"These companys want to keep their local dealers open."
This may be so.
"Make sense?"
No. They have another option. Sell to the small local dealer for less than they sell to be non-local ones. Or at least on par. Naturally they don't want to do it this way, but they could.
first time i tried that and it doesn't seem to make sense.
I modded already. I wanted to comment. Had I logged out and posted AC my mod would not have been undone. So I figured, there is a post as AC option, I don't need to bother logging out. Not so. Posting as AC when logged in undoes your mods.
"I certainly wouldn't deny anyone the right to self defence, but self defence is not a medical issue."
And I think I agree, except that this will probably be sold as a mental health issue and is probably no bigger reach than some already accepted issues.
"The "Free" part of FOSS is defined namely as the part which allows a user to make and distribute copies of the software without paying a licensing fee (such as the GNU license). The "Open Source" part refers to the free as in libre ability to make changes to the source code, thus Open Source. This is how I see it and I think is the prevailing view."
Nope.
There is Free Software. As in the Free Software Foundation. http://www.fsf.org/ This is about Freedom, not price. Libre and not gratis.
There is Open Source Software. As in the Open Source Initiative. http://www.opensource.org/ This is the "marketing" of Free Software under another name so as not to scare people with the word Free.
FOSS is F/OS/S or Free Software combined with Open Source Software. [Free/Open Source/Software] That is the history of it to the best of my recollection and given with some short cuts and some language that may upset some but is not meant to. A way to call the thing by both names at once.
"The bottom line is everything costs something, whatever it is labeled."
Well, yes and no, but as I say, Free Software has never been about price. That is often a pleasant side benefit, but it is not the game. The game is freedom.
"Let's face it - nothing is free. If you get your software for absolutely nothing, someone else is wasting long hours of programming or some investor is investing money and getting no return. If a company uses OSS and pays a employed or contracted programmer to fix bugs and add features, that OSS is not FOSS to that company. If they have to pay an annual support contract for each software license a la commercial redhat, it is not FOSS to that company."
Please, stop playing word games.
"If a company uses OSS and pays a employed or contracted programmer to fix bugs and add features, that OSS is not FOSS to that company."
And here we see the word game. The F is for Free which is for libre, not for gratis. So, if you get it for zero dollars or have to pay a million dollars for it, it is still Free. It is still libre even if it is not gratis.
"Let's face it - nothing is free."
Perhaps, perhaps not, but the key question is, is anyone free or are we all slaves? And if slaves, WHO ownes us?
"Bankers need to run their banks more efficiently so they get together to cooperatively develop some banking application software that makes them all work more effectively and efficiently."
Bingo!
"Open source development is not a segment of the software indusrty, it's a segment of the every-other-industry."
Unless your software industry group does it for pay from the every-other-industry folks!
"Note that the economic incentive works precisely the other way around for makers of proprietary software: the margin on most software sales is not very large, and one support call will wipe out your revenue for that sale. So the software maker needs to make his software as stable as possible, to avoid the extra costs of supporting it."
So what? Are you saying economics don't work for software?
"I'd really love it if Slashdot would post more about Creative Commons -licensed (and other free-culture) stuff that interests geeks, but I'd also love it if we would step away from discussion about copyrights and licensing in itself and touting CC as the main selling point. Can we get away from the mechanism and move on to the substance?"
Well, while people still speak of a cc license and don't name it and when you speak of "(and other free-culture) stuff" when the licnese on this book is not a Free one, we are likely to still have these meta mechanism over substance discussions. I agree though that it would be good to move beyond it if we can move beyond the confusion.
And the one this one is under doesn't have that goal.
"Creative Commons License The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License."
Please people, unless you are trying to cause confusion and trouble, when you mention that something us under a cc license, tell us which one.
Oh, and MOD PARENT UP please. This is an important point.
"So you are saying that if a company does not release the source code to ALL of its software, any software that it does open source is tainted?"
No, I might if pushed, but I might not. Either way, that is not what I am saying here. I am not talking about Free product A and non-Free product B which are unrelated.
I am talking about Free product A and non-Free product betterA.
I am not sure if I am being as clear as I need to be here but I am trying.
"Again, it's your choice. You can take the open source code and pay anyone you care to for maintanance."
