A Critique of the EFF's Open Audio License 242
In fact, let me make a brief response to Glass' points as he makes them in the critique -
OAL gives away too much: No response to this. It's for the artist to decide.
No credit to performer: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. The performer is free to seek an alternate license from the author if he/she wants to profit off of the song.
Potential damage to reputation: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. Like the GPL, this license assumes that free and open should be free and open to everyone for every purpose, even those you find distasteful. "Oh my god, someone is using my GPL'ed program called grep to search for abortion providers in the phone book!"
Viral nature: Silly criticism. An intended aim of the license. Again, if you want to incorporate chunks of someone else's work in your own, you are free to a) be infected by the OAL, or b) seek a different license from the author. Free with restrictions, or, presumably, pay the author for a different deal. Without this license, only b) is available. The OAL only ever provides a possible alternative for people wanting to use a work.
ASCAP and BMI don't enforce the OAL: This is an issue to take up with ASCAP or BMI.
Irrevocable: Silly criticism. Even without this clause, you couldn't "take back" the license, at least for people who've already made use of your work - they took advantage of the license at the time.
Most of the rest of Glass' criticisms are general criticisms of any Free license - it gives away the rights of the author. Well, duh, that's what it's supposed to do. These are criticisms of the aim of the license rather than flaws in the license. What Glass is lacking here is a general BSD-type license for music to compare this against...
This license (Score:1, Interesting)
Seriously (Score:4, Interesting)
This is our answer to the big music companies that want to revoke our rights. "Thanks, but no thanks. I'll find my music elsewhere.
Looking for an honest answer (Score:2, Offtopic)
You say that you give your music away, but in all honesty, is it something that anybody would pay for if they had to? It's kind of easy to be on the side of giving stuff away when there aren't any income possibilities for it.
Re:Looking for an honest answer (Score:1)
Re:Looking for an honest answer (Score:3, Insightful)
THe most important critisizm of the OAL in that article is the whole issues of covers. Even with the GPL, each contributors efforts is acknowledge (They do, after all, retain copyright). That doesn't happen with OAL (apparently).
Let's say, for example, that composer X writes a song with good lyrics, but a really bad melody. performer Y comes along, keeps the lyrics but writes a much better harmony for the song (take Machineheads cover of 'Message In A Bottle' as an example, not that there's anything wrong with original, I just prefer the cover myself). According to the critique, performer Y would get no credit for the song, but composer X might earn shitloads of money from the popularity of the new version.
That is a major flaw with the license...
Re:Looking for an honest answer (Score:2)
The gist of what I said is "the original composer might have very little to do with a performers version, except gets the credits for it, which is a Bad Thing &tm".
Is that what you're saying?
Re:Seriously (Score:1)
Is that good enough for you?
(Hint: Starts with a 'G', ends with an 'e' and has 'oogl' in between...)
Who is Brett Glass? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who is Brett Glass? (Score:2, Informative)
He's an advocate of BSD-style licenses and a strong critique of the GPL. He's written a lot of good material about why he thinks the GPL is very bad.
Re:Who is Brett Glass? (Score:3, Insightful)
One of his primary arguments is that the artists (musicians) are giving something away (music) without any hope of compensation (money).
Isn't this kind of like the BSD license, which forces the artists (programmers) to give something away (source code) without any hope of compensation (contribution back to the community)?
I thought the primary difference between the GPL and the BSD license (besides all the holy-war crap) was that the GPL requires you to GPL anything built off of it, whereas the BSD license allows your stuff to be built-upon without contribution back to the original.
For instance... Microsoft (and others) have made use of BSD's TCP/IP stack, because it's licensed under the BSD (and therefore MS doesn't have to open-source all of their code built off of it like the GPL would require).
Seems to me that this music license that Glass is critiquing is actually much more like the BSD license than the GPL.
Glass is an anti-GPL zealot (Score:3, Informative)
--Mike
This is an excellent question (Score:3, Insightful)
Glass uses ad hominem attacks against John Perry Barlow, but fails to instruct us in any way as to why Brett Glass is any more credible than John Perry Barlow- in fact Glass strongly urges that anyone looking for legal advice regarding this legal license look elsewhere.
Re:Who is Brett Glass? (Score:2)
Just as a lot of folks in the Linux/GNU community wish RMS would tone it down a bit, a lot in the BSD community wish Brett would stick with coding.
Music lies between text and code. (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy who wrote Free for All had a long explanation about why [wayner.org] the book wasn't free. He points out that text and opinions are best copyrighted because copyright doesn't affect the facts themselves. If you want to reuse the facts, you're free to do so. You just can't reuse the exact form.
But music is kind of different. Songs do grow as other people add stanzas, verses and what not. So I can see the advantages of the OAL. This guy is complaining too much. Sure, you give up some rights when you use it, but you gain others. What's the big deal? Everything in life has tradeoffs.
hah (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:hah (Score:3, Informative)
If that's the way you feel, then this license is not for you. However, for people who care solely about the art, this license is great.
The free exchange of ideas in classical music led to some great artistic achievements that would not have occurred had strict, modern copyright laws been in place then. For instance, when JS Bach was young, he left his job as a church organist and walked 200 miles (no internet in those days :^) ) so that he could hear the music of Dietrich Buxtehude. He ended up staying several months, studying and transcribing as much of Buxtehude's music as he could. This had a profound influence on Bach's development as a composer. I shudder to think about how Western music would have been affected if Buxtehude, worried about retaining credit for his work, sicked some IP lawyers on Bach and forced him to go away. It is ironic that today, Buxtehude is mostly remembered because of the transcriptions that Bach made. If he had sought to protect his reputation, he probably would have vanished into history by now.
Similarly, Bach may have vanished as well had not a small number of 19th century composers such as Felix Mendelssohn rescued him from obscurity. Though long dead, Bach has mainly remained famous through the interest of other musicians who want to reinterpret his music. My favorite example of this is Bach's Chaccone in D Minor for violin, which has been arranged for piano by Johannes Brahms and for guitar by Andres Segovia, as well as several others. These three versions are all sublime pieces of music, yet only one of them would exist if the current copyright laws existed then. These are not isolated occurences, I could go on for ages about all of the pieces with names like "Variations on a Theme by Some Other Composer", but I think you get the idea.
Anyway, to reiterate my point, fiercely guarding credit for the music you create may not be the best way to establish your reputation. Using this license is not likely to damage anyone's standing as an artist. However, if one only wants to make money off of their music, the OAL may not be a good idea, but the indusrty standard way of doing things hasn't exactly lined the pockets of many musicians either.
Re:Horseshit (Score:2)
I'm full of horseshit. I think that words grow as people add annotations and interpretation. But it's not the same fucking thinking as reinterpreting music because I'm stupid. Changing things on the sentence level lets me change meaning.
Let text be text. If you want to write annotations, they're separate. They're something new and different. Changing the text itself makes us poorer because we don't know who wrote what. Knowing who wrote code doesn't really matter if you want to use it.
Sigh.
It's not a "critique" if it comes from Brett (Score:5, Insightful)
Brett would prefer if we'd all put out free media that he can take private, commercialize, and not return anything to the creator. I just don't see what's in it for anyone but Brett. Most people don't take him seriously.
Bruce
Karma whoring can be fun... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's not a "critique" if it comes from Brett (Score:4, Funny)
Most people don't take him seriously.
