Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

EFF Releases Public Music License 215

Posted by Hemos from the promote-the-freedom dept.
Robin Gross, one of the very nice people at the EFF [?] wrote to us about their new public music license. As the press release states: "...EFF's Open Audio License allows anyone to freely copy, share, perform, and adapt music in exchange for providing credit to the artist for her gift to humanity. EFF's Open Audio License enables musicians and society to build upon and share creative expression, creating a rich public commons. Artists who chose to release a song under the public license can build their reputation by offering unfettered access to their original works in exchange for recognition. Open Audio works are designated as "(O)" by the author and may be lawfully traded on file-sharing systems such as Napster or played by traditional and Web DJs royalty-free. Numerous musicians have traditionally taken advantage of super-distribution of their music, such as the Grateful Dead, a band that attributes much of its success to its encouragement of fans to freely copy and share its music. "EFF's Open Audience License hopes to use the power of copyright to protect copyright's ultimate objectives: a vibrant and accessible public domain, incentivising creativity, and promoting the free exchange of ideas," said EFF Staff Attorney for Intellectual Property Robin Gross. "EFF's public music license strikes a new deal between creators and the public, granting more freedoms to the public to experience music while ensuring the artist is compensated." You can read more details in the FAQ and more about their Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF Releases Public Music License More

EFF Releases Public Music License

Comments Filter:

  • Re:what about money? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    People don't read the licences normally, and they probably won't pay the artist simply because the preamble of the licence says it's a good idea.

    Espra [espra.net], which is a music-sharing program build on top of Freenet [sourceforge.net] has a little button by each song that says "tip artist" (you can see it in this screenshot [espra.net]). I've not tried Espra so I don't know how it works (or if it's even implemented yet), but from an interface point-of-view it sounds plausible that many people will use it. This is all assuming micropayments become practical soon, so you're not paying more in service charges than you're giving to the band :)

  • Legally no, the band turns over all rights to the music when they sign with a recording company. Most bands aren't even allowed to play their own music without express written consent from their label.

    Basically, how this works is the labels passed a seedy law that declares the band's music a "work for hire" which means the record company owns the rights to the music, however they don't actually pay the bands outright (just give them a tiny cut of the sales and an advance that they have to pay back), which is one reason so many bands go broke so quick.

    The upshot is, most bands seem to have the legal savvy of a brain dead bacteria, and for some reason they don't hire lawyers to look at the contracts they sign, or perhaps record companies avoid signing people who seem to know how to read.

    Come to think of it, this is not the first time this has been mentioned on Slashdot, maybe you should check the archives for a more complete discussion on this topic.

    Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
  • This is cool, I love to see it, I love the EFF... but... there are some very serious flaws with this arrangement.

    It's not so much the fact that Sony or BMG or whoever could grab whatever they liked and flood the market with it giving only credit (and sure, you can undersell them and go 'mine is the official version!' but think for a second about what your distribution network is like, versus what theirs is like)... to some, this would be problem enough, but there are musicians out there who'd accept such a bargain hoping to trade off their hoped-for popularity...

    No, the real booby-trap is what I call the 'Singing Munchkin' problem. Basically, if you use this license, you are not simply giving blanket permission to other musicians to work with your music (arguably a good thing, if they're not Puffy), you're also giving, say, Burger King permission to take your music and overdub singing munchkins singing "Whopper whopper yummy whopper yum yum whopper mmm mmm good!" to YOUR MELODY.

    This is deadly. (and not just to listener's sanity)

    The fact is, you can compose music, write melodies all you want, but when you marry words to them it fixes the melody forever in the listener's mind by providing verbal 'chunks' that are associated with the tune forever. To this day I still associate "Hall Of The Mountain King" with the words "We are all in seventh grade, seventh grade, seventh grade, we are all in seventh grade in Diamond Junior High" thanks to an evil bitch of a music teacher. This is a _horrible_ potential problem.

    It's only worsened by the plain and simple fact that if _anything_ really good gets out under (O) licensing, the next move would be for advertising services to pop up that monitor all that content, know some clever audio hacks with Pro Tools and connections with background vocalists, and to set up very competitive commercial music supply based on this source of unencumbered original music- and the ease of editing, remixing and overdubbing onto that stuff. Normal commercial music costs quite a lot by comparison. This 'open music' would drastically change the market for commercial music. What's a little line of original author credit? Nobody reads those when they appear in TV commercials. You might as well have it say 'Original Author sold separately' for all the difference it would make.

    Personally, I am going to continue to put "all commercial rights reserved- noncommercial copying OKAY" on all my CDs.

    If people want to put stuff on Napster, I'd gladly testify that I consider that noncommercial copying. If people want to put on singing munchkins without my permission and make an ad, surprise! That is COMMERCIAL use and if they want to play that game they have to play by the OLD rules which give me a certain amount of leverage if I don't sign it away. And if someone wants to rip a few bars of rhythm section to use under their rap song or whatever, and they're another artist- for Christ's sake, why not ASK ME? I could fairly easily do a separate mix of just the rhythm section for pretty much anything you want, tailor the mix to the new purpose, _collaborate_ rather than act like some passive victim of copyright violation. All this license nonsense really obscures the fact that some musicians are more than happy to work with others. If you are an artist and want a few bars of my song, don't invent new licenses that would give you permission ahead of time, ASK. You are not alone, you are part of a community if you allow it to happen...

  • If you've got other music which you're selling (under a different license, of course), being acknowledged is publicity. Even if you're other licensing your music differently, if you also sell CDs of it for people who want to actually buy it, the situation is essentially an above-board version of the Napster situation, which we all know leads to more people buying your music.
  • Can someone create some open audio sites for me to post songs to. I'm too busy/lazy. Otherwise I would.

  • Doesn't the recording industry pre-empt this? (Score:3)

    by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2001 @05:30AM (#266478)
    Perhaps someone with actual music contract experience could comment (there's a thought!), but my understanding was that the recording industry works pretty hard to pre-empt this kind of thing. In that, sooner or later every successful musician would like to sign a contract for commercial distribution, but that all such contracts contain clauses turning over complete control of distribution to the recording company, and explicitly prohibiting the artist from using any other form of distribution. And that these contracts have recently been amended to specifically prohibit distribution via Internet, just in case the musicians start having any uppity thoughts about going out on their own.

    True, or just another Internet rumour?

    sPh
  • They can sell it, but they have to allow their customers to copy it as well (clause 3). Same as the GPL. They're allowed to sell, but won't be able to exploit for extreme amounts of money.

    LetterJ
    Head Geek
  • "Exploit" implies exclusivity. Redhat doesn't have exclusive rights to package and redistribute those components. The fact that they are included in other distributions exemplifies that. There is nothing preventing the developer of YetAnotherMP3 player that gets included in Redhat from building his own distribution with a newer and better version of his app.

    RIAA bargains for the exclusive distribution rights. This license doesn't.

    LetterJ
    Head Geek
  • But that's my point. You have to have a definition of source code. In a license, allowing arbitrary redefinition of terms is a bad thing. In software, source code isn't a particularly debatable term. A license specifically written for photographs would eliminate the ambiguity of terms like "source code". You wouldn't need to say, "Well, for paintings, source code is "X". You'd say, you can make prints and copies of the painting, but you won't be given an oil painting on canvas at your request (the real "source code").

