it and pour it straight in.
"Vorbii" is not the correct plural of "Vorbis". You see, Vorbis is not a second declension masculine noun as is often assumed, but rather a rare 4th declension neutre. In extant literature it was only used in its singular form -- obviously in the glory days of Rome Vorbis could not have been associated with a popular digital music format, and rather described the feeling that one has when one hears a pleasant sound. Understandably, this noun was uncountable and as such was never seen in the plural.
Therefore, when constructing the plural for this noun, you should use the widely accepted English plural, namely, "Vorbises".
Just wanted to clear that up. Vorbii is a pet peeve of mine.
Move along, nothing to see here.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Who sanctioned this CD? Most artists when they're signed to a label aren't allowed to perform for anyone else without the label's permission. That's why on every Garbage CD it says "Shirley Manson appears courtesy of..." - She's licensed to Garbage by her record label (or something like that).
So this means that all of these artists are appearing here with the permission of the record labels, though there may be a few exceptions.
An artist like the Beastie Boys can negotiate a favorable record contract with a smaller label. David Bowie does this. He sold the future royalties to all of his songs (it's amazing that he had them in the first place), and now only works with smaller record labels that are happy to have him because he's gauranteed sales, and in exchange they give him complete creative control. It's just a small step to negotiating ownership of your music as well.
An artist like Zap Mama (an excellent group, by the way) may, by virtue of being small, be able to negotiate a favorable contract because they may be able to generate income from things like touring, giving lessons and workshops and so forth, so having a record contract is just a matter of distribution more than promotion... I'm not saying this is the case for Zap Mama, they're actually fairly big, especially outside of the United States, but *perhaps* they could do this kind of thing.
But.... odds are it didn't happen this way. Odds are the record company *owns* the rights to all of these songs, and *the record company* decided to release these songs under creative commons. As ar as they're concerned, the artists may not even have needed to be asked do this.
The question then becomes - why would they do something like this? Are they being foward thinking? Didn't Apple just come out with an ipod pre-loaded with U2 songs? Could it be that the record labels are finally attempting new channels of distribution and figuring out new ways of making money in the digital age?
Another poster praised the Beasty Boys for their ability to change, and surely the Beasty Boys had *some* input into what went on their CD, and some input over the release of their songs under Creative Commons. What I want to know is - how much? And how much was the label.
The MPAA organizes the Rating System, and the RIAA awards whether an album goes Gold or Platinum. They also do a lot of lobbying.
And to fund this they sue people...
The above have nothing to do with providing a service. They are only furthering their own interests. If RIAA and the equivalent organisations world wide label certain albums as gold or platinum, they become more desireable to people who in turn buy more. Film classification is also about having a marketable product for people who have younger children (and avoiding getting sued themselves.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Sure, that would be much better, but if given the choice between WMA, MP3 and Ogg/Vorbis, which would YOU choose?
And serving FLAC would be a substantial hit to the bandwith of whoever serves those files.
Move Sig. For great justice.
Interestingly, one of the songs is from Gilberto Gil, not only a well known artist but also the Minister of Culture in a government which has a positive attitude to Open Source software.
where can I download it?
It'll be a cold day in hell when I buy Wired.
...where can I download it?!
It's in my blood.
Obviously the newer unencumbered format.
Regarding FLAC distribution though. Use bittorrent and they could sanely serve them over a couple of dialup modems. It'd be a challenge for them to find a service that wan't be able to handle that.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
There are artists who are simply more comfortable and productive in the studio work than in live performance. But a techie forum like Slashdot seems a strange place to argue that live performance is not the only legitimate form of music.
Do you *REALLY* think that the Beastie Boys have the power to tell their record label what to do? Those tricky T&C of contracts tend make the band release the album in accordance with what the label wants. Hence why there was DRM on their album.
And, yes Paul's Boutique is an amazing work - the best mix tape ever made!
...they were right about you...
I think they will function more like promotion, and the real money will come from live performances. And, Jeesus: when some artists demand $100 for a concert ticket, I think they will do OK even without the CD revenue.
I agree. Some of my favorite artists seem to fit into that category, even though they are extremely talented. But I think they will do OK nonetheless. The best thing about this development is that we probably will se a lot less talentless hacks in the music business, and a lot more bands and artists who become famous 'through the grapevine'
Meep.
No Jim's Big Ego?
For shame!
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
I usually don't even listen to music except when I'm in the car and found this CD to be quite nice.
"It's about artists and labels "getting it" about what creates a culture of creativity and walking the walk."
Maybe so, but sampling and remixing other peoples work tends to lead mostly to derivitive rubbish.