And yet here you are, posting for the first time in over half a month (save for replying to two posts which refer to you by name in their subject lines). Feel free to tell me otherwise, but I'd say it looks an awful lot like you do take him seriously, enough to try to marginalize him as a selfish kook. Think nobody was taking him seriously when he was cleaning your clock in the Silicon Valley roundtable?
You seem to be distorting his views, and by extension, people who dislike the GPL license by acting like they want to take everything private, commercialize it, and not return anything. Actually, it's about freedom and being able to do whatever you want with the code, while the GPL tells me, "Better get a second job, because no matter how much time and money you spend improving this code, as soon as you release it, people are going to download the code for free rather than pay you a nickel." The corpses of the Linux companies, the all-time low stock prices of the remaining ones, the decision by the owners of this very web site to start selling proprietary software, the fact that GPL software is always left chasing the taillights of others in the industry, they all bear this out.
I'm sure some people will think that "second job" comment I made above was a snide little slam, but if you read the Silicon Valley roundtable, then you'll know what I was talking about. A programmer asked how someone like him would make a living (i.e., not have to take on a second job) in a GPL world, and Bruce told him that he should start thinking about getting into the support or documentation business. Yeah, I'm sure the programmers of the world are looking forward to that...
Re:It's not a "critique" if it comes from Brett (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce
Re:It's not a "critique" if it comes from Brett (Score:2)
Well, I'm not surprised that you didn't have the maturity or ability to answer my points, but the truly astounding thing is that you think I, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com for crying out loud, am an open source (BSD) advocate! Even the people who hate me here at Slashdot, and trust me, there are many, must be laughing their asses off at you right now. Listen closely, Bruce — that's the sound of your remaining credibility being flushed away.
So just for the record: are you really that delusional, thinking that anybody who points out how full of it you are must be Brett Glass himself? Or is this just another attempt, like the post I responded to originally, to distort his views and link him in Slashdotter's minds to one of the most unpopular people here?
Whatever the reason, you still haven't been able to answer my points, instead deciding to attack the messenger. I'm sure HP must be really proud of you right now.
Re:It's not a "critique" if it comes from Brett (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet here you are, posting for the first time in over half a month (save for replying to two posts which refer to you by name in their subject lines).
Yes. I find that these days I can be published in better venues. They get me more views, and a broader spread of readers than slashdot, while on Slashdot I'm generally preaching to the converted. That's fine, but I'm after new converts and can reach them better elsewhere. And I'd still be replying to posts with my name in them, except that the search function on the new slashdot software no longer will return hits sorted by time, and I can't find them any longer.
Feel free to tell me otherwise, but I'd say it looks an awful lot like you do take him seriously, enough to try to marginalize him as a selfish kook.
I posted because there are a lot of newbies on Slashdot who might not know Brett and his history. It's not out of order for the more experienced readers to help them out.
Think nobody was taking him seriously when he was cleaning your clock in the Silicon Valley roundtable?
A number of the other panelists did not feel he belonged there, and although the SV folks admitted they screwed up by inviting him, and were quite chagrined about it, their own policies did not let them uninvite him. I probably spent too much time replying to him.
You seem to be distorting his views
Try to prove that I am distorting his views. For every assertion you make, I guarantee that I can show you in his online writing that he says exactly what I represent he says.
and by extension, people who dislike the GPL license by acting like they want to take everything private, commercialize it, and not return anything.
Yes, I think that taking public software private is a selfish act.
Actually, it's about freedom
Wrong. The BSD license is not about freedom. It's about one party giving a gift, and the other party taking it. Some BSD folks have forgotten that their software is based on the work of the U.S. Army through its DARPA grants to U.C. Berkeley. The taxpayers paid for the software, and was given to everyone as a gift. Most GPL software these days originates in private enterprise, and is written to solve an immediate business problem, other GPL software originates as a hobby or academic work. And a little of it is supported by government grants, for example Donald Becker's work on ethernet drivers was funded by NASA. But much less than with BSD.
the GPL tells me, "Better get a second job, because no matter how much time and money you spend improving this code, as soon as you release it, people are going to download the code for free rather than pay you a nickel."
If you just write software and do no other business, that may indeed be the case. People who profitably develop GPL software use it to facilitate some other business of their own. For example, a lot of the kernel development is paid for by hardware manufacturers who market Linux systems. Even Linus works for one.
The corpses of the Linux companies
Look around you. Linux use is growing 33% per year in the worst economic downturn in recent memory, and more people are doing business with Linux today than ever before. The fact that some companies went out is mostly because they could not compete, especially with the big companies coming into Linux. Most companies go out of business, you know, no matter what the industry. By the way, Progeny is putting money in the bank every month. We had to cut it to the bone to achieve that, but it's turning real profit when others only have a pro-forma profit. My investors in Linux Capital Group may well profit on their investment, the jury is still out.
the all-time low stock prices of the remaining ones
Well, a lot of the investors thought some of these companies had a "lock" on Linux. We don't want them to have a lock, and the investors have realized that. Not that the rest of the market is doing much better.
the decision by the owners of this very web site to start selling proprietary software
Hey, if I were VA I would have sold the company already. Their business plan denied that larger companies would get into Linux. If they want to produce a mix of propreitary and Open Source software now, there's nothing wrong with that. You're confusing me with RMS - I want Free Software and proprietary to co-exist, he wants it all to be free. But we both use the GPL.
the fact that GPL software is always left chasing the taillights of others in the industry
Oh yes, that's why Microsoft is copying the Tux web server features into IIS, and is still chasing the taillights of Linux in attempting to make its own systems reliable. XP turns out not to be nearly so stable as they said - its kernel crashes a lot.
A programmer asked how someone like him would make a living (i.e., not have to take on a second job) in a GPL world, and Bruce told him that he should start thinking about getting into the support or documentation business.
Sure, sell support or extra documentation for his own software. What's wrong with that? Did you think he wasn't going to support his own software? Or did you expect him to do that for free? He doesn't have to.
I still think he's Brett.
Bruce
Is Brett Glass a corporate shill? (Score:2)
is your idea of a business model, taking something that is obviously in the public domain, sneakily trademarking it, and then charging people for access? I find it odd that you critique the GPL on philosophical grounds when your own actions [ymmv.com] are blatantly in your financial self-interest and devoid of philosophical or ideological rationale.
Bruce Perens may have his own agendas, but at least they are born out of a consistent ideology and principle. You seem to be nothing more than a corporate shill. Perhaps you'd like to share your thoughts and opinions on the DMCA and S3CA [slashdot.org] ?
Re:Certainly no corporate shill (Score:2)
no i am not familiar with your work, but as I have no reason to think you a liar, i will take your response at face value and apologise to you. But, your single handed rejection of open source software does identoify you as someone who ascribes to an agenda. Maybe you arent a shill, but you are parroting shills. Anyone who claims that open source, or proprietary, software is unifoirmly bad is someone who has an agenda. that may be you, bill gates, bill mundie, or richard stallman. reasonable peope do agree that business models in software are necessary and notice that business models can be built on either OS or non-OS software. as ong as you uniformly insist on one or the other, you're argument will, unfortunately, be mistaken for that of a shill.
my opinion of your trademarl of YMMV is the same, and it also extends to Life, People, and Windows. Though not to TIME-Life, People Magazine, or Microsoft Windows. There are trademarks and then there are responsible trademarks. i'm quite familiar with what trademarks are about, and am consistent in my disregard for their heavy use.
its refreshing to see someone with a mainstream media platform acknowledge thee DMCA is bad. I hope you address its inequities in an article if you havent already (if you have, please send me the link!).