    Even GNU has written a new license for documentation. Email me when you've translated the docs.

    LetterJ
    Head Geek

  • Re:GNUArt ! (Score:3)

    by LetterJ ( 3524 ) <j@wynia.org> on Wednesday April 25, 2001 @07:03AM (#266482) Homepage
    The GPL is useful because it covers a specific domain: software. It covers the situations involved with software development and addresses those specific issues. The language all refers to programs, source code, running programs, source code distribution, etc. Many of those elements have a parallel in art, literature and music, but they come with their own unique situations. Applying a software license to things other than software puts the status of those items on shaky ground. Why do you think lawyers recommend against just using cookie-cutter legal forms and crossing stuff off and writing in the margins. It's not because they're after legal fees. It's because doing that leaves situational loopholes a mile wide. For example, if I apply the GPL to a photograph, what do I need to provide to comply with the "a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange" clause? Photographs don't have source code. Yes you can deliver prints or digital files, but to a photographer, those are the equivilant of binaries. That leaves that clause a bad fit and leaves both a loophole and a potential problem. What about a painting? sculpture? New licenses that deal with the product domain specifically, but still keep the spirit of free licenses provides a far greater advantage than badly adapting an inappropriate license.

    So you like Perl. Would you actually try to build an OS with it? Wrong tool for the job. Sure, in some strange twisted way, it might be possible, but it's not the best tool.

    LetterJ
    Head Geek
  • no, it doesn't right now, seems to be /.ed
  • Getting an "improved" version of your music back does sound kind of silly.

    But a lot of GPL software is released because the writer wants their software to be used and appreciated, to make themselves known, or perhaps even to get a job by proving their programming abilities. These motives seem to match why a musician would release their music.

  • YAL (Score:2)

    by Ed Avis ( 5917 )
    There are just too many licences already! Do we need another? Off the top of my head, I can think of Open Content, the LDP's documentation licence, the GNU documentation licence, that group of teachers who wrote a licence for educational stuff, and of course the plain old GPL applied to non-software works.

    Of course music may need its own provisions to reflect performing rights and the like, but that does apply to some other forms of art too. Couldn't the Open Content people extend the scope of their legalese to make it suitable for music too? And if the FSF and other documentation writers could join in, that would be great too.

    Probably the YAL problem isn't as serious as with software, since you don't have an equivalent of 'linking'. Usually when two copyrighted works are distributed together it would count as 'mere aggregation' (to use the GPL's terms). Even so, it does look a bit silly.
  • I am confused as to how this is different from previous free music sharing? Why can't a live concert (not ripped from a commercial CD) be spread on the net (if the band is allowing it)?

    I like that they are making it "official" but the Grateful Dead (and others, SCI, WSP, Ekoostik Hookah, etc) have been doing it for years and there are no problems!

    Nice idea, but old hat :)
  • It really didn't come across that well. Perhaps because you didn't go far enough over the top.
  • <rant>Dammit! Can't *somebody* learn the real definition of fascist? Geez, go grab a cheap Political Science textbook at your local used bookstore or something...</rant>

    Sorry. It's not you personally, it's just that *nobody* seems to be able to get this right!

  • The rewriting or adapting of musical works has, for a very long time, been a primary means of learning composition in European art music. Some of Bach's early organ works were transcriptions of Vivaldi concerti, for example. It can also be part of the appeal of the music itself: to take some well-known melody and skillfully give it new life.
  • If the score (printed music and lyrics) were treated as "source code" and the performance as "binary/executable", then maybe it might be more like the GPL.
  • Errm, isn't that the link that is cited in the writeup above?

    That would make it Redundant - how did this get a score of 4?

    Slashdot moderator : "OOh a link! That must be useful, better mod it up."

    Wake up people!
  • It'll be interesting to see what the FSF will say about them saying Open rather than Free.

    What does suck about this license is that someone can sell your music for profit. I'm not sure I like that. Regardless, my band will release all our material under this or an improved audio license... anyone have one?

  • please think a little more specifically (Score:3)

    by rillian ( 12328 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2001 @11:16AM (#266493) Homepage
    Well...no. If you released your songs under the EFF's Open Audio License and Sony downloaded them and started selling cds, they would have permission to do so. You've given it to them (and anyone else) by licensing your music under the OAL.

    And yes, someone could create derived works and sell them without paying anything. But not without your name on it. Sony and random remixers alike must give credit. These two items are the substance of the license we're discussing. There are other ways to "apply the GPL" to music, of course, but I would argue that without freedom to use and derive from a work commercially, you're not talking about the GPL.

    If that's not for you, that's fine. You have plenty of other options. But please, say what you mean without fabricating supporting arguments out of thin air.

  • While the EFF's license seems like an excellent response to the non-sense of the recording and related music publishing industiries, I think it has a negative side-effect of legitimizing the notion of "music as a licensable thing". Why is music something that I must license? Why must a legal contract exist between myself and a large number of other parties in the event that I hear some music?

    I worry that this flurry of licensing issues will result in the de facto assumption by law makers that a license exists in all music transmission actitivities (listening to music, playing music, reading music, discussing music etc.).

  • Upon it's creation, all works are the property of their creator. The only way a studio can get control over a piece of music is for the artist to hand over that control.

    That's what the contract you mention is. It's a legal instrument to hand over the distribution rights to the studio. The artist does not need to do this. If they feel that the distribution channels of the studio are worth more than retaining control of their work, they will sign it. Otherwise they won't.

    So, when a musician creates a piece of music, he owns it. He may then place it under the "O" license (although much better licenses exist) and release it. He probably won't be able to go through the traditional channels to distribute it, though. That's a choice he has to make.

  • I'll have to give some thought as to whether I want to adopt the Open Audio license for my own music [prmsystems.com], but it's always nice to hear of such iniatives, even if they don't prove revolutionary in and of themselves -- they are still indicators of a refreshing trend. It also would certainly help if the EFF were able to get a few big-name musicians behind the Open Audio License, to raise awareness.

    I'll also mention that people interested in open/copylefted music should check out my website [prmsystems.com] -- there's a good selection of mp3 ranging in styles from house/drum & bass to hip-hop and psychedelic punk.

  • "EFF's public music license strikes a new deal between creators and the public, granting more freedoms to the public to experience music while ensuring the artist is compensated."

    That's a strange definition of compensated. Does compensated usually mean, "People get your stuff, and you get jack shit?"

    Then again, this is similar to the bastardization of the word "free", I suppose....
  • I second this post.
    Quote: "Artists who chose to release a song under the public license can build their reputation by offering unfettered access to their original works in exchange for recognition."

    This shows that the whole thing is completely stupid. NO artist I know (and I know many) can pay his rent from "recognition".
    Again this is the "I want freedom at someone else's cost" game. To pay with "recognition" is certainly a thing that many would love, while they spend their money for other things. This is a license for music done by mediocre musicians. Sorry guys, but it remains true: great music in genreal comes from musicians who spend all their life learning and improving their skills. They need to earn some real, cold *money* with their art. "Recognition" certainly is not enough.
  • Actually, even big names make a hell of a lot of money touring and selling merchandise. All those backstreet boys t-shirts and britney keychains add up.... (I seem to remember reading that these pop acts make insane amounts of cash selling promo items during their tours ... I am having trouble finding a link to back this up, however).