Yes, I can.
"The fact that this company happens to sell a product that isn't open source is utterly irrelevant."
No, it is not irrelevant.
In the same way, choosing to use a Free software package that does not have a vibrant developer community is not irrelevant even where no non-Free code is in play. it may be utterly irrelevant to you and you can act accordingly but it is certainly relevant to me.
I also take into account if a company is coming from a non-Free history and is slowly Freeing up things as they can versus if a company is a startup making Free and non-Free versus if a company is traditionally Free and starts going down the non-Free road.
And please note, this does not mean I don't appreciate the Free code in all these circumstances.
"The company has release open source, you can choose open source, there's no lockin. That's YOUR choice."
That's right, but I can also choose not to trust a company whose business relies on the vendor lock in of non-Free software.
"and the company that released the software as open source has violated neither the letter nor the spirit of the open source movement."
Perhaps not, but I would say they have violated the spirit of the Free Software game as promoted by the FSF.
When it comes to business use, what I look for is a single code base available with paid professional support, preferably by the main developers.
"The problem, ironically, is what many "free" software advocates complain about... the confusion between zero-cost and freedom to do what you want."
No, that's not the problem I speak of at all. The problem is that the business model is built around code that is only available non-Free. (Libre, I have no problem with it being non-gratis.)
There are situations where I would want to pay for Free code and might not use such Free code unless I could pay for pro level support. But... I do not want to pay them for non-Free code.
"So long as the code is the same and you can choose to support people who don't pay upstream and you don't have to kick back upstream when you don't get help from upstream cool." - my quote.
"Sun does not have 'free' versions and 'for fee' versions of software."
Are you sure of this?
In any case, for now let's assume that is correct. That overcomes one of my objections which is the dual code base play. A Free product and a non-Free "enterprise product.
But I was talking about a contract that sought to limit the freedom of a person desiring to pay for support. As in:
Yes we have commercial support options available for this code base but if you sign up for it you can no longer support anyone using this code base. Little efforts like that.
"Why is there ANY problem with a company releasing source and not supporting it?"
There is no real problem with this at all. I do it myself. Mind you, for some instances, some will not deploy Free code unless that can pay for reliable outside support.
"Just another reason why I am leery of any game that has a different code base for the non-Free licensed version and the Free licensed version."
You can see that I was talking about two code bases, on Free and one non-Free. That is where I have a problem. One reason for choosing Free is to get out from under lock in. Why pretend?
"My company is an open source software vendor/developer. We maintain a popular open source project and keep ourselves afloat by producing commercial products derived from or extending the value of the core project."
If I understand this correctly I think the business model is what would keep me away in the first place.
I am happy for "the same code base" to be available gratis with no pro support or for a fee with pro support, or free with paid pro support available.
But since one of motivations for operating in the Free software realm is to get myself out from under the vendor lock in problem, your business model makes me mistrust you. And note that this is not a case of wanting everything gratis as there is a situation I know of now where we cannot consider moving to the Free software option because currently there is a Free software option but it does not have the needed paid for support option at a competitive price that we are aware of.
I still think there be to be some future for industry association funded software development and support. But perhaps I am way off base on this as it has seemed obvious to me for years and I have seen no move towards this in all that time.
Now, if the world can get all to software it could need "developed" gratis by people who get a kick out of it so much the better but somehow I think that people will be able to get paid to develop software for a good long time to come. Getting paid for a monopoly on producing and distributing copies of software is another matter.
"Sun's goal is to get lots of people interested in using their good code (a lot of it really is great). If you use it for your own purposes and go it alone, fine. But when you have a paying customer requiring enterprise support...you'll use the code you know and funnel the support dollars back. None of our clients would ever consider not paying."
So long as the code is the same and you can choose to support people who don't pay upstream and you don't have to kick back upstream when you don't get help from upstream cool.
I want all my important Free software to come with the option of paid support, and from multiple independent sources even.
Some may play it that way, but since I am tend to be a people first kind of person, I tend to approach it from another angle.
Since it is not a Free Market, then see to it that it works in an equitable way for people. Ask the companies that complain if they are willing to give up all of their monopoly advantages and see that the market does. And while they are giving up any monopoly plays, give up and other government granted / created advantages.