The issue of programmers needing to eat is a red herring, and your trademak is unrelated to that issue.
Re:Certainly no corporate shill (Score:2)
why do you write GPL software if you think its a danger to the software industry? *confused*
Re:It's not a "critique" if it comes from Brett (Score:2)
> Another case I remember is the game Xevil. It used to be Free software, now it's shareware.
I don't think you intended this, but the reader could have the impression this was due to Xevil being under a BSD license; actually, it was under the GPL, and the author decided to release a major new version under a shareware license.
More to the point, the current Xevil version is under the GPL again. I'm not sure, but I believe the author decided (rightly, IMO) that the wider audience he would get from making it available without restrictions was worth more than the small amount of money available via shareware.
Daniel
Re:It's not a "critique" if it comes from Brett (Score:2)
Amen! I didn't start using the BSD license until the words of RMS started sinking in...
"Software should not be owned". If I am not supposed to own my original work, then I am supposed to own derivative works even LESS. Yet the majority of restrictions in the GPL apply to derivative works.
"If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse." Well, what if I created a private derivative of a GPLd program that dynamically links to a non-GPL library, and my friends asks for a copy? I cannot do it without violating the GPL.
"And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens." 'Voluntary' is not about telling people what to do. But the GPL is very explicit in telling people how they may distribute the software. The GPL is basically saying 'here are the rules for volunteering.' Strange.
The GPL is certainly appropriate for some projects (just as the OAL is appropriate from some music). I have not ruled it off of my list of licenses to consider when I start a new project. However I have yet to run across the need to restrict my users in regards to my software.
Difference between BSD and GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
The most telling example for me is busybox, an embedded Linux toolkit that I created in 1996, which is a critical part of most of embedded Linux systems. Lineo took that toolkit into their product, as have most of the other embedded Linux companies. It gave them a time-to-market advantage. But because it was under the GPL, all of the various companies (especially Lineo) that improved Busybox contributed their work back under the GPL, and it's now about 5 times as functional as what I released, and everybody profits from that functionality. If I had used the BSD license, they would all have made their own improvements, duplicating effort, and keeping them proprietary, and fewer would have the benefit of that product, and the public version would still just be the 1/5 that I wrote. That's how a lot of non-GPL products have gone in the embedded market.
Thus, I think sharing works better than a handout.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Difference between BSD and GPL (Score:2)
Good analogy, but it's off ever so slightly. Perhaps it's just semantics. But I would say that the public domain is the "gift", BSD is the "sharing" and the GPL is like a "loan".
You certainly can share something with strings attached, but it isn't that common. When you eat candy in kindergarten, the teacher does not say "did you bring enough to give to everyone", instead she says "did you bring enough to share with everyone."
With your busybox (and excellent package, by the way), you have loaned the use of it out, and you have indicated that you have received back considerable interest.
Re:Difference between BSD and GPL (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:It's not a "critique" if it comes from Brett (Score:2)
A better analogy is "fighting fire with fire", since fire is not evil, and is a useful tool. But the way the FSF continually condemns and villifies copyright, I continually wonder why RMS chooses to consort with that evil demon. If copright is wrong, then so is the GPL. If owning software is wrong, then so is placing it under the GPL. Instead, the FSF should concentrate on portraying copyright and software ownership as useful but frequently misused tools.
Re:It's not a "critique" if it comes from Brett (Score:2)
Every analogy breaks down at some point; if it didn't, it would merely duplicate the world and thus add nothing to our understanding of it.
Simply criticizing the analogy is far easier than actually refuting the points raised by it. I invite you to try the latter some time.
Re:It's not a "critique" if it comes from Brett (Score:2)
Could we have a little less of the 'always left chasing the taillights' talk, please? I've seen a whole lot of innovative GPLed software, and written a fair bit myself.
There's lots to be said for and against the GPL, but no points for dismissing the originality and character of all work not under your favorite license.
Re:It's not a "critique" if it comes from Brett (Score:2)
Gah Brett get a life already. (Score:2)
His post certainly does represent your views, which you've made abundantly clear over and over here. You seize every opportunity to flame the GPL and anyone associated with it, and your complaints always boil back down to the same point - once something's GPLd you can't turn around and make a derivative work proprietary. Oh, the horrors. That's the whole point to the GPL! If you don't like it, don't use it. If you spent half the time coding that you spend flaming, you might amount to something.
Re:Brett: GPL unethical or not? (Score:2, Interesting)
If I write a piece of software and distribute it under a proprietary license,
1. Do you think I'm acting unethically?
2. Do you think my license should be ruled unenforceable?
3. If not, why is it unacceptable to require someone to make certain contracts, but acceptable to require him not to make certain contracts?
Re:Brett: GPL unethical or not? (Score:3, Interesting)
Brett, I've done a google search on the terms 'Brett Glass GPL' and found a great deal, as you can imagine. I've actually spent a couple of hours reading your various attacks against the GPL in a variety of forums over the last couple of years.
You tend to make a few points that are worth considering, but the value of those points tend to be diluted by your hatred of the GPL, and the lengths to which you will go to attack it and anyone who supports it. Declaring that people who use the GPL are either morons who don't know their own self interest or evil sons of bitches who want to hurt others is not helpful. Describing the GPL as not being an Open Source license due to the discrimination clause when the authors of said license explicitly wrote the Open Source terms to encompass the GPL also does not make you seem like you are interested in listening to anything anyone else has to say on the matter.
The GPL is a mechanism to implement a social contract, where programmers put their software under the GPL to ensure that said software can have continued relevence and utility in the network effect economy of the software world. The value in software is, as you know, not intrinsic to the bits. Microsoft paid $50,000 for QDOS and made untold billions off of it. The reason they did is because DOS became the standard of compatibility for all the software made for the IBM PC, not because DOS was particularly well made. In a winner-take-all software market, what can programmers do if they want to have a piece of software be available for public use and public evolution, without worrying about a bad actor doing as Microsoft did with the Kerberos standard in Windows 2000 and taking a public program or specification private and then using network effects to freeze out other usage?
The GPL is a license of one's own work to the public under specified terms. You seem to think that it is unfair that programmers may not take GPL'ed work and then do anything they like with it, but the same could be said of any commercial license. If you or anyone else wants to create something with functionality similar to a GPL'ed product but under non-GPL'ed terms, then you can very well go off and write it yourself, the old fashioned way. If the labor of others, available under the GPL, makes it hard for you to make a living creating similar work, then that's too bad. That's competition. Those programmers working under the GPL have sacrificed much (as you like to point out) to release their software in that way.
There are a lot of reasons not to use the GPL, even for publicly distributable software. There are many kinds of software that would have better effect and influence if they were to be released under a BSD or Apache style license. That's a debate worth having. But claiming that the GPL is evil, as you do, is unconvincing unless you would claim that any kind of restrictions placed on you for the use of someone else's property is evil. If you want to write commercial software, do like everyone else does and write it yourself, or pay to license it from someone else.
Re:Brett: GPL unethical or not? (Score:2)
Am I correct, then, in assuming that you will agree with me that placing software under non-free licenses is unethical?