  • .... don't mean to single him out (yeah, I do), but he's the first artist/genius I thought of who had a reputation for being a real prick AND peformed for the "sake of the music" ...

    But really, isn't just more eveidence that the music industry is media/profit-driven? It is, of course, but what true artists will respond to a policy where they'd have to all-but-confess to this?

    Sadly, not many .... I like the idea, though ....

    Speaking of Miles -- I'm running out of search queues to find his music on Napster/Gnutella (i.e., Myles Dayvis, etc.) .... any suggestions?

  • You're a troll. The GPL doesn't prohibit charging for the work. The GPL insures that the people who get your work have the same rights, whether or not it's sold. Nice try.
    _______
    Scott Jones
    Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
  • Yeah, this is kind of a goofy concept. I understand the desire to label your music as Napster-OK, but there really is no benefit to the artist to have someone modify their works. In 'All you ever wanted to know about the music business' the author talks about how copyrighting your material isn't that important for two reasons:

    If someone steals your music and sells a million records, after you sue them you will be
    rich and famous far sooner than you would have been otherwise

    Every artist believes that his songs are the best. So why would any respectable artist steal
    someone else's material?

    The second reason above is why many artists may be hesitant to use the OAL. Music is art, not technology. Most artists wouldn't be interested in the idea of having others rewrite any parts of their songs for any reason. Though this clause also allows people to sample OAL works, which is cool, it just doesn't seem to have much appeal otherwise. And I don't think too many people would actually take the time to make modifications to anyone else's music unless it were some kind of remix (which I suppose would be cool.) The other weird thing that OAL states as a benefit to it's licensing terms is the ability to publicly perform an OAL artist's works without paying royalty. You can do that anyway. Anyone can play anyone else's music, AFAIK, live without paying royalties as long as that performance isn't recorded and sold without permission.

    It's an interesting idea, but I don't see too many ways where the benefits of the GPL can work in the artistic world... IMHO.

    -M

  • Re:Doesn't the recording industry pre-empt this? (Score:3)

    by Mr_Plow ( 30965 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2001 @08:03AM (#266503)
    I think this license will probably apply more to unsigned artists. It's true, the record companies own complete control of an artist's works once they are under a record contract. For an unsigned artist, this might be a way to gain some exposure, but I don't believe it will be any more helpful than playing lots of shows, touring, etc.
  • Points well taken but I think you're thinking in the terms of the current state of the industry. It's very difficult to look around and then make confident predictions of the future of recorded music. This new license is (I think) designed to be future-proof. Just as the GPL has survived nearly 20 years as a vehicle for licensing free software, so the Open Audio License is designed to be around for a long time - much longer, I suspect than the record companies in their present form.

    Think back to ~1984 when the GPL was first written (someone correct me please if necessary) and note the state of the industry. Now do the same thing with the Open Audio license and project 20 years.

  • I don't see the point of this at all. As someone who knows professional musicians (not signed musicians--working musicians--choir directors, Jazz musicians, pianists, composers, bands, etc.), it's hard enough for them to make a living making and playing their music. This type of license seems inappropriate. The minority of musicans that become part of the pop machine will do well (some of the time), signed bands that don't do well will lose their shirts.

    Composers (people who write serious music--not pop/rock) have an open sharing of ideas. This is the basis of all musical change. It is not as important for musicans to share actual sound, words, and verbatium chord progressions (which notes and chord progressions in the abstract are not copyrightable).

  • I applaud the EFFs efforts to create a digital commons.

    Perhaps there isn't a demand for this license in the mp3.com/Napster domain, but in specialized fields this could be valuable.

    Getting reusable/repackagable musical jingles for open-source games has always been difficult. For example, the great public domain game Abuse (being ported to the SDL) has only sound effects -- no music -- because of license restrictions the music from the Electronic Arts version can't be used.

    Many publishers put out material expecting to lose money on the material itself. Think about religious material, for example. Or outsider musicians like Jandek [tisue.net].

  • The analogies to GPL seem quite imperfect. GPL is designed to assure that software stays "free" in the Stallman sense, to facilitate the process of use derivation of software, while assuring that those works are made available as a result of its distribution. That process is far less meaningful in the music business, in part because of the nature of musical work and phonorecord copyrights (which are different kinds of assets, with different protections, and are often owned by different people), but also in part because of how music is "derived" in practice.

    In short, the license, which seems more meaningful with respect to facilitating copying and file sharing, is too much. A mere "consent to copy and share the file" would suffice. The license, which doesn't really hit on the nuances of how musical works and samples are used in the business for artistic works, is not enough.

    I don't see why anyone needs Open Music as conceived in this license, or why anyone aspiring to develop open music in the sense of "free" music would use it. In short, my concerns fall into the following, most simple question:

    What are they really trying to accomplish with the license?

    We should measure our concerns about the license in that light, after the question has been answered. Then, we will know whether the flaws identified on this site by others are relevant, and if so, whether changes are necessary. We will also be able to far more easily discern whether the license will be used in such a manner (from a practical standpoint) to achieve those ends.

    P.S.: Note that you cannot use this license for a recording unless you have also gotten the author of the musical work to agree, or the musical work is in the public domain. Further, given that most musical work phonorecords entail plural performers, technicians and sometimes plural composers, these notices are going to be moby.

  • Next! (Score:1)

    by oni ( 41625 )
    >>"GPL" your music. THEN go to RIAA and see if they will distribute it.

    They won't even talk to you - and they don't have to. There are plenty of other "artists" waiting in line. The greedy ones are always very cooperative.

    How many bands out there today show signs of actual talent? Very few I think. The conclusion I draw is that talent is not as important as the willingness to cooperate.

  • There isn't a solitary element to the Open Audio License not covered by simply releasing music into the public domain. Not one. And even nasty old copyright can work the same way.

    "This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do."

    Woody Guthrie songbook, late 1930s

    Except, of course, he didn't have the hip little (O).

    Stupid publicity stunts aside ("Hey, let's patent a trademark for the public domain!"), there are two intellectually defendable theories of intellectual property. One is that a person can create a work and place any conditions on its use and distribution that the creator wishes (and people who dislike the conditions can do without the creation), including giving that control to someone else. The other is that once a person allows another to have some method of copying or otherwise emulating a creation, that person can make no demand on what any other person does with it.

    Notice that "Free Software" (as folks like Stallman snap if you accidentally call it "Open Source") is actually an example of the first type. Actually, releasing any work under any license besides "We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do" is just selecting what conditions you place on it and what demands you make on anyone else who comes across it.

    It's ridiculous to claim that copyright or any other license is "wrong" unless you agree that all licenses, all licenses, are immoral violations of free speech. You can't cheer pirating a commercial piece of software if you can cry foul at someone violating the GPL.

    So, absent any honest, significant opposition to the premises of some form of intellectual property, why don't we just discuss the aspects of licenses that we like or dislike and choose which ones we support (by spurning works with restrictions we dislike) without any pretense of moral superiority?

  • You're committing the classic fallacy of the excluded middle. Either authors must have absolute control over works, or society must ensure that they have no control over works. But it doesn't work that way. The Founding Fathers made the decision...