If each person listening had to come up with their own tunes and sounds, it would be more interesting.
It's not like code where sections can be anonymously reused, and still be useful. Creativity is all.
When I listed my material there CC vaulted to the top of my referrer list in just a couple weeks.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I guess I *will* have to download it.
Did anyone else's CD survive packaging and transport?
Additionally, it's great to see a CD with the copyright notice, "Some Rights Reserved."
I find it rather ironic that with the "legal to share!" hyperbole you have to buy a friggin magazine to get it!?
:o)
Where are the download links on the site, Wired!? sheesh
I know, I know "It's a business, they need to make money", yadda yadda - but one of the biggest points of opening intellectual property in music is that the Internet makes so much more sense as a distribution medium, rather than shipping CDs.
OK.. I'm done bitching
There is one other **AA I can think of that isn't based entirely around the business of suing people (not to say they don't make /. readers angry)
Their name, I leave as an exercise for the reader.
The inclusion of a David Byrne track in this "freely distributable" compilation might seem more interesting when you bear in mind that a song of his ("Like Humans Do") was one of the sample tracks included with..... Windows XP.
So are the forces are good and evil in a battle for his immortal soul... or is he just someone who likes to promote his music as much as possible?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Well DUH.
Thats exactly what you form an association for. You form associations with like minded individuals to discuss, promote, organize and lobby on behalf of your interests.
The association (in this case the MPAA) provides a service to its members. If you think the money they make from suing people covers the costs of thier operations you are probably too naive to walk outside without an escort.
Members of the RIAA and MPAA pay for the priviledge of being members. In return they get access to a powerful lobby and promotional force, industry contacts and a library of resources relating to their industry.
Everything they do is about providing a service. Let go of your anti-*AA propaganda long enough to have a look at reality.
- sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
IIRC, the US copyright law explicitly allow some kind of sampling as fair use. I don't remember the criteria, and there is a thin borderline between fair use and infringement. But impression has it that copyright law is more permissive than the proposed Noncommercial Sampling Plus license.
I once had a signature.
Partially true. It could depend a lot on how the sample itself is embedded in your work. Is it a backbeat that takes up most of the song, or just a guitar riff in a given section? It's easy enough to clip out a small section of guitar riffs or even a 1-min section with a particular drumroll background - so long as you know where it is.
If you really wanted "your" content to be open to sampling, you could make a statement like: the content between 1:25 and 1:51 is not open to sampling unless you acquire permission from ZTT (to use your example) on the original disc (since Mp3's etc might have slightly different lead-times and skew the sample).
Oh, and of course the person sampling your samples could also petition ZTT for permission to use their sample, effectively allowing them to sample anything if the rest of your song is open...
If I had to choose WMA, Mp3 or Vorbis it'd be Vorbis.
Partly because It avoids being hit by patents just to play the tunes back and partly because the Vorbis codec offers the best quality/bitrate tradeoff (IMHO).
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
The recording industry has it's very own favourite Creative Commons. Just to name a few: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.
The industry loves them: they can record any of their works, without paying a cent of royalty.
Very creative and very common.
Eventually the best of the bests will all be free.
Too bad the software industry creates such a fast fading value that by the time a commercial software could become Creative Common, humanity needs nothing of it.
Isn't it ironic, that the world's richest man gets his riches by creating "stuff" that is totally worthless way before it could become Creative Common, while "stuff" that will stay with humans for hundreds of years might worth close to nothing now?
Just a Random.Idea
Actually, most "owners" of intellectual property are living the average lazy man's dream... work once, get paid forever. Let's do a little thought experiment and see why intellectual property is a problem.
If nobody is working "today" and everybody is relying on their "past efforts," protected by copyright to pay today's bills... there won't be anyone actually doing any work today. And of course when that happens, we all starve, freeze, and become miserable, because no one is doing physical labor, which brings us such trivial things as food, electricity, and oil (i.e., heat).
This is why intellectual property is a crock, and defending it is stupid... because geting things done in the "meat world" is not a one-and-done process; SOMEONE has to continually work to provide power, food, electricity, etc. In other words, without a steady application of work, there cannot be a steady creation of goods. For someone to claim their work is somehow much more important than anothers, such that they should be exempt from the requirement to continue to produce, is the height of snobbery.
The concept of "Intellectual Property" seeks to break this fundamental rule of nature - stuff is begotten by work - by creating a class of "leeches" that want others to do the work to support their continued existence without continuing to work themselves (i.e., to buy copies of their old stuff so they can pay the bills).