I say this because the GPL is no more "destructive" than a standard "you-can't-touch-this" license: while there are strings attached to it, these strings do not come into play unless you invoke freedoms which a non-free license does not give you. If you treat GPLed software the same way you treat, say, Microsoft software, you will be just as well (or badly) off as you are with Microsoft.
So it is hard to see how the "destructive powers" of the GPL are worse than those of a non-free license. Unless, of course, you believe that the users of computers should not be permitted to compete with the makers of the same computers.
Daniel, assuming that this post will be either ignored or contemptuously dismissed. (yes, I've read Brett's rants before..)
links (Score:4, Informative)
interesting discussion on list group here [zgp.org].
radio station on live365 playing OAL here [live365.com].
Open Liscences Beyond Software... (Score:1)
What does he want, a LOAL? (Score:2)
Maybe what he's looking for is some form of the OAL based on the LGPL.. but that's not what the OAL is all about. It doesn't say every musician has to produce under the OAL.. it says that if you want your music to be free (for everyone), the OAL is a good choice.
I don't think his critisism is a critisism at all.. it's a very good summation of the points of the OAL.
Music is not Code (Score:2, Insightful)
Music is so simple to reverse engineer that it is fundamentally open source. You listen, write down the lyrics, and pick out some chords. You can't really totally copy someone else, but you can get away with stealing a lot. Everybody does. So much for some sort of viral license.
OAL is all about musicians living in the "free as in beer" world ushered in by Napster. But it is also stupid. It's all about giving away rights without getting anything at all in return. With computer code, at least there are a some people out there who might modify your code and make it better. There is nothing similar in the music world.
The music industry is going to continue on pretty much as it has in the past. It'll sue where it thinks it can, but it's never going back to the pre-napster days. And it's not about to shift paradigms either. The only way things are going to change will be some revolutionary security technology (unlikely) or a complete revision of copyright law into some entirely new beast (who knows?).
as a musician I think this is ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
When you buy an album forget that your paying the RIAA tax, your supporting a band that you love. This does nto mean you should let down the fight against the opressive RIAA and their tactics, but don't let hte music be the casualty in this world. Bands are poor, bands need as much money as they can get to perpetuate themselves unless they don't mind working a dayjob.
Re:as a musician I think this is ridiculous (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:as a musician I think this is ridiculous (Score:1)
Re:as a musician I think this is ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey, I am poor. I would love for someone to come along and pay me for my *cough* Creative Talent. But, guess what? Money is not an entitlement. You have no god-given right to profit off of your creative juices just becuase you are you. You have to earn money just like the rest of us.
Think of it this way: I am an artist, I go to work and create beautiful, elegant art all day long, and I don't get to put my name on any of it and I only get a salary for what I do. NO copyright for me! Does that sound wrong to you somehow? I'll tell you why: Becuase I say "artist" where you would say "programmer".
Just becuase your "art" is useless and mine is functional does not make us any different. The difference is that I have to go to work for hours and create art every single working day of the week. You on the other hand are only asked to create art for a few hours every so often. You have ZERO right to make money just because you think you deserve it. You have to earn it just like the rest of us.
The real problem is, organizations like the RIAA have built up the notion in your (and my, and the whole world's) head that being "creative" is some magical ability that few people possess in any quantity. Nevermind that for hundreds of thousands of years humans have been artistic just fine without the need for superstardom. Today you we taught that musicians/actors/artists/etc. are so special and rare that we must pay a hefty percentage of our GDP to thier masters simply because who knows when such talent will ever been seen on this earth again, right? Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but we are all talented, we are all artists. We can't help it. Making money off of art is like making money of of breathing. Everybody does it, no one has some "right" because they happen to have asthma.
By trying to make a living off of music, you are simply perputrating the notion that music is something that is rare enough or difficult enough to make a living doing. You are contributing to the death of music and humanity's musical soul far more effectivly than any sort of "Open Music License", my friend.
good analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Another more pithy way to put it is this: We don't subsidize the pony express now that mechanical transportation is available.
The bottom line is scarcity. gnovos is trying to say that some people think it's the talent that's scarce even if copies of their works are free, but that people are wrong and talent is not in fact scarce. This is basically right on the money. If talent *is* scarce, then the music industry needs to find ways to reward talent that make sense, like charging for live performances and other things that can't happen without talent, rather than trying to jealously contain free copies of recordings.
Re:good analogy (Score:2)
How old are you?
Please, please, please grow up. You are talking somebody's completely artificial dream-fantasy, God knows who's been telling you these things but God help you if it's your manager- somebody's conning you, but good.
The ONLY way to do what you say in the music business is to be one hell of a businessman and finance yourself every step of the way, spending heavily and fighting ruthlessly. Talent has nothing to do with that, one way or the other- there's no correlation. You're talking like a 1940s movie musical about New York.
How old are you?
Re:good analogy (Score:2)
Scarcity is what drives price. This is the law of supply and demand, it's not just because I say so. Scarcity means in short supply, and any demand that outstrips the supply raises the price.
You say "calling them monopolies is nonsense", but that's the whole point of ip- no one except the creator has a right to profit from it. It's not a monopoly over all art, that clearly would be regardless- it's a monopoly over whatever they are given credit for, and all derivative works thereof. You say it's not a big loss that you can't sell Mickey Mouse t-shirts, I say it's sucky that children who are too young to understand how their culture reeks of corporate consumerism play games like dungeons and dragons or magic the gathering, only to learn later that the games they played as a child are in fact the property of a corporation and they have no right to expand creatively on their favorite hobbies (see the controversies over Apprentice and KingMagic if you don't believe me, and the way TSR cracked down on the distribution of fan-created D&D modules over the internet for fear they would compete with their own products, effectively killing a burgeoning genre.)
How do I know the biggest and strongest wouldn't dominate? Two answers. 1. that's what happens now it can't get worse 2. if there's no ip, there's no "dominating"- you can't control someone else's ideas because no one owns them.
You say fix the system, I say it can't be fixed, not because we couldn't find reasonable rules if we tried, but because the temptation to change the rules over time to benefit property holders is too great to avoid.
You apologize for not attaching your name, then you neglect to do it again. This shows a certain lack of consistency on your part.
Bryguy
Re:as a musician I think this is ridiculous (Score:2)
I make music because there is something I want to hear that doesn't exist until I play it- and because it's fun! It's as fun as biking, or juggling I suppose. I earn money doing other things, and when I can I spend some money on my music, and it makes me happy to have a new (inexpensive, soon to be all rebuilt and doctored up) guitar.
I can make some people- one or two people who are looking for just that sort of music- tremble with awe and delight at how nicely my music suits them.
This is not an entitlement. This is a gift.
To some extent, art is what you are doing when you are not thinking about money. If you can swing a pick-axe or a drumstick so well, as a craft, that you can get paid for this, that's wonderful- but you'd better have an idea of what the market is. Nobody owes you anything. What do you have to offer?
Re:as a musician I think this is ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)
This analogy does not hold (Score:3, Insightful)
"You on the other hand are only asked to create art for a few hours every so often. "
This is patently false. Most composers are not asked to create their art. They create it and then try to sell it. In circumstances where this doesn't obtain (recording contract, commissioned work), meeting the demands of the request for music is no less arduous than programming (don't try to tell me otherwise; I've done both). Even writing a decent 3 minute pop song is hard work. Much like programming, music does not spring fully formed from a wellspring of creativity. It requires practice (education), good basic themes (design), and editing (debugging). And, if you try it live, unlike programming, you have to be able to reproduce it in real time. Also, unlike programming, it's hard to find someone to compensate you for that time.