    The fallacy of the excluded middle relies on the presentation of two options falsely described as the only options. There is no fallacy if the premises allow no middle ground. I did not say that systems other than that of consistent IP rights and nonexistance of IP could not exist or did not exist. The current copyright system would be an obvious counterexample. I did say that the two positions were the only intellectually (ie philosophically) defendable ones for the reasons I described. It is not consistent to allow creators of works any control over the distribution, attribution, etc. of those works and not allow them to set the terms of control that they prefer.

    I have to point out again that you, like many, miss an important point. RMS is not on the opposite end of any spectrum from 'absolute copyright'. RMS is squarely in the IP camp. The GPL makes some very specific and non-negotiable demands of me whether or not I sign any contract, just as copyright does. All that's required to be bound by either is to possess a copy of the work. (And you conflate IP issues with shrinkwrap licenses - the controversy in that case is of the nature of contract, with IP simply not relevant.)

    The issue of free speech vs. intellectual property is an important one, especially if you agree that IP rights exist. "Fair use" is merely the realm of communication about works where IP can't properly be said to apply. It's a "my right to flail my hands ends at your face" issue, though not nearly as clear-cut. Both sides of the Evil Media Corporations vs. Whiny Software Pirate debate (to cast it into the typical stereotypes) tend to try to claim the right to infringe the one right of their opponents by virtue of themselves possessing the other right.

    Sadly, the incoherent nature of the copyright system and modern IP law in general truly creates this problem. It sets down one major license with conditions that various interest groups fight to alter for their own benefit in the courts and Congress. It amounts to unilaterally rewriting a contract and forcing the other parties to be bound to it. Without government forcing everyone to follow one major licensing agreement (which tends to be used to "power" alternatives - look how many copyrights Linus and Richard have) and instead enforcing intellectual property based on licenses, Whiny Pirates and Evil Suits could come to their own peace on licenses they mutually approve of. Instead of wondering whether copyleft could ever survive a court challenge, FSF fans could rest assured that selling proprietary Linux was illegal.

    (And yes, it might require altering the Constitution to do it. And yes, what I'm proposing is really just consistently applying principles of the common law and property rights (hence, "IP").)

  • /* Try writing 'GTK' without using an acronym. Go ahead. Try it. I dare ya. */

    Hmm... Shouldn't be too hard.

    GTK

    GIMP ToolKit

    GNU Image Manipulation Program ToolKit

    GNU's Not Unix Image Manipulation dammit!
    ------

  • Ummmm ... right on! If reason and/or rationality accounted for anything in the moderation of the comments on this site, I'd like to see a "5" next to this one.

  • Consider how ASCAP and BMI collect money... They don't actually track all the songs that radio stations play, they just collect money based on statistical sampling, so that what's most popular gets most of the money. If a radio station is playing music distributed under this license, ASCAP and BMI effectively will earn money from it anyway. That doesn't seem right.

    And there's nothing in there that I saw to prevent your song from appearing as background music in an advertisement for who knows what awful product. That doesn't seem right either.

    I think it's a great start, but there seems like a lot of room for abuse. It seems a very BSDish license and not so much a GPLish license, despite the terms about derivative works having to be distributed under the same license.

    Who wants a free copy of the "derivative work" that consists of a voiceover telling you how white your shirts can be while your song plays in the background?

  • I know many unsigned bands, or bands that have formed their own labels to distribute themselves, and they need the 'publicity' more than the money, independant bands make money by doing day jobs, and trying to save up enough to tour, or make an album. The money they might make by playing a show is spent on food, gas and other items needed while on tour. Most smaller indie bands sell more cd's at shows than from any other method, and so to sell more CD's/tapes/12"/7" they need more people to see their shows. Releasing their music free on-line will lead to more people at their shows, and hopefully those people will buy merchandise at the show to support their bands.

    sorry for any incoherance, need sleep or coffee
  • That's probably true for major label acts, but not necessarily true for smaller acts. I've known bands that have made a release for under $500 dollars including recording and producing the media. This band has sold way more than 50 tapes at $10 each, which means $$profits$$. Of course those go into paying venues for the ability to play there. And the loop continues...
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • On the other hand, I guess it would be cool to be on a commercial :-)

    Except if it's for
    Eue de Goat [goats.cx]
    "Smell like a real Man's Man"

    then Your Name in 48pt and an (0)!!

    Ack!!! [/;-)
  • While this is all nice and good, I'm not sure how much of an impact it'll have. I mean, for many, many of the mp3.com [mp3.com], besonic.com [mp3.com], et al groups, their music was always 'available free of charge, so long as credit is given' .. and in the situations where our music is ripped, the people who rip them arn't going to care much that your music is under (O). Since there will be no money, there's no big powerful (0) licesing watchdog to protect the interests of people under it. The problem with the industry right now is that business takes the 'all or none' approch, and the courts side with this. Either everyone pays fees for copywritten music (including Girl Scouts [s-t.com]), or no one does. Far more useful would be to pursue better fair rights definitions, which define fair use as any situation where people listening to music are not customers of the broadcaster (like the Girl Scouts.) and where the group it is being boadcast to fits a certain minimum of ears per day (so, lets say places like funeral homes would be fine, but radio stations and malls would have to pay.) I mean, it really just comes down to some common sense that seems to have been abandoned in favour of law and precedence; should huge, rich, successful corperations get to charge you for cell phone ring tones [nma.co.uk]? So long as we are not blocking these corperations' traditional path of making money (CD sales, radio broadcast), they should be made to accept that some forms of distribution without copyright payments are acceptable, and that being super-mega-rich instead of stupendously-stupidly-mega-rich will have to do.
  • > specifically prohibits downloaders from creating derived works, using the media in a public performance setting, placing it in a product, etc etc, without permission of the artist and mp3.com

    Oh yeah, I knew that, but like you did with the (O) in the band info, I had info that just said you could steal whatever you wanted when you wanted so long as I had credit. I think if Napster taught us anything, its that no one gives a rats ass when it comes to a license, unless they think its simple and fair. In the case of mp3.com, I doubt 1 in 40 downloaders had read or even knew of the details of the mp3.com license; so I didn't have a problem with the fact that I had to explicitly articulate the terms of 'extended rights' for my music, figuring that they would probably be the only 'rights' any surfer would be aware of.

    I suppose with respect to broadcasters, distributers, etc, some may have been scared away by the 'loseness' of the terms of use I layed down. But I wouldn't be surprised if Open Content gets the same sort of repuation as Open Source - namely that its valuable, good stuff, but there's no accountability in using it, so the players (broadcasters, distributers, etc) with money who can afford the audience to realize the benefits of royalty-free distribution will avoid it for accountability reasons.

    Maybe I'm a cynic; don't get me wrong tho, I do think (O) is a good idea. Imagine a world where a label can collect and release a double disk 40 artist compilation of Open Content artists, risk free for all parties, with the label knowing they'll get enough feedback to sign the 4 most well recieved artists to paying contracts. I like.

    Garret

  • Was Vincent van Gogh a serious artist?

    No man, if you enjoyed the privilege of being an American and better yet a adherent to the ideas of of Ayn Rand you'd realize that the dollar value of a thing is its one and only value. Consider the eschatological consequence of that. As Mr. Van Gogh didn't sell any of his paintings during his life (well, two) it follows logically that as an artist, specifically a painter, he was a plain and simple failure.