I think we tend to mix the ideas of regulation and enforcement in a sloppy fashion to our detriment. Often I think we have more then enough regulation but nowhere near enough oversight or enforcement. Then when things go haywire, we call for more regulation instead of proper enforcement.
"i treat a show like an album, most shows have 10-15 pieces. several pieces (3-4) will be 'singles' i release those photos under the CC attribution license, people can do whatever they want with them, so long as my name is attached to it.
but the other photos of my work are released with share-alike restrictions."
A reasonable play on the BY front.
"I'm curious, if a commercial magazine were to print an image with a share-alike condition, would they have to release that page under the CC as well? (I ask because that's why i don't attach a SA condition to the pieces i use as singles)"
I think I wish it would have to. In fact I wish at least the whole article would have to be BY-SA and I suggest fixes to the license to accomplish this. However, most folks on the cc mailing list, if I recall correctly, think that they would not have to except under special circumstances where the page or article is an actual derivative of the photo somehow. I suggest that the license cause the SA to kick in whenever the work is used in another work that is protected by copyright.
As a result, I am thinking of going BY only on photos and leaving off the SA. This is not the case for music used in a movie though.
"ps: cool website, by the way. i've been wanting to get a Linux audio setup going for a while, and the info you give is a great guide."
It is not just my site. The band is a virtual band come together to do Free music made with linux. We did the RPM08 challenge together. Things have been fairly quiet since then. Perhaps we will do 09..
"when i eventually get my website built and posted, everything on it will be attribution-share-alike-non commercial at the minimum, some of it will be attribution only. I'm at that stage where publicity is more important than earning money."
These two things can work against each other. For instance, I try to promote cc BY and BY-SA works but will seldom promote any cc works with NC.
I feel that if you want to reserve the right to make money from your work you are free to go for it but I am not going to give you free promotion on that work.
I tend to think this way even though I dual license some of my stuff BY-SA at the internet archive and BY-NC at ccMixter. I would just use BY-SA on ccMixter but they do not allow that choice there and I don't want to go plain BY which they do allow.
"But the signatures are only valuable because they're so rare."
Exactly.
"When there are millions upon millions of "limited edition" CDs signed by Trent Reznor, or millions upon millions of baseballs signed by some famous guy, they're no longer any more valuable than the unsigned item."
So, you don't sign so many. A limited edition's point is to be limited.
"I guess I'm still missing your point. If we're going to give "signatures" protections similar to copyrights, what practical difference is there?"
Well, the difference is one has to do with lying to and defrauding the buyer and the other is an artificial government granted monopoly.
With one, freedom comes back up to the limits of fraud. With what we have now, you can get something like 4 or 5 years in jail for the possession of a non-legit CD or DVD.
But I think my real point wrt this thread is that I don't think artists "as a whole" will suddenly not be able to make any money on their art if copyright laws did not exist. So we may want to argue for the existence of copyright laws, but I think that if we do we might want to search for better reasons.
"i have been encouraging my friend's bands to do something similar."
What I suggest is not something similar, but it may be a less threatening way for them to experiment.
Cover some other person's BY-SA works and try different ways to earn money on the covers.
Please note... I think here are possibilities for licensing works BY-SA to the world and then still offering alternate licensing to movies, tv, games and such which do not want to release BY-SA. Your thoughts?
"Gee, somebody was just telling me we couldn't compare physical items with easily copied things like DVDs... "
So, any explanation? Or does that weaken your position? Seriously. Do we want to explore this space looking for something possibly better than we have now. Even if it just a better understanding? Or do we want to win some argument?
The comparison I made had to do with the value of a signature on an item and how it increases the value of an item. Funny thing is, I am proposing that we could use fraud laws to give protection to signatures similar to the protection copyright laws give to works now.
You on the other hand were asking why people did not sell things with a lot of expensive materials in them. and in each and every one of them did not give those things away for free. If you honestly can't see what I am asking you to address, I am not sure where to go from here.
"Are you really trying to tell me a tiny, unheard of indie band can make a money selling signed, limited edition CDs?"
Well, perhaps. Perhaps their giving away digital copies under a Free license (or in a world where there is no copyright) will lead to them becoming famous and THEN they will be able to make money selling signed, limited edition CD packages.