My fundamental objection to your argument has to do with your contempt for musicians and the difficulty they face. How many people write/play music as a day job to support their dreams of being a programmer? How many do the reverse?
Many people are satisfied to play music as a hobby, for friends or family, or take the occasional weekend warrior gig. For these people, something like the OAL is great. That's fine. Many devote their lives to it, hoping against hope that they'll be able to eke out a meager living. For these people, it would be insane to release under such a license. A statistically insignificant number make piles upon piles of money (though not NEARLY as much as their labels make off of them). For these lucky few, we can hope that they understand that their fans want the joy of sharing the music with their friends, a la the Grateful Dead. The real fact of the matter is that without musicians in the 2nd and 3rd categories, you wouldn't have anything decent to do while you hack away. So don't be a fucking ingrate, dig?
I do heartily agree with you that everyone is talented, and everyone is an artist. But we all have different talents in different quantities, and talent without hard work is worthless. Hard work takes time, and if you don't get compensated for that time, you don't eat.
There's no free lunch. Even authors of GPL software are getting money from someone for doing something, or they'd starve.
Re:as a musician I think this is ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)
Just becuase your "art" is useless and mine is functional does not make us any different.
Having gone through 6 years of intense programming, and followed it with 3 years of intense music production, I'm in a somewhat unique position to comment on the above paragraph.
I agree that programming and music are both art. However, I take serious offense to your comment about music being a "useless" art.
Are you ready to read?
I can't write a song that will add any two numbers. I can't write a song that enables the listener to run through corridors and chase other listeners down with rocket launchers.
I can, however, write a song that helps give a person insight into their relationships with other people. I can write a song that makes someone laugh, or smile.
At this point, it still might not be so obvious to you that music is important. Why do you think people bother to make music, anyway? Lets look to one of my biggest musical inspirations. Bjork, in a recent interview, talked a little bit about why she began producing solo CD's (at the age of 26 or 27 - she's 35 now). You can watch the entire interview here: damnit, the site couldn't handle the traffic but just in case someone comes through with a mirror, check out http://63.67.107.43/bjork/. I'll have to paraphrase: She explained that very often a book, a song, a movie, or a story, would be exactly what she needed to feel better about something that was bothering her. Something of a magical cure, I guess? She looked at the names of people on CD's and books, and realized how much they had sacrificed just to create their works and have them distributed. All that work just to make her feel better. She set out on a mission to do the same for others, and 4 CD's later she's far along that path.
I look back on my obsession with programming, and its quite clear to me why I devoted so much time to it - its a perfect creative outlet and a very effective escape from reality. When you're 72 consecutive hours into a coding binge, you're in a different world. The unpredictability of social situations are at a safe distance. You don't think about things like your appearance, your odor, whether or not people like you, whats happening in asian sweatshops, or what sort of evil is being planned in those 12 levels of management above you. You are in control of the world - there's you, your keyboard, mouse, data structures, control statements, functions, registers, libraries, memory, a video card, a sound card, some speakers, and a monitor. There is nothing else. (And people wonder why ego-centrism is a characteristic commen to so many coders, heh)
I got a job in the industry, and quickly learned that when someone is paying you to code, your creative options are a bit more limited. Unless you're the lead programmer, the best you can hope to do is come up with a creative way to solve whatever problem is being put in front of you. For me, this amount of creative control wasn't enough. It wasn't fun. Programming, which had been my ultimate creative outlet, was now just a chore. Sure I was making money and could pay my rent, but I lived at the office. Whats more, I worked at a computer all day on things related to my job - the last thing I wanted to do when I got home was spend more time at the keyboard working - even if it was on personal projects. There's only so much time one can spend sitting at one of these things. I was no longer able to enjoy programming as I once had, so I returned to college and got back on my parents payroll. (A side note, overaggressive intellectual property clauses in employee contracts make outside-the-job coding projects even more difficult.)
When you throw something like an intense addiction to programming into the garbage can, there is no escape from reality. You've got to fucking figure it out. This is when books, paintings, music, and other traditional art forms came into my life. They helped! I was trying to deal with the fact that some girl wasn't calling me back or (gasp) responding to my emails, and Bjork sang to me "Give her some time, give her some space", and everything was better. I was sad about something so intangible, that it took Beck's "Mutations" to turn my frown into a grin. I was so upset with everyone in America being so goddamn *motionless* - I wanted to move! So I immersed myself in the aggressive dancefloor rhythms that are collectively known as "Jungle" or "Drum and Bass". I don't suppose you understand the therapeutic value of dancing until you're dripping with sweat?
A more generic example: Some people simply feel better when they hear a beautiful voice.
My father used to play classical music for me as a child, and I would pretend to be the conductor (plastic straw in hand, flowing with the beat). I spent some time in high school (coincidentally the same time I began programming) writing music with Cakewalk 2.0 and a midi-based synth workstation (Korg X5). However, music never really stirred me deeply until after I began confronting the reality of my life, in college, on the planet earth.
The difference is that I have to go to work for hours and create art every single working day of the week. You on the other hand are only asked to create art for a few hours every so often. You have ZERO right to make money just because you think you deserve it. You have to earn it just like the rest of us.
I've come to realize that, through music, I have the ability to effect people's lives in a positive way - and in such a unique way! I enjoy it immensely, its fufilling for me as well as others, and (fuck you!) its challenging! I'm not Britney Spears - I don't work on music "every so often" - I *live* in my studio. I'm writing music just about every day - to the point where I go through withdrawal when I'm on vacations (like this weekend, for instance).
Schlockmeisters in LA and New York can cookie-cut and sell over a million pop album's in a matter of months - but that music is fast food garbage. Its filler. Its an advertisement for itself. And for some strange reason, the only thing that ever seems to be gleaned from it is that the most important things in life are sex, money, and being cool. How convenient for the rest of the entertainment industry, which specializes in these products.
The real problem is, organizations like the RIAA have built up the notion in your (and my, and the whole world's) head that being "creative" is some magical ability that few people possess in any quantity.
In my entire life, I've met about 10 other people who take music as seriously as I do, and who devote as much time to it as I do. I've met about 10 million other people. Being creative is not a magical ability, you are right - and it could even be argued that making music is not a magical ability. There *is* something special about everyone - but not everyone devotes themselves to music so wholeheartedly that their incomes depend on it. Those who chose to are entitled to do so, though you may believe they are not.
Nevermind that for hundreds of thousands of years humans have been artistic just fine without the need for superstardom. Today you we taught that musicians/actors/artists/etc. are so special and rare that we must pay a hefty percentage of our GDP to thier masters simply because who knows when such talent will ever been seen on this earth again, right? Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but we are all talented, we are all artists. We can't help it.
The ones who teach "celebrity" have always been the ones selling it. Most of the "superstar musicians" you're exposed to in American pop culture aren't really musicians anyway - they're puppets. You can't blame musicians for that sick circus.
Making money off of art is like making money of of breathing. Everybody does it, no one has some "right" because they happen to have asthma. By trying to make a living off of music, you are simply perputrating the notion that music is something that is rare enough or difficult enough to make a living doing. You are contributing to the death of music and humanity's musical soul far more effectivly than any sort of "Open Music License", my friend.