    Yet some Japanese fellow paid a hundred million dollars - a glorious hundred million glorious dollars! - for a single canvas of his a mere few decades after his death. This means that without a doubt he must have been a singularly potent success as a painter. Just not within his lifetime! He became a success after he died. Now it's only common sense that nonexistence is synonymous with impotence. QED, we have irrefutably proven the existence of the afterlife!

    Hallelujah, WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

  • most record companies will actually compensate the band for their loss (this is called "tour support").

    umm - except that this is also called "recoupable", which means the band, if they ever earn any money, will have to pay for it.

    The standard record deal is a basically a loan-shark operation. :-(

  • Correct me if I'm wrong but...

    well actually most bands get most of their money from signing bonuses and advances. And perhaps merchandise, if they were lucky enough to retain those rights. The chance of actually seeing any money beyond this is slight - even for big stars. Witness Courtney Love's lawsuit, TLC's bankruptcy, etc. (and it's been going on for a long time - listen to Moneygoround by the Kinks, which should be the marching song for those folks trying to start a musicians union.)

    The only way forward for music as an art form and as a cultural force (other than as a purely commercial product) is to give control of music back to the musicians. The EFF licence is well-intentioned, but it concentrates on the perspective of the audience, and we need to establish a creative partnership between artists and audiences and eliminate the need for any other parties in the equation.

    The bottom line is, musicians need to support homes and families - and their audiences totally understand this - "open sourcing" music only makes sense within a framework in which voluntary payments are brainlessly easy, and socially encouraged. Putting an (o) beside your track should be the same as saying - here's some music we made - give us money and we'll keep making this crazy shit. The street performer protocol is somewhat misnamed , because street perfomers don't withhold music until they are paid, the give it away, and keep doing it as long as enough folks are paying.

    So here's the pitch - we're working on an open source business process for musicians - see potlatch.net [potlatch.net] - the projects kinda been on hiatus for a month or so, but we need it now more than ever. There's a mailing list set up to discuss and develop a 'potlatch protocol' which aims to provide a basic transport layer for voluntary payments.

    Everybody needs this - It's now or fucking never -

  • I thought of another one :-(

    what's to prevent Nike or Coca Cola from taking your music and sell their brand with it?

    that's a double-plus barf-out in my books. enought to kill the idea dead. In fact, the first time this happens, it will. oh well, back to the old drawing board...

  • Why would an artist want to give rights to their music away to everyone? How do you expect people to enrichen the world with their artistic talents if there is no outlet for them to make a living doing so? People might have artistic talent, but it still takes work and devotion to their work to make it "just right". Think of bands like Tool, who spend years working on their albums, re-record their tracks, and expend increadible effort so that the product is something they are happy with. Can they do this if they cannot keep rights to their music? Would they want to? (Probably not considering today's little faked-leak) Why does everyone want everyone to give away everything they labour to produce? Why does the public need/require/deserve rights to other artists work? If you want to cover another bands song, you are free to do so as long as you don't do it to make money. What is wrong with this? It wasn't your work that created the song. It was the original artist. Why should you be entitled to make money from someone else's work without compensating the person who expended the original effort??
  • This is definately a huge improvement. Now all of the musicians out there being screwed by bad copyright laws and shitty record companies can release their music for free! I bet any day now we will see important artists worldwide start giving their music away under this license! Sure they won't have money for food, instruments, or recording more music, but music is information, so it wants to be free, right?

    This is totally silly and unworthy of a /. post. Excuse me for being unimpressed.
  • Photographs don't have source code. Yes you can deliver prints or digital files, but to a photographer, those are the equivilant of binaries.

    What is source code? A human-readable description of a program which can be translated into the program using appropriate technology (a compiler). So you should provide a human-readable description of the photograph which can be translated into the photograph using the appropriate technology (a camera).

    • "Find a girl. Make sure she's really pretty. Get her to stand next to a well wearing a sun-hat. The well should have some blue flowers hanging over it. Oh, you'll need to find a dog too..."

  • Probably the single most evil thing I see happening with the music world is DVD-audio, because we all know that those RIAA bastards will implement music region-encoding. Preventing legally purchased movies unique to a culture from crossing continents is bad enough, but to do the same with music is an obscenity. Music should be free to cross cultural barriers, and that's simply not going to happen with region encoding. Fight the good fight, GNU people!

  • Red Hat isn't selling Linux itself. That's just the vehicle. What they're selling is The Disk, The Manual, The Good Feeling some people get from owning A Software Box. and most importantly support.

    They certainly pay for these things. Just like any other company.

    Linux can be gotten for free (or media cost) just about anywhere. Or hadn't you heard?

    -Andy

    P.S. If you're so upset about it, go over to CheapBytes and buy your OS from them. Only a fool would buy from Red Hat if he didn't care about the support/manual/box.

  • They're also living on the invention of Writing, Currency, The Personal Computer, The CD-ROM, Binary, etc. They depend on many things. Just like any other company.

    But the service they sell costs them money. Why is this bad in any way? Sure *IF* Linux didn't exist neither would RedHat but that's quite a stretch. *IF* it wasn't for hammers the people selling nails would be out of luck(you might say they'd be screwed). Should people manufactuing nails pay off the people manufacturing hammers?

    -Andy

  • Phish actually used to setup a patch-bay where you could plug in your own DAT at their shows. They quit when some guy couldn't get a good signal, and decided to rewire some of the equiptment (and disrupt the show) :)
  • I'm an actual artist :) The problem I see with this is -- anyone is free to distribute it -- say I distribute songs on my website ... What is to stop sony music from downloading *MY* songs and publishing cds of my music without permission / compensation? This could be the best thing that EVER happened to music distributors ... we'll build a base of music they don't have to pay for at ALL.

    Similaraly, someone could dowload my tunes, add a few breakbeats to them, and claim they've made a derivitave work and sell that work under a different name.

    Thats the exact problem GPL software has (in my oponion) ... your not profiting from your work because of your altruism, but Red Hat and Mandrake are.

    I think what it comes down to is, if the creator is not profiting from his music, why should others profit from it.

  • Re:please think a little more specifically (Score:3)

    by OmegaDan ( 101255 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2001 @04:16PM (#266554) Homepage
    ok, by "permission" I meant explicit permission. My mistake ... so why would an artist want to license like this so corporations can steal from him?

    I'd like to see a license that would allow fans to listen/trade freely but required those who seek profit also seek a license ...

    I don't think thats so far out there.

  • Yep. Looks like Hemos fixed the link.

    Sparky,
    Just because you cannot comprehend something does not necessarily make it stupid. Generally, halfway decent moderators, like I usually think myself to be, mod things up when they are useful, but don't punish the people when that particular thing ceases to be useful. I was going to say, "Stick around and you'll learn," but given how low your user # is, I'm guessing that the actual scenario just did not occur to you.

    B. Elgin

  • Working Link for the FAQ (Score:5)

    by belgin ( 111046 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2001 @05:28AM (#266560) Homepage
    Here. [eff.org]

    B. Elgin
  • I've been working on a non-profit site for independent art promotion called Indigarden [indigarden.org], which includes among other things, a free art licence [indigarden.org] somewhat similar to the one being discussed here. I haven't had it looked over by a lawyer yet, but plan to do that soon.