Hey, artists who are probably only known around here pull this off around here with paintings. So perhaps bands who only have a local following can still pull this off locally.
Besides, how many tiny, unheard of indie bands make a money selling copyrighted CDs?
"Copyright exists so that artists and other creative people can be compensated for their work."
No, it does not.
"And you're saying we should get rid of copyright."
No, I am not!
"And you're not really proposing any alternative."
Yes, I have. Have you not followed the links?
"I'm not even seeing the connection between "making art" and copyright laws."
Seems to me you are saying that people would stop making art if there were no copyright laws to allow them to earn from their art. Are you?
"There's nothing stopping people from releasing their art to the public domain right now."
I have seen legal types argue over this and some claim it is very difficult to do, some claim it is not possible in their countries. How do you propose someone can do this now?
"Like I said somewhere else in this thread, our copyright laws could use an overhaul, but getting rid of them entirely would be a huge mistake."
It may be a mistake and I think I tend to agree, but I think it would be a smaller mistake than keeping what we have unchanged or making them worse which is where we seem to be headed.
I find it odd that I feel that sane copyright laws may be the way to go when I generally lean towards governments not trying to steer or rig markets and rather just make sure that people in the markets behave honestly. And copyright is a government granted monopoly. And the way I normally think, the market should be able to find a better solution to the problem than government granted monopolies, but for some reason I am not sure the market can do better than the best copyright laws can. I am confident that the market can do better than our current copyright laws can though.
Slashdot Mirror
"These companys want to keep their local dealers open."
This may be so.
"Make sense?"
No. They have another option. Sell to the small local dealer for less than they sell to be non-local ones. Or at least on par. Naturally they don't want to do it this way, but they could.
all the best,
drew
Well, that was a bit odd.
first time i tried that and it doesn't seem to make sense.
I modded already. I wanted to comment. Had I logged out and posted AC my mod would not have been undone. So I figured, there is a post as AC option, I don't need to bother logging out. Not so. Posting as AC when logged in undoes your mods.
WHY?
all the best,
drew
"I certainly wouldn't deny anyone the right to self defence, but self defence is not a medical issue."
And I think I agree, except that this will probably be sold as a mental health issue and is probably no bigger reach than some already accepted issues.
Care to speculate?
all the best,
drew
"The "Free" part of FOSS is defined namely as the part which allows a user to make and distribute copies of the software without paying a licensing fee (such as the GNU license). The "Open Source" part refers to the free as in libre ability to make changes to the source code, thus Open Source. This is how I see it and I think is the prevailing view."
Nope.
There is Free Software. As in the Free Software Foundation. http://www.fsf.org/ This is about Freedom, not price. Libre and not gratis.
There is Open Source Software. As in the Open Source Initiative. http://www.opensource.org/ This is the "marketing" of Free Software under another name so as not to scare people with the word Free.
FOSS is F/OS/S or Free Software combined with Open Source Software. [Free/Open Source/Software] That is the history of it to the best of my recollection and given with some short cuts and some language that may upset some but is not meant to. A way to call the thing by both names at once.
"The bottom line is everything costs something, whatever it is labeled."
Well, yes and no, but as I say, Free Software has never been about price. That is often a pleasant side benefit, but it is not the game. The game is freedom.
all the best,
drew
"Let's face it - nothing is free. If you get your software for absolutely nothing, someone else is wasting long hours of programming or some investor is investing money and getting no return. If a company uses OSS and pays a employed or contracted programmer to fix bugs and add features, that OSS is not FOSS to that company. If they have to pay an annual support contract for each software license a la commercial redhat, it is not FOSS to that company."
Please, stop playing word games.
"If a company uses OSS and pays a employed or contracted programmer to fix bugs and add features, that OSS is not FOSS to that company."
And here we see the word game. The F is for Free which is for libre, not for gratis. So, if you get it for zero dollars or have to pay a million dollars for it, it is still Free. It is still libre even if it is not gratis.
"Let's face it - nothing is free."
Perhaps, perhaps not, but the key question is, is anyone free or are we all slaves? And if slaves, WHO ownes us?
all the best,
drew
"Bankers need to run their banks more efficiently so they get together to cooperatively develop some banking application software that makes them all work more effectively and efficiently."