As I said earlier, everyone has the right to chose their profession, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Given that this is a country defined by its capitalism, none of us will be able to make any money unless we sell something. Our programming skills, maybe. Our salesmanship. Our unique ability with scissors and hair.
Both the GPL and OAL licenses are absolutely great for stimulating interest and creativity in the fields they apply to. However, neither will help pay the rent.
I do plan on releasing some music under the OAL (now that I've heard about it) and when I get back into coding, I'll probably release some code under the GPL too. I've released code before too [rwth-aachen.de], you know - before I really knew what the GPL was all about.
My advice to musicians? Work your fucking heart out and sell the fruits of your labor. If you end up with lots of experiments gone wrong, or just lots of doodles, or you just don't really give a shit about what happens to a particular piece of your music, don't let it sit in your vault - release it under the OAL. Someone, somewhere, will learn something from it. Just make sure you don't plan on using any samples of it in future works for sale
Re:bad analogy (Score:2)
I'll take this a step further.
When I first saw a computer at age 6 (a Vic 20 in our landlords' basement) I *KNEW* that this was what I wanted to do with my life. Like some people *know* they want to be musicians. It didn't matter to me weather there was any chance of making money out of my choice. For years I ran BBS's, freenets, Public UUCP access points because it was my contribution to society. I *HAD* to use my skills, it would have been akin to walking around with my eyes closed all my life when I could open them, the thought was foriegn to me.
I gave away my talents for years. In 'exchange' I got to hone those talents, and eventually one of the organisations I volenteered for offered me a professional job. I still often volenteer on weekends, because I feel it's my obligation. I can do good with my skillset.
Is this the feeling that people who are talented musicans feel? I hope so.
I'm a sysadmin, but if I was a programmer I would write under the GPL. If there was a reason that I had to licence my work, I would choose a similar license to do so under.
Cheers,
Min
Re:as a musician I think this is ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)
You're not necessarily right. Personally, I think having professional musicians is a good thing, and since this is so completely subjective, there is no absolute answer.
This doesn't scale well -- releasing a song online for mass distribution at 25 per mp3 may earn the artist just as much as a boatload of $200 concert tickets. Simply put, concerts can only hit limited groups of people. In addition, such a system would hurt artists who can make amazing music but have terrible stage fright. And it would hurt hobbiest musicians who compose their work entirely with computers -- stage shows of a person pressing a button on a computer and then standing around while people listen to the song, well, that's not much of a performance, even though it may be a great song.
I think choice is exactly what we need, and this new license can only help. But I do not think this new license needs to be pushed as the "correct" way to do music. It is only one of many ways, and musicians (and music fans!) should be free to do as they choose.
link to open music registry songs (Score:3, Informative)
You can browse the music that's up there already, download it, whatever. I've got a few songs up there, give them a listen.
Bryguy
Where is the Classical Music? (Score:2)
My question about free music: where's the Classical? That's even a different deal, because a good portion of it (i.e. everything written before the world starting getting excited about extending the copyright period at a rate faster than things were coming out of copyright) is not copyrighted itself; only the performances would be. Surely there are classical music groups out there who've recorded music that they wouldn't mind giving away for free? For instance, university orchestras?
Is there a good repository for this sort of thing in Ogg Vorbis and/or MP3 format? (The former preferred since we're talking about Free stuff here.)
-Rob
Re:it's already public domain (Score:2)
the score is not copyrighted, you can rearrange it as you see fit, as you can with any music over 65 years old as in my understanding (IANAL). The performances ARE copyrighted, now if you want to spend a few hundred thousand dollars paying for your favorite orchestra to rehearse/record your favorite classical songs, so be it. The music is free the performance is not.
I understand all that... I believe I noted that in my original query. And, indeed, perhaps I should have mentioned that I am aware of the Mutopia Project [mutopiaproject.org] which uses GNU Lilypond [lilypond.org] to put classic scores online. But I was hoping that there might be some repository of performances of classical music in digital format which had been made freely available.
I really don't expect to find much in the way of the Cleveland Orchestra, the San Francisco Symphony, or other orchestras with big-ticket CDs. But this world has a wealth of good quality small-name orchestra, including some of the better University orchestras. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those were willing to release recordings of their concerts for free. (I mean, heck, sometimes the performances are free to the public.)
-Rob
GNUArt ! (Score:5, Interesting)
good starting point for a license for music?
Yes.
We, at GNUArt [gnuart.org], directly use the GPL to protect Art.
After discussing it with RMS [stallman.org], we agreed it would be possible:
Lots of artists trust us, just browse our gallery [gnuart.net] for free "GNU" Art...
Re:GNUArt ! (Score:1)
does this mean, if i want to modify your work and i require the name of your wife's ex-boyfriend you are required to give it to anyone who asks for it? (say, i REALLY need it)
a few years later we'll be using the GPL for everything in existance...
Re:GNUArt ! (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with most of RMS's views, and I applaud the GPL. However, why do people give him veto power over their own ideas? I can understand discussing a subject like this with him, since he has probably thought about it more than the rest of us, but I get the idea that many people are unwilling to try an idea unless RMS approves it. As with anything, people need to sift through RMS's ideas and decide for themselves which are gems and which are just BS.
Concerts/Expo, and other points... (Score:2)
> be very hard to live if you licensed all your
> work under the GNU art license. "
GNUArt [gnuart.net] protect art, not the artist, this means that if -for example- Britney Spears put one of her songs under the GNU GPL License, she is not obliged to do so with all the rest (Thanks God
A full time artist may also live by GPL'ing his stuff, as if he gets enough recognition, he then may earn money with either concerts, expositions or whatever else, which doesn't forbid any other to do so with *his* creations, but just gives *him* a chance to get more recognition with fewer risks as either
I think GNUArt [gnuart.org] is the missing link and I'll translate it ASAP. Please, use the Fish [altavista.com], till then.
A former famous hardcore band from France also "gave" us the responsability of putting all their stuff under the GNU GPL License: Garlic Frog Diet [gnuart.net]...
Also, Tompox [tompox.com], in my
And BTW, there no License called the GNU art License, we only use the GNU GPL License [gnu.org] itself.
Does this solve the biggest problem? (Score:1, Insightful)
The basic problem artists have with the music industry isn't the inability to make music for free. Musicians have always been able to do that. Trading riffs is part of the culture. The problem is the fact that the music cartel won't make the artist's music avaiable without him or her signing over the rights to it.
silly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of Glass' critiques seem a little silly - they're intended goals of the license, not flaws.
That's not a bug, that's a feature!
To claim that a critique is "silly" because you disagree with the author's point of view is rather condescending, and does not contribute to meaningful debate. Is the purpose of this license to create a moral imperative to release music for free (much as RMS uses GNU as a platform to argue the immorality of commercial software)? If so, the issues Glass raises merit serious discussion.
OAL is a screw job. (Score:1)
"Warranty. By offering an original work for public release under this license, the Original Author warrants that (i) s/he has the power and authority to grant the rights conveyed herein, and (ii) use of the work within the scope of this license will not infringe the copyright of any third party."
Somebody else could pick up the piece, promote the hell out of it and distribute millions of copies. The original author would be forced to defend the resulting nuisance lawsuits (with no income to pay the lawyers out of). Copyright infringement is a grey area and as soon as there is money to be made, the nuisance suits start popping up.