    One of the main differences, is that I've tried to work into the license protection from others profiting from your work, because as an artist, that's what I fear. I'm alright with people passing my artwork around, but if they've got a way to make money with it, they need to work out a deal with me. I'd be interested in hearing comments from other artists (and non-artists) - how they feel about this.

    The site also includes a voting system that allows collaborative filtering. I haven't promoted it at all yet, so there's not a large selection of stuff in the database, but if anyone wants to take a look, or to add stuff to the collection [indigarden.org], they're more than welcome.

    Peace.

  • Thanks RMS ;)

    Seriously, though, it all depends on which definition of "free" you are talking about, and about how much freedom qualifies as free. There's no such thing as complete freedom, even with the GPL or BSD licenses.

    The freedom I'm offering with my license is freedom to do anything except earn money off it. That is quite a bit of freedom, when you think of it - certainly more than most art being distributed these days.

  • First, I want to thank you for taking the time to discuss :)

    My other observation though was that if you still want to keep the financial "freedoms", why isn't current copyright good enough?

    I think there's some confusion here - copyright is the foundation of licenses - even the GPL relies on copyright. Copyright simply states that the creator has "final say" in what happens to their work. The license then states what that "final say" is.

    the license is stating that no one can make money from distribution of your work

    Actually I'm just stating that if they want to make money from distribution that they have to talk to me first. It would then be dependent on the situation, but I'd probably say, "Sure! As long as I get a fair cut!".

    I think that there is a possible market for media promoted in this way - perhaps one could get popular through free (as in beer) grass roots distribution, and then a publisher offers to pick up the work and sell it to the Wal-Mart crowd, giving the artist a cut. It's not too different than what happens now, except the artist is in control instead of the publisher.

    I'd be glad to hear any further thoughts you have!

  • No, you may not perform others' music without paying royalties. It's done all the time, but it is technically illegal, and the RIAA has done such unsavory things as sending threatening letters to summer camps for singing copywritten campfire songs without paying royalties (back in '96, someone posted a link around somewhere).

    The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.

  • This gives you several rights, the most important one is that anyone can distribute as long as they give the original author credit (which is very important with an artform like music, it would bite to hear your song later and have someone else claiming they wrote/performed it).

    You just described MIT- and BSD-style noncopyleft licenses. (I am a musician and have released musical works and sound recordings, mostly folk song covers, under a slightly customized version of the XFree86 license [everything2.com].) The "attribution" requirement in (O) is similar to the language "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software" from XFree86.

    The difference is that this is a copyleft. From (O): "Any new work that in whole or in part contains or is derived from a work (or part thereof) made available under this license, must itself be licensed as a whole under the terms of this license."

  • I'll speak from what experience I have: electronic music.

    When was the last time you heard real techno on the radio? The radio stations that people actually listen to play either oldies (aka "trademark music") or rock.

    I'm sure you know of MIDI files.

    MIDI (at least General MIDI 1) is very orchestral-biased. Sure you can release your techno as .xm/.s3m/.it, but not everybody likes techno. In my experience, .mid and the various MOD derivatives do an entirely inadequate job of reproducing rock music, which uses vocals and electric guitar heavily. There's a reason MIDI rock sounds like video game music.

    Patterns and melodies can be taken from those as the sounds themselves are provided by external hardware.

    Except that in the case of rock music, external hardware to produce a recording from the composition involves wetware (humans to sing and humans to play guitars), and use of wetware is billed by the hour (minimum wage laws).

  • So should I submit the multitrack tapes along with the original mix? Think of a 4 minute song in WAV format - pretty big file, and only 2 tracks. Now consider a 4 minute song, uncompressed, with 8, 16, 32, maybe 96 tracks of audio. Sure, you can compress it

    In that case, each instrument can be compressed individually using a model for each instrument. You can get away with a slightly lossy model for distribution of multitrack audio because the THX audio production standard needs only 75 dB of SNR (about 13-bit precision) in the final mix. In fact, some instrument parts (drums and electronic instruments) can be compressed 1000:1 into MIDI data.

    As far as inspiration goes, I can make music today that is inspired by other music without copyright worries.

    Not if every sane chord progression or melody is copyrighted. (Remember the "Yes We Have No Bananas" case?) For example, there are seven notes in any mode (major, minor, lydian, etc.). Start at any note and move five times, and you can make any six-note melody. Combinatorics says that there are only 6^5 < combinations of five moves with six destinations, that is, fewer than 8000 six-note melodies. It's almost as bad as the situation with patents, where the probability of reinventing a patented invention is so great that it's holding up "the progress of science and useful arts."

  • The copyright industry? Puh-lease tell me this is just a poor choice of words rather than somebody's cockeyed view of the world.

    I've used this term before. It refers to the entertainment industry in the sense that it controls popular culture with the iron fist of copyright. Why again does Disney still have a monopoly on Mickey Mouse [everything2.com]?

    largely spearheaded by (c), Inc.

    "Copyright Inc." is not too far off base [planettribes.com]. There are companies whose sole purpose is to milk copyright for all it's worth, such as ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, and MPAA.

    First :-) gets patented

    No, :-(® is a trademark, not a patent. Right office [uspto.gov], wrong monopoly. Trademark #75502288 [uspto.gov] on ":-(" applies only to "Printed matter namely, greeting cards, posters and art prints."

  • If a radio station is playing music distributed under this license, ASCAP and BMI effectively will earn money from it anyway. That doesn't seem right.

    Except ASCAP and BMI pay out royalties to each songwriter based on how much each song is found in the stats.

    And there's nothing in there that I saw to prevent your song from appearing as background music in an advertisement for who knows what awful product. That doesn't seem right either.

    In that case, the entire audio track of the ad would fall under the (O) license, and you would be credited in small print at the bottom of the screen at the beginning of the commercial. It'd be an advertisement for your product also.

  • If artists would put donation buttons on their web pages, I would be willing to donate if they didn't have a CD.

    MP3.com has a system called D.A.M. An artist can throw ten tracks onto a CD playlist, and anyone who buys that playlist will have a CD burned and shipped with both Red Book and MP3 tracks on it. I have actually bought a few D.A.M. CDs.

  • Re:Grateful Dead (Score:3)

    by Agthorr ( 135998 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2001 @09:41AM (#266575) Homepage
    One of the co-founders of the EFF [eff.org] is John Barlow [eff.org], who was a lyricist for the Greatful Dead. I'm inclined to listen more closely to his views on the Greatful Dead's experiences and policies than to something heard 27th-hand on slashdot.

    If you're concerned about a certain scenario resulting in the artist being screwed over if they use this license, send your question to the EFF. I had the opportunity to be present at the expo [newyorkexpo.com] where this license was announced. Many similar questions were asked there, and the EFF deftly answered them all. By sending your questions to the EFF, you'll also help to raise their awareness that certain frequently asked questions are missing from their FAQ.

  • Wow, the ridiculous EFF has done it again. Don't you people realize what we've been trying to drill into your head all along? Copying music is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Think about it: would you steal your mom's music just because she marked it (O)?

    Next up, think of the artists! Yeah, sure, you may think this is a voluntary thing. They'll only make it (O) if they want to. Oh, yeah, sure. They already don't make any money because the RIAA takes it all. Now there's a competing music distributor called the EFF, who they can apparently go with and make no money because their music has to be (O). So, obviously, the only way to distribute your music is by not making money. This is a choice!?