Bingo!
"Open source development is not a segment of the software indusrty, it's a segment of the every-other-industry."
Unless your software industry group does it for pay from the every-other-industry folks!
all the best,
drew
"Note that the economic incentive works precisely the other way around for makers of proprietary software: the margin on most software sales is not very large, and one support call will wipe out your revenue for that sale. So the software maker needs to make his software as stable as possible, to avoid the extra costs of supporting it."
So what? Are you saying economics don't work for software?
all the best,
drew
"I'd really love it if Slashdot would post more about Creative Commons -licensed (and other free-culture) stuff that interests geeks, but I'd also love it if we would step away from discussion about copyrights and licensing in itself and touting CC as the main selling point. Can we get away from the mechanism and move on to the substance?"
Well, while people still speak of a cc license and don't name it and when you speak of "(and other free-culture) stuff" when the licnese on this book is not a Free one, we are likely to still have these meta mechanism over substance discussions. I agree though that it would be good to move beyond it if we can move beyond the confusion.
all the best,
drew
"but it is still one of the more free cc licenses."
Not quite, BY and BY-SA are the "Free" ones, the NC and ND ones certainly aren't close to those two.
all the best,
drew
And the one this one is under doesn't have that goal.
"Creative Commons License The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License."
Please people, unless you are trying to cause confusion and trouble, when you mention that something us under a cc license, tell us which one.
Oh, and MOD PARENT UP please. This is an important point.
all the best,
drew
"So you are saying that if a company does not release the source code to ALL of its software, any software that it does open source is tainted?"
No, I might if pushed, but I might not. Either way, that is not what I am saying here. I am not talking about Free product A and non-Free product B which are unrelated.
I am talking about Free product A and non-Free product betterA.
I am not sure if I am being as clear as I need to be here but I am trying.
"Again, it's your choice. You can take the open source code and pay anyone you care to for maintanance."
Yes, I can.
"The fact that this company happens to sell a product that isn't open source is utterly irrelevant."
No, it is not irrelevant.
In the same way, choosing to use a Free software package that does not have a vibrant developer community is not irrelevant even where no non-Free code is in play. it may be utterly irrelevant to you and you can act accordingly but it is certainly relevant to me.
I also take into account if a company is coming from a non-Free history and is slowly Freeing up things as they can versus if a company is a startup making Free and non-Free versus if a company is traditionally Free and starts going down the non-Free road.
And please note, this does not mean I don't appreciate the Free code in all these circumstances.
all the best,
drew
"The company has release open source, you can choose open source, there's no lockin. That's YOUR choice."
That's right, but I can also choose not to trust a company whose business relies on the vendor lock in of non-Free software.
"and the company that released the software as open source has violated neither the letter nor the spirit of the open source movement."
Perhaps not, but I would say they have violated the spirit of the Free Software game as promoted by the FSF.
When it comes to business use, what I look for is a single code base available with paid professional support, preferably by the main developers.
"The problem, ironically, is what many "free" software advocates complain about... the confusion between zero-cost and freedom to do what you want."
No, that's not the problem I speak of at all. The problem is that the business model is built around code that is only available non-Free. (Libre, I have no problem with it being non-gratis.)
There are situations where I would want to pay for Free code and might not use such Free code unless I could pay for pro level support. But... I do not want to pay them for non-Free code.
all the best,
drew
"So long as the code is the same and you can choose to support people who don't pay upstream and you don't have to kick back upstream when you don't get help from upstream cool." - my quote.
"Sun does not have 'free' versions and 'for fee' versions of software."
Are you sure of this?
In any case, for now let's assume that is correct. That overcomes one of my objections which is the dual code base play. A Free product and a non-Free "enterprise product.
But I was talking about a contract that sought to limit the freedom of a person desiring to pay for support. As in:
Yes we have commercial support options available for this code base but if you sign up for it you can no longer support anyone using this code base. Little efforts like that.
all the best,
drew
"Why is there ANY problem with a company releasing source and not supporting it?"
There is no real problem with this at all. I do it myself. Mind you, for some instances, some will not deploy Free code unless that can pay for reliable outside support.