Better than nothing (Score:1)
As far as I know, music is sold today without any license agreement of any kind. It's all implied - and the music companies can make up whatever they want later. In fact, I'll bet they could make a case that no one but them can legally listen to any CD sold to date! Why? Because no one ever explicitly entered into a license agreement.
Even if the OAL is "too free", it will nicely suit as being the opposite of current practice. And something more moderate will show up later.
Re:Better than nothing (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I know, music is sold today without any license agreement of any kind.
True, but keep in mind, the record company's "licenses" are passed as laws. The things you are allowed to do and not do, the Audio Home Recording Act, the DMCA, much of that could be placed in a license spelling out exactly what you're allowed to do.
The RIAA, etc, don't need to make licenses, they just pass the laws they need, and save a lot of trouble.
Software has been a little different because the software monopolies (Microsoft, in other words) haven't been paying much attention to Washington. Just wait until they figure out how to lobby with the efficiency of the record labels, your next MS software might contain no license agreement, since the terms Microsoft likes will be part of copyright law.
End User Confusion (Score:1)
OAL is confusing me with AOL so some lawyers need to get involved, domains need to change hands....
*end sarcasm*
Traditionally... (Score:4, Insightful)
From the summary of the critique(the page is slashdotted so I didn't read it) it sounds like the critique is not about the method of sharing, but, rather, about the sharing itself. If you don't want to share your stuff--don't. Just don't tell other people that they can't, or shouldn't.
The OAL appears to have some real flaws (Score:4, Offtopic)
Well, if Glass is correct in his summary, then I would have to say that the very first bullet point:
represents a fatal flaw. This would imply that you could not release a "teaser" MP3 , say one ripped in a lower audio quality, and still retain your other copyrights to the song. That seems shortsighted and unfair.
Re:The OAL appears to have some real flaws (Score:1, Informative)
That's not what it's intended for. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bruce
Re:That's not what it's intended for. (Score:3, Insightful)
You are correct, I was responding to the critique. But as I read the OAL [eff.org], it still appears flawed.
For example, IANAL, but the scope of public performance appears to be completely undefined. If I release the song FOO on a MP3, does public performance mean playback of that particular MP3 only? Does it mean some band can perform the song live as long as the quality of their sound system doesn't exceed that of the original encoding?
I think this is a good issue, and I commend them for starting a public discussion, but I think it's far to complex to be dealt with satisfactorily in the few paragraphs they have written.
Re:That's not what it's intended for. (Score:2)
A Linux analogy (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the OAL is more about song writers than performers. I do not believe that a performer could release a conventionally copyrighted song under the OAL. This would probably be a copyright violation because no royalty would be paid to the work's owner under the original copyright. On the other hand, if Willie Nelson had released "Crazy" under something like the OAL, then he would be associated with the work, not Patsy Cline.
Ultimately, though, songwriters make money on royalties. I don't see how they can do this under the OAL, so I don't think it has a chance for any group or artist that relies on album sales. For those that rely on performance revenue (like the Grateful Dead), the the license would make perfect sense, because it would promote distribution of the performance recordings and create new consumers. For example, I always thought the Grateful Dead were about a hippie drug culture until I downloaded and burned a concert for a fried and discovered that they were a really, really good performance band. I would have never discovered this if they had not given away the rights to record their concerts.
So, in the interest of spreading the love
Differences between Software and Music (Score:1)
The Price (Score:2, Insightful)
A $1000 computer with a monitor, CDRW and high speed internet connection (and heaps and heaps of GPL software) runs about the same as a guitar, amp, 4 track and mic. The really big difference is that I don't need all the software that would otherwise cost a bundle if it wasn't free to make my music.
It scales about the same too. A top 40 album with a producer, engineer, mixer, full band, studio time, etc. runs about the same as a cvs repository, hosting, several computers, office space, QA, etc.
Not for everything. (Score:4, Interesting)
If my music is, for example, written for a game or a web site or something where the music is basically ancillary to the main part of the entire work then I would have no problem releasing the audio under the OAL. However when the audio is the main part then I do not want that audio taken and molested by anyone who wants to harm it.
When I write a song at 2 am with my guitar it is very spiritual. I don't sing mathematical truths or other factual data, I sing a unique interpretation of my life as I have experienced it. This song is not something that anyone else can understand the same way I do. Other people may be able to identify with it and share some common ground, but no one can truly feel the same way I did when I recorded it - if they did then they would have mysteriously written the exact same song.
I want to keep these songs mine, like journal entries, as a collection of memories. I don't want some teenager with a eukalalie recording a modified version of my memory.
Re:Not for everything. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or are you saying that other people don't have the right to make songs that reflect their experience of life, just because part of that experience involves your songs?
We're NOT discussing the GPL (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't agree that this is a silly criticism. Look at the Windows95 launch, and how they used "Start Me Up" by the Rolling Stones. While the Stones did sell the rights for this song to Microsoft, the average Slashdotter-slash-musician here would be completely aghast--and have absolutely no recourse.
The software world doesn't have a concept of "selling out" (well, we do, but generally it's a positive thing: "You sold your company to a behemoth for 50 mil? Good job!"). In the music world, particularly pop music, this is a huge thing. Fans are everything--you make music for your fans. If your fans think you're a corporate shill, or they get your songs pummelled into them constantly by obnoxious commercials, and can't stand to listen anymore--you're going to lose your fan base. And who are you making music for anyway?
Neil Young ("This Song's For You") would be turning in his grave, if he was dead yet.
- dlek
Re:We're NOT discussing the GPL (Score:2)
Because, despite the fact that many of them are artists in every since of the word, everyone knows that programmers program for a salary.
Think for a minute how the world would be different if other types of artists worked for a salary...
What's the point? (Score:1)
I've written a number of things that I have made freely available. They are up on my website along with the permission to copy, link, etc -- with attribution. I didn't need the OAL to do that for me.
Should I ever finish the book I'm writing (light is now visible at the end of the tunnel), I will try to sell it. Obviously, I don't agree with RMS that my efforts shouldn't give me some right to the product of all that work. I certainly would not use the OAL for that. I
So -- what's the point of the license?
How could it possibly be important? I can understand the need for freedom with functional items like computer source code. There is a real value in fixing bugs, finding privacy holes, security holes, etc. But a song? A story? I just don't get it.
Well... (Score:1)
Is It Happening? (Score:2)
Use a sample (no matter how small) from an OALed recording without asking, and your finished work must be licensed under the OAL and given away.
OK, I'm going to toss a WAV file up on my website somewhere and make sure that sample N has the same sample value as sample N of some other WAV that is under the OAL. Then I'm gonna thumb my nose at the EFF and all the other AIP (Anti-Intellectual Property) imbecils we've had to put up with for the past several years.
Slashdot posting an article by Brett Glass, with a link to an essay by Brett Glass!? Is It Happening? Are the Slashdot editors finally waking up and realizing that OSS runs business into the ground, that the only reason so much of the Internet is built on OSS is because of fat defense contracts and stuff that leaked in from the traditional business model? What is waking them up? Perhaps IBM selling SourceForge services and not paying LNUX is waking them up. LNUX fired developers Friday and Slashdot knows it might be next. Maybe Hemos and CmdrTaco actually want to have jobs and not just be "new new economy" losers standing in the unemployment line. Well sorry, it's probably too late for you guys. You've spent the last few years at the forefront of the AIP movement, it's a little to late to change your tune now.
