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.)
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.
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...
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!
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.
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
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.
It means Wired is only one lawsuit away from RIAA
Hang on a second.
What they have done is either legal, or it is not.
If they are subject to a lawsuit as a result of something legal, provided they are willing to fight it out (and trust me, they will be) the RIAA will be the loser.
Being the defendant in a lawsuit is not necessarily a problem. Being the loser is.
Indy Media Watch-Proctologist of the Internet
Are you aware how bad the Beastie Boys got burned over sampling?
Every time a new Beasties album comes out, there's another lawsuit and they refine what's cutting edge for legal sampling. They've had their chops busted over what you or I would think is sane use soooo many times. Flute players who had three notes of audio sampled *after* it had been licensed. AC/DC suing over a riff used in "Rock Hard". License to Ill and Paul's Boutique were an endless headache for them..
So why the hell would you share your stuff with the world when all the world does to you is sue your ass off? Do unto others...
.sig: Now legally binding!
Nonsense. It's about a bunch of artists (and their handlers), ever conscious of their image, seeing a cheap and easy way to be seen by hip pseudo-intellectuals as "getting it" and "walking the walk."
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