"Just another reason why I am leery of any game that has a different code base for the non-Free licensed version and the Free licensed version."
You can see that I was talking about two code bases, on Free and one non-Free. That is where I have a problem. One reason for choosing Free is to get out from under lock in. Why pretend?
all the best,
drew
"My company is an open source software vendor/developer. We maintain a popular open source project and keep ourselves afloat by producing commercial products derived from or extending the value of the core project."
If I understand this correctly I think the business model is what would keep me away in the first place.
I am happy for "the same code base" to be available gratis with no pro support or for a fee with pro support, or free with paid pro support available.
But since one of motivations for operating in the Free software realm is to get myself out from under the vendor lock in problem, your business model makes me mistrust you. And note that this is not a case of wanting everything gratis as there is a situation I know of now where we cannot consider moving to the Free software option because currently there is a Free software option but it does not have the needed paid for support option at a competitive price that we are aware of.
I still think there be to be some future for industry association funded software development and support. But perhaps I am way off base on this as it has seemed obvious to me for years and I have seen no move towards this in all that time.
Now, if the world can get all to software it could need "developed" gratis by people who get a kick out of it so much the better but somehow I think that people will be able to get paid to develop software for a good long time to come. Getting paid for a monopoly on producing and distributing copies of software is another matter.
all the best,
drew
--
http://zotz.kompoz.com/
"Sun's goal is to get lots of people interested in using their good code (a lot of it really is great). If you use it for your own purposes and go it alone, fine. But when you have a paying customer requiring enterprise support...you'll use the code you know and funnel the support dollars back. None of our clients would ever consider not paying."
So long as the code is the same and you can choose to support people who don't pay upstream and you don't have to kick back upstream when you don't get help from upstream cool.
I want all my important Free software to come with the option of paid support, and from multiple independent sources even.
all the best,
drew
Still a stink game if that is the one being played.
Just another reason why I am leery of any game that has a different code base for the non-Free licensed version and the Free licensed version.
all the best,
drew
Bingo. And in the meantime they don't want the bad ones in a position to get up to more trouble.
There are a lot of things that seem to make no sense until you dig a little deeper.
However, I wonder if the pay could be conditional and, in the case of the bad apples, recoverable.
all the best,
drew
"Ah yes, the good old libertarian cop-out."
Some may play it that way, but since I am tend to be a people first kind of person, I tend to approach it from another angle.
Since it is not a Free Market, then see to it that it works in an equitable way for people. Ask the companies that complain if they are willing to give up all of their monopoly advantages and see that the market does. And while they are giving up any monopoly plays, give up and other government granted / created advantages.
I think we tend to mix the ideas of regulation and enforcement in a sloppy fashion to our detriment. Often I think we have more then enough regulation but nowhere near enough oversight or enforcement. Then when things go haywire, we call for more regulation instead of proper enforcement.
all the best,
drew
"i treat a show like an album, most shows have 10-15 pieces. several pieces (3-4) will be 'singles' i release those photos under the CC attribution license, people can do whatever they want with them, so long as my name is attached to it.
but the other photos of my work are released with share-alike restrictions."
A reasonable play on the BY front.
"I'm curious, if a commercial magazine were to print an image with a share-alike condition, would they have to release that page under the CC as well? (I ask because that's why i don't attach a SA condition to the pieces i use as singles)"
I think I wish it would have to. In fact I wish at least the whole article would have to be BY-SA and I suggest fixes to the license to accomplish this. However, most folks on the cc mailing list, if I recall correctly, think that they would not have to except under special circumstances where the page or article is an actual derivative of the photo somehow. I suggest that the license cause the SA to kick in whenever the work is used in another work that is protected by copyright.
As a result, I am thinking of going BY only on photos and leaving off the SA. This is not the case for music used in a movie though.
"ps: cool website, by the way. i've been wanting to get a Linux audio setup going for a while, and the info you give is a great guide."
It is not just my site. The band is a virtual band come together to do Free music made with linux. We did the RPM08 challenge together. Things have been fairly quiet since then. Perhaps we will do 09..
all the best,
drew
"when i eventually get my website built and posted, everything on it will be attribution-share-alike-non commercial at the minimum, some of it will be attribution only.
I'm at that stage where publicity is more important than earning money."