Of course, Slashdot always has been less leftist on the week-ends, probably because conservatives don't goof off as much during the week.
Stupid BSD remark (Score:2)
The EFF-branded license has the one "downside" of an ad-clause BSD license--it allows (or seems to; it's very poorly worded) the sale/distribution/commercial use of the creator's work by anyone and everyone without payment or (situational) permission--without the BSD "upside": the creator's option to un-BSD derivative works for whatever reason (like, say, sale/distribution/commercial use). The OAL is the most pro-mega-distributor, anti-little-author license I've seen outside an RIAA-affiliated label contract. Wait--actually, it's worse than anything the RIAA has come up with yet, because people are suspicious enough to read label agreements carefully; but "art's not about money, man"-spouting idiots will use the OAL because it's EFF-certified "free"--free as in serf, I guess.
(And oh-- Add another red X to your "EFF: Corporate Whore" scorecards at home.)
An enemy of my enemy is my friend (Score:2, Interesting)
In case you forgot, the reason shutting down Napster was wrong was because it was a file transfer mechanism. The NRA is a closer ally to Napster than the EFF. The reason sharing music is okay is because it does not violate copyright. The reason the media conglomerates are opposed to things like Napster is because it takes the power away from them. They haven't lost money yet.
Copying bits is practically free. That is one reason to share them. The GPL was designed to protect copyright holders while allowing them to share their bits. It was about sharing knowledge. It could be extended to cover sheet music, lyrics, and tableture, but not performance.
I agree with a lot of the critique. I also would like free music. I would also like artists to have more control over their own copyrights. Freedom is the answer, not conformity.
By confusing the issues, the EFF is damaging the cause of free software and of freedeom in general.
There's no way in hell ... (Score:4, Insightful)
grants the worldwide public permission to:
Modification
This means, you can mess my song up and release it under the same name. Like hell you can. Remix it if you must and release it under your own name, but don't make me responsible for what you do to it.
Note that this clause isn't saying the same thing as: you have the right to sample from this track and create a new track from the samples you've made - under your own name, which I'd have no problems with (unless people start sampling complete riffs, which isn't quite my taste), it's saying "redo a track released under this license any way you see fit and then release it as a "fork" of said track." This may be fine for software, but music has a very different dynamic, which I think the EFF people are forgetting. Artist + Track of which integrity has been preserved are much more important in music than it is in software.
How many bad covers of Watchtower and My Way are.? (Score:2)
Blatant karma whore and self-promotion... (Score:2)
As for why I released them under that license, I respond: why not? Those recordings were done many years ago. I will never make any money off of them, nor do I really need or want to. I didn't make the music with the intent of making money... I made it because I wanted to. I learned long ago that the kind of music that I wanted to create wouldn't be the kind of music that would make me rich... or even make me enough money to live off of.
If someone else can get some enjoyment out of them, then that's great... if not, then oh well... But they're definitely not going to do any anyone any good just sitting on cassette tapes in my closet.
Another Musician/Coder on navigating licenses (Score:2, Insightful)
I find music and code to be virtually identical in nature: It is the structured ordering, presentation and manipulation of simple primitives, to create a more complex body of work, so it makes sense to me to have similar licenses.
Is this kind of license needed for music? Definitely. Just like the coding profession, some pieces, indeed, some jobs, are entirely dependant on using free tools, be they code libraries or sample libraries. As noted, every major operating system today now ships with free (GPL, Q, BSD, or similar) tools and components, which can be copied and distributed without any royalties. Some software products have succeeded in obtaining large market $hare, some have not.
Those products that have lined the pocket of IT professionals (including mine) were built both with privately owned IP, and public (GPL, Q, BSD etc.) IP. Those that were built strictly with only private or only public IP did not become successful or profitable based on the IP they used... that's a red herring in this discussion. The nature of the license does not dictate the profitability or success of a software, or music, product.
So what is the impact, if I choose this license, to me? Well, just like the GPL work I've done, it means that others can do what they want.
Does it prevent me from releasing other work? Of course not. I can OPL/GPL some work, BSD other work, and use a restrictive EULA for other work. Since I'm not a one-hit-wonder kind of guy (I'm a professional, I "publish" a lot), this isn't a problem.
Is my ability to capture revenue altered by my choice of license, be it in code libraries, or in songs? Of course it is. But it's my choice.
It's this thing called "Culture" folks. (Score:2, Interesting)
Jello Biafra thought of this at Hope 2000 (H2K) (Score:3, Informative)
He suggested there should be something like an "equal exchange" for artists (equal exchange is the organization that, among other things, makes sure people are being paid fairly to grow coffee). This seems pretty close to the OAL idea from the EFF. It's definitely an idea whose time has come (even though the GNU Artistic License, and other licenses, have been available for years).
On a side note, Jello was/is really pissed that his Vegas song got used in a car ad. He fought a long and very costly legal battle with the rest of the Dead Kennedys, and lost. He wrote the song, but in the end did not control its destiny.
On a side side note, there's a new Dead Kennedys album of live takes from the bay area. It's fantastic! Sorry I don't recall the title right now...
Maybe this is off-topic... (Score:2)
There have been middlemen between IP producers and IP cosumers, and they have done quite well over the years. Indeed, they have done so well that they have near infinite resources with which to lobby the government.
IP producers and middlemen do not want to lose out in the information age, any more than a Linux programmer wants an all-microsoft world.
But how to accomodate both sides, when both sides demand extremes? One side wants every copy paid for, the other wants everything to be free. It has not been a black and white issue in the past, and should not be one in the future.
Some type of reasonable freedom to share needs to exist, while preventing widespread piracy and copying.
If such a system can be developed, all the arguments about IP and licensing will be moot -- things will remain roughly the same. I can transfer my right to utilize IP content 'A' to another person, but I can't make unlimited copies of IP 'A'.
My opinion of him got lowered... (Score:2)
Re:Is this a good idea? (Score:1)
Not to me. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less about having the artist "retain the copyright of his/her own works of art". To me the issue is the use of the state to arrest and imprison people [slashdot.org] simply for the purpose of enhancing private profit, rather than to "promote progress of science and the useful arts", as wisely prescribed by the US constitution.
I hope this didn't come across as a rant, but if anyon can enlighten me on how this license would benefit anyone, please do. Until then I cautiously take the side of Mr. Glass.
Even if it does not benefit musicians, it will be of considerable benefit to nonmusicians -- probably over 99% of the population -- who don't want to live in a police state.
Re:Is this a good idea? (Score:1)
Then get another job, buddy. The government doesn't owe you a living.
I think for a professional musician it's downright stupid.
I think it's downright stupid for the taxpayers to pay for the police force that will be used against them for your private profit.
Re:Foul! (Score:2)
It just goes to show that you can't appease the trolls.
Re:Foul! (Score:2)
Sensitive, are we? I don't see how disagreeing with what you wrote equates to a "personal attack" on you.
Re:Foul! (Score:2)
Honestly, this particular license isn't likely to go real far, and it wouldn't matter much if it did- if you don't like being exploited DON'T be a musician or singer. Charging up and trying to protect musicians against the big bad OAL is beyond laughable. My god, you consider THIS the big threat for the modern-day independent musician?