    Next, the money's in support. The only way they'll make money off this is the way we've been harping on all along-- providing preinstalled copies of the songs with handy utilities, or offering tech support when the song doesn't work. You know, like if it sucks. Then they'll just give you a version that doesn't suck.

    Finally, unions are evil cartels. If artists everywhere start using this, it'll restrict use of this music to a select few: anyone who wants to use it and not pay any money. This is freedom? This isn't how America works, and it's not how the world works. If you're not a goddammed commie, you owe it to yourself and the world to prevent artists from using the (O).
  • Cambridge Dictionary Online:
    satire: noun: a way of criticizing people or ideas in a humorous way to show that they have faults or are wrong, or a piece of writing or play which uses this style

  • What if ... (Score:3)

    by Lord Ender ( 156273 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2001 @06:35AM (#266586) Homepage
    What if someone makes a copyrighted song with part of an OpenAudience song in it? Is it like the GPL where someone cant use open code in their own code unles they make their code open too? What if someone makes an Open song with, say, the bass line to a metallica, and someone else makes an open song with the drum part... Could someone play a metallica song as Open because they got all the parts for it from different Open songs?
  • The Grateful Dead encouraged the trading of recordings of their live performances. "Tapers" would tape the show, and then trade it about the community.

    The Dead didn't condone "bootlegging," which, in their case, applied to people who tried to sell copies of these tapes for a profit.

    One time, a certain independant record store that was selling GD bootlegs came to the attention of the band. Rather than sue the store and put it out of business, they simply bought the store. The store clerks kept their job, the store stayed open for all the people who chose to shop at that store, but the bootlegs disappeared.

    My point is, that because of their taping policy, the Dead are often used (like in the above article) as a champion for music sharing. But trading live tapes is alot different from trading studio albums. I'm not sure what the GD's opinion of file sharing would be, but using them as an endorsement simply because of their taping policy is not sound.

    wishus
    ---
  • I don't see a direct benefit to the original artist from derived works. The way I work (and I can't say for any other musician) is that I get a piece of music (lyric, etc.) the way I like it and then it's "done." Yes, I enjoy improvisation every time I perform the piece, but it's essentially the same piece of music. The presentation may be a little (or a lot) different, but the "essence" of it is the same. Capturing that essence in each performance is the fun part.

    Someone else, who may or may not capture that essence in their performance, does not benefit me either way.

    Musicians still have to buy guitar strings, blank media, drum heads, cables, tubes, etc. Peer support and fame are all well and good, but musicians that don't have to work a day job can focus on making more and better music.

    How about a AEL (Artistic Equipment License) - send me a pack of light gauge phospor-bronze acoustic guitar strings for every 10 songs you download. Optionally, you can send a Horizon 10' instrument cable every 20 songs.

    wishus
    ---
  • But does this policy apply to live tapes only, or MP3s ripped from studio albums?

    If I was sharing all 5 discs of the box set they released last year, what would they think?

    The quote you posted doesn't make it obviously clear if they condone the sharing of commercially available works.

    wishus
    ---
  • Some people may not like the guitar or the arrangment you used and so create a new mix.

    So should I submit the multitrack tapes along with the original mix?

    How are they going to get the guitar out without the multitrack tapes? EQ can only go so far. If you want to follow the software model, allowing people to change the original work, then you need to treat the multis the same way as source code.

    And then you run into a problem, because, unless you're using a DAW, most multitracks are not easliy distributable. I suppose you could create a hardware/software solution that would transfer the contents of ADAT along with SMPTE codes onto your harddisk in an internet-friendly format, but using any sort of lossy compression scheme on it would be a bad idea.. And the files would be very large. Think of a 4 minute song in WAV format - pretty big file, and only 2 tracks. Now consider a 4 minute song, uncompressed, with 8, 16, 32, maybe 96 tracks of audio. Sure, you can compress it, but you won't want any lossy scheme when you're working at the track level. Not to mention we'd all have to buy the hadware/software to "share" the multitracks.

    That is assuming all the world uses ADAT. What about the DA-88 folks? What about the analog folks?

    As far as inspiration goes, I can make music today that is inspired by other music without copyright worries. (Using the lyrics and musical arrangement does create problems though).

    The problem with music is that it's not code. Code is functional. It is useful to get a job done. Music is ( art | entertainment ), and does not serve a functional purpose. Yes, you can argue that code can be artistic, and that is true, but the basic reason to write code is to create a tool to do a job. People don't read code or run software for enjoyment. (Software like games can provide entertainment and enjoyment, but that comes from playing a game, not executing software).

    I think I've rambled long enough.

    wishus
    ---

  • Since most songs are composed of individually recorded audio tracks and these tracks are stored on HD's then mixed down to DAT's, ADAT's or CD's (once again, the way I do it), then you could just post your tracks.

    Most rock songs are recorded to ADAT, not hard disk. ADAT is an 8 track media format, great for recording, but you don't mix down to it. Very few commercial rock albums are made on DAWs - most are made on ADAT or DA-88.

    I suppose our difference is that you make electronic music, and I make rock. Other than synths and possibly drums, MIDI is pretty useless for rock. I've used it before, with a drum box and a synth, to fill in when I didn't have a drummer and bass player, but the feel just isn't right for rock.

    This Open Music license isn't to facilitate sharing of mixes or tracks, it's to facilitate the enjoyment of music whatever way you like to enjoy it, whether by creating it, or just listening.

    Thst's all fine and good, but until I get free guitar strings, cables, and tubes for every song I write, I'll keep trying to make a living from it.

    wishus
    ---

  • THX audio production standard needs only 75 dB of SNR (about 13-bit precision) in the final mix.

    That has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

    Combinatorics says that there are only 6^5 combinations of five moves with six destinations, that is, fewer than 8000 six-note melodies.

    Yeah, I'm not in favor of copyrighting melodies and chord progressions, but "works" as a whole. For instance, I can copyright a program that does something new and exciting, as a whole, but that doesn't give me the copyright on the quicksort is uses.

    A musical piece, especially a lyrical piece, is much more than a melody. Add a second instrument, and you have 16000 possible duets, etc. When you get up to 96 tracks of audio, it becomes pretty easy to make something original.

    It's the final product that gets the copyright - the creation as a whole. Copyrighting melodies and chord progressions is like copyrighting the color used to paint Mona Lisa's face.


    ---

  • Sort of like the web has made all major publications obsolete, because now anybody can be a publisher, and we have millions of personal home pages to choose from, right?

    Sarcasm aside, most people will still want music the big labels, not just because the labels dominate what is promoted on the radio (although they do, and that's part of it), and not just because the labels can spend more on production (although they can, and that is also part of it), and not just because they control the retail pipelines (again, they do, and it's part)... The main reason why people will continue to buy from the labels is the same reason why "Armageddon" sold more tickets than a lot of superior independant films. Major labels are filters.

    If you are the sort of person who actually enjoys bubblegum pop like Britney Spears (and millions of people are), you are far more likely to find stuff you like at the mall CD/DVD store than at the indie shop downtown that also sells bongs and tie-die shirts.

    Independent music boosters: pop quiz. In ten seconds or less, name 3 indie albums that a 14 year-old girl would spend her lunch money on.