Now, I am not saying that stories, movies, music, etc. are valueless... but what I am saying is that just like everyone else, copyright holders need to keep producing in order to continue to be a benefit to society. That's the big problem with today's long copyrights. I'm beginning to think even 14 years of copyright is WAY too long. If you're not working, and continuing to produce stuff... you don't deserve financial support. NOBODY is owed a living.
And this is coming from a published writer (very small electronic-only press), who's also a hobbyist musician on the side. (Creating IP is not my day job, but I do it on the side, and even I see that it's a socially disgusting thing to do - which is why after I make a certain amount of profit on each work, I release my stuff for free to anyone who wants it.)
--AC
That you're posting in a thread started by a bozo who has no fucking idea about the different licenses, not even with CC there to hold his hand? You could perhaps pick a better example in which to make your point.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Be still my beating heart!
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Who would actually *listen* to this CD?
If you think the money they make from suing people covers the costs of thier operations you are probably too naive to walk outside without an escort.
Oh shit. I gotta get to work and I don't have an escort.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Here, "sampling" doesn't mean a 30-second free (as in beer) sample of a song. Instead, it means a free (as in speech) audio waveform and its underlying musical work available for use in your own derivative works under a CC license.
Being the defendant in a lawsuit is not necessarily a problem. Being the loser is.
Being smaller enough than the plaintiff, which in this case may represent all five major record labels put together, makes being the defendant equivalent to being the loser.
I'm afraid certain people will be tagging actually illegal-to-share content as legal-to-share.
In the United States, it's a tort and a crime to falsify a license notice (17 USC 1202). A label would have even bigger grounds to sue people who fraudulently mark a work as CC licensed than it would against the average file-sharing app user, and investigation into such offenses would have the backing of both the FBI (for copyright fraud) and a State's investigatory agency (for fraud in general).
Perhaps you don't have mount(8)'s file system detection (stored in /etc/fstab) configured correctly. Try forcing ISO 9660 file system (RTFM) when mounting the disc. Also try reading the first few hundred KB manually with dd(1) (RTFM) to see whether the corruption is physical (CD level) or logical (file system level) in nature.
Or is it an audio CD? I don't subscribe to Wired so I can't just look for myself.
If he was the one responsible for allowing Microsoft to use his work ... I wouldn't have that much respect for the guy.
The Regents of the University of California are responsible for permitting Microsoft's use of the BSD networking stack in some older versions of Windows. Does this mean you've lost respect for UC Berkeley?
Hmmm, not a very catchy title, but since I've no interest in music, it'll do.
Last night I ambled into a popular pub to talk to a friend, and it turned out there was a pub quiz going on. Well, that's good fun, I've won a fair few pints like that myself, so I had my conversation while joining in with the questions. Then the music round started.
What the question-master had done, unsurprisingly, was to take short snippets of a number of songs from a number of artists, and drop them onto a CD. The question was "Title and Artist". Easy money for the question-meister.
But it occurred to me, `How would the copyright lawyers treat this'. I'd expect it to be a pretty clear violation - reproduction of the track in an identifiable form (the quiz is intended to be solvable); broadcasting in a public place (a bar, a popular one at that) with approximately 80 people participating in the quiz (and so actively listening) and a similar number just idling in the rest of the bar.
But, thinks I, there is a point which might save the luckless question-meister from the wrath of the PRS (UK relative of the RIAA, for you TransPondians) - perhaps such usage is supported by the approximately £100/month that the publican pays to the PRS to allow them to play the TV, run the juke box, and present live bands. That would cover such "incidental" usage of copyrighted works, surely.
I talked to a friend of mine - a Councillor who actually sits on the Licensing Committee - and it's confirmed, sort-of : every year they receive several complaints from the PRS about bars that have not paid their monthly tax, and as the relavent legal authority, they have to send warning letters to the licensee publican to correct this, otherwise the bar will immediately lose it's license to sell beers, wines or spirits. In short, to go out of business. So, the bar should have coverage for general "background music" type uses.
Well, the average bar. But this one, in particular, has always made a specific point of not having a juke box, not having a TV, and not having any live or canned music source. It makes the place a good refuge when the football is on, and is definitely one of it's major advantages. So it doesn't pay the PRS fee.
I think my question-master is up the creek without a paddle. (Which is why I'm not detailing the bar, nor the sport club he was raising funds for with his quiz.) Can anyone think of a workable defence for him, in the event that he did ever get sued over it?
Applicable law is Scottish. Not British, and certainly not American. How different are they? - does the legal system you are familiar with only have two possible verdicts which a jury can return?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Don't think many people got it dude :)
For the humour impaired - GN**
That means we're both cretins. Hurrah!
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The link in the parent didn't work. I found the correct link at http://creativecommons.org/learn/licenses/how1.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]