These two things can work against each other. For instance, I try to promote cc BY and BY-SA works but will seldom promote any cc works with NC.
I feel that if you want to reserve the right to make money from your work you are free to go for it but I am not going to give you free promotion on that work.
I tend to think this way even though I dual license some of my stuff BY-SA at the internet archive and BY-NC at ccMixter. I would just use BY-SA on ccMixter but they do not allow that choice there and I don't want to go plain BY which they do allow.
all the best,
drew
"But the signatures are only valuable because they're so rare."
Exactly.
"When there are millions upon millions of "limited edition" CDs signed by Trent Reznor, or millions upon millions of baseballs signed by some famous guy, they're no longer any more valuable than the unsigned item."
So, you don't sign so many. A limited edition's point is to be limited.
"I guess I'm still missing your point. If we're going to give "signatures" protections similar to copyrights, what practical difference is there?"
Well, the difference is one has to do with lying to and defrauding the buyer and the other is an artificial government granted monopoly.
With one, freedom comes back up to the limits of fraud. With what we have now, you can get something like 4 or 5 years in jail for the possession of a non-legit CD or DVD.
But I think my real point wrt this thread is that I don't think artists "as a whole" will suddenly not be able to make any money on their art if copyright laws did not exist. So we may want to argue for the existence of copyright laws, but I think that if we do we might want to search for better reasons.
all the best,
drew
"i have been encouraging my friend's bands to do something similar."
What I suggest is not something similar, but it may be a less threatening way for them to experiment.
Cover some other person's BY-SA works and try different ways to earn money on the covers.
Please note... I think here are possibilities for licensing works BY-SA to the world and then still offering alternate licensing to movies, tv, games and such which do not want to release BY-SA. Your thoughts?
all the best,
drew
"Gee, somebody was just telling me we couldn't compare physical items with easily copied things like DVDs... "
So, any explanation? Or does that weaken your position? Seriously. Do we want to explore this space looking for something possibly better than we have now. Even if it just a better understanding? Or do we want to win some argument?
The comparison I made had to do with the value of a signature on an item and how it increases the value of an item. Funny thing is, I am proposing that we could use fraud laws to give protection to signatures similar to the protection copyright laws give to works now.
You on the other hand were asking why people did not sell things with a lot of expensive materials in them. and in each and every one of them did not give those things away for free. If you honestly can't see what I am asking you to address, I am not sure where to go from here.
"Are you really trying to tell me a tiny, unheard of indie band can make a money selling signed, limited edition CDs?"
Well, perhaps. Perhaps their giving away digital copies under a Free license (or in a world where there is no copyright) will lead to them becoming famous and THEN they will be able to make money selling signed, limited edition CD packages.
Hey, artists who are probably only known around here pull this off around here with paintings. So perhaps bands who only have a local following can still pull this off locally.
Besides, how many tiny, unheard of indie bands make a money selling copyrighted CDs?
all the best,
drew
"But you are."
No. I am not.
"Copyright exists so that artists and other creative people can be compensated for their work."
No, it does not.
"And you're saying we should get rid of copyright."
No, I am not!
"And you're not really proposing any alternative."
Yes, I have. Have you not followed the links?
"I'm not even seeing the connection between "making art" and copyright laws."
Seems to me you are saying that people would stop making art if there were no copyright laws to allow them to earn from their art. Are you?
"There's nothing stopping people from releasing their art to the public domain right now."
I have seen legal types argue over this and some claim it is very difficult to do, some claim it is not possible in their countries. How do you propose someone can do this now?
"Like I said somewhere else in this thread, our copyright laws could use an overhaul, but getting rid of them entirely would be a huge mistake."
It may be a mistake and I think I tend to agree, but I think it would be a smaller mistake than keeping what we have unchanged or making them worse which is where we seem to be headed.
I find it odd that I feel that sane copyright laws may be the way to go when I generally lean towards governments not trying to steer or rig markets and rather just make sure that people in the markets behave honestly. And copyright is a government granted monopoly. And the way I normally think, the market should be able to find a better solution to the problem than government granted monopolies, but for some reason I am not sure the market can do better than the best copyright laws can. I am confident that the market can do better than our current copyright laws can though.
all the best,
drew