    Sure, you like better music than what a 14 year-old girl does... but she spends more on records, tickets, t-shirts, etc than you do. As long as major labels keep producing albums that she would like, and promotes them in ways that will get the tunes stuck in her head, they will continue to me a media empire.

    On the other hand, only a small handful of performers win the "teen idol" lottery each year. For every Britney Spears, there are thousands would-be pop stars who sing, dance, and look every bit as good as her, but will never make a penny. Most of the music world is divided this way: superstars and people with nothing.

    But also for every Briney Spears, there are a few dozen really good bands who just manage to get by selling albums at shows, and never expect to make the "big score" of a label deal. (And they know that most labels that express interest in them are just out to rip them off.)

    For those people, the rare middle-class of the music industry, this new license idea is quite a boon. College radio died somewhere in the middle of the 90's, and Internet broadcasting is slowly beginning to fill the void.

    Lars doesn't want you trading his MP3's, but the bands playing in the bars just off-campus near your local university need you to trade their MP3's, because it is the only way their music will reach anybody new.

  • I don't know about you, but if some artist is going to use MY material, possibly even profit from MY material, I want more compensation than just a few scribbles on the backside/bottom of some small print. I gotta eat, too ya know.

    Well, I guess we know where this guy stands on certain [F]ree or [f]ree software licenses now, too!
  • It's lemmings like YOU that expect EVERYTHING to be free that gives the GPL a bad name. Oh, we can't have ANY other way of thinking that's contrary to the GPL, can we.

    Now that's a nice, broad brush you're painting with. I don't expect a damn thing to be free. But more importantly, what are you bringing up GPL for? I was thinking of something more along the lines of BSD. And don't go saying "same thing"!
  • Okay, I think this is a good idea, and if I were an unsigned artist I would potentially use it. But think about the following potential outcome:

    Shrink-wrap music licenses [shudder]

    If the OML (?) becomes commonly available, wouldn't that encourage the music industry to start wrapping CDs, SDMIs, etc. in a "You agree to these terms" package, or a "Click to accept" license?

    Today the notion of a license for music is considered pretty ridiculous, even for Joe User; but if this became commonly available, the industry could say "Well, the Free Software folks believe in a license, so we have ours too!" Yuck.

    Someone please tell me how we can avoid this outcome!

  • what's to prevent Nike or Coca Cola from taking your music and sell their brand with it?

    Well, in an Open Music world, nothing! That would be just as much Fair Use as is mixing tunes in a club or broadcasting 'em on Shoutcast. If you don't like this outcome, don't OML yer tunes. (compare: if you don't like M$ using yer code, don't use the BSD license.)

  • GNUArt ! (Score:5)

    by mirko ( 198274 ) on Wednesday April 25, 2001 @06:03AM (#266617) Journal
    FYI, the GNUArt Project which consists of GPL'ing Art has become reality on http://gnuart.org [gnuart.org] (charter) and http://gnuart.net [gnuart.net] (gallery) on January 1st, 2001.
    The advantage of GNUArt is obvious as, instead of having yet another license, we just exploit a valid existing one.
    It is still being translated to english at the moment but you have the fish [altavista.com] until then.
    The charter was co-written with Richard Stallman.
    --
  • "Does compensated usually mean, "People get your stuff, and you get jack shit?"

    No. "Compensated" usually means "People *pay* for your stuff, the record companies *make a profit*, and after you pay back your loan to them, *THEN* you get jack shit." This license is trying to change all that.

    Bryguy

  • This is all well and good, but it won't be viewed as something useful by most musicians unless they can see that they can recieve support with this in place.

    What needs to be done is that we, the people who are aware of the issue, need to make a special point of downloading, listening, giving feedback, and pass on the music that people release with this license. If this is done, it will force a change in the business. However, if most of these folks are ignored, the musicians will be forced to go back to the record companies.

  • This is nice, but I still wish someone would make a license or social contract that emphasizes voluntary payments, rather than just saying in a footnote, oh yeah, we don't actually prevent you from making money, we just care about other people's freedoms. What we need is both the freedom to share music and computer programs, and the philosophy that if something adds value to your life, you should pay for it. If you don't, shame on you, but you can still enjoy the music/software/art. Kind of like public radio or public TV. Or like tipping your waiter or service giver. Or paying for your gas after filling your car up instead of zooming away.

    I believe many people are willing to pay for something, even if it is easy to copy. Imagine a world where CDs could be copied for any purpose legally. Would CD sales drop to zero? I don't think so. I for one would continue to buy them. In fact, much of the music I listen to (mostly electronic/IDM stuff) is available on artist web sites and Napster, but I still shell out for the shiny disc. If artists would put donation buttons on their web pages, I would be willing to donate if they didn't have a CD.

  • One major benefit of placing source code under the GPL is getting enhanced version back, patches or extensions written by others, shared with the original programmer.

    It is not clear to me that there is an equal benefit with music, derived works (e.g. typically cover tunes) benefit the deriver more than the orignal. Other than radio DJs lamenting how much better the orignal tune was, even though they never played it anymore, and the cover gets lots of air play so they can lament for the good old days.

    While I won't reject it out of hand, I'd like to hear from some actual artists whether this derived music is viewed as a benefit by them.

    Too bad I don't have a community radio station programme any more, I'd would be interested in doing a OAL music format show. All Open, All the Time.

  • I've been in the planning stages of a "record company" that would use the SPP. I was debating licensing the music under a modified GPL, but this makes it easier for me.

    It's not entirely what I was planning on doing, but it's pretty close. I'll probably end up using this license.

  • Too many anonymous posters muck up the whole thread.
  • I wonder whether micropayments will ever catch on. Musicians playing in the street seem to attract a few 'donations' but I wonder how much of that has to do with visibility (of the person who pays)

  • Re:Other movements for the freedom of art (Score:3)

    by Prophet of Doom ( 250947 ) on Sunday April 29, 2001 @09:30PM (#266650)
    It sounds like you would prefer a proprietary license. You don't want RedHat to make money off of you so the BSD license won't work.
  • VA Linux - LNUX [siliconinvestor.com]
    Red Hat Linux - RHAT [siliconinvestor.com]

    I know stock prices aren't everything, but take a look at the 52 week highs on both of these. Giants indeed. Look up MSFT if you're feeling particularly self depreciating.... sigh.... An army of Visigoths needs to sac Redmond.

    This has been another useless post from....
  • That was slipped into a bill at the end of session, apparently by a staffer who then left for a record company job. Congress overturned it less than a year later (not much longer than it took them to actually read the bill that they had voted in).
  • I've been reading this site for a few weeks now, after a freind mentioned it. I've seen plenty of conversations that debated the diference between "Free" and "Free". At first, I thought it was simply misunderstanding on my part as to what these arguments were about, but it is not. I've finally come to the conclusion that the people who argue the destinction between "Free beer" and "Free speech" are simply misguided.

    I am personally for free speech (With sensible restrictions, of course). I'm also not stupid, who would turn down free beer? (In moderation, of course) However many people here seem to equate freedom of speech to simply stealing a persons property, which is an abhorent act! This seems to be why we are now seeing "licencses" such as this, which appears to have the soul purpose of allowing college kids to repackage someone elses hard work, and then defend their theft under the banner of "Free Speech".

    "Freedom to steal" is not in the US Constitution, bear that in mind please.

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close