[LAU] quick follow-on to the RPM2010 thread

[frank pirrone]

drew Roberts wrote:
> On Monday 18 January 2010 16:10:22 you wrote:
>   
>> <snip>
>> Greetings Rosea and Drew,
>>
>> I was making a broader philosophical, and political, point about how the
>> advance of human knowledge and technology occurred via the process of
>> building upon prior work, for most of history - freely shared.
>> Absolutely nothing novel or profound here.  It's the essence of the
>> concept of Free Software, and the essence of what was lost when
>> knowledge became proprietary.
>>     
>
> Surely, although there were / are other ways to keep knowledge out of the 
> hands of some even without copyrights and patents.
>   
Tragically so, Drew.
>> It's what Stallman wrote about, and the reason for the GPL, or
>> copyleft.  Raymond's bazaar is largely where Open Source resides.
>>     
>
> True, but RMS makes a distinction wrt functional works.
>   
Something of which you are more familiar than I.  I'll take a look to
refresh my memory.
>> The point here is more circumscribed and sharply focused.  First, we did
>> not even offer to sell our music - we simply gave it away.  I'm not sure
>> if we ever even had a donation link up.
>>     
>
> I don't think we did anything for income.
>
>   
>> I don't believe so.
Right.  I recall its having come up briefly in a discussion, and I
suppose you'd actually have to develop an argument for posting ANYthing
on the Internet without including a "Donate" button.  Well...maybe not
vacation photos!

>> However, had we offered our work for sale, in addition to what Drew cites above,
>> the answer to your question is...our customers.  Anyone wanting to buy
>> our finished CD could/would have paid for it.  Especially if we posted
>> no freely downloadable mixed and mastered finished tracks.
>>     
>
> Of course, that play could turn off our fans as much as get them to buy. I 
> would be interested in experimenting with the limited edition set sale if we 
> ever get a popular album / single recorded Frank. Perhaps you and I can work 
> on that some after Feb this year if you have some time.
>   
Absolutely!  I was not suggesting that, even for consideration, and it
would not "feel" right to me in any event.  I'm alway open to extending
Packet-In, but first we've got to create something significant without
some of our key players.  I'm frantically practicing my djembe! 
Seriously, just over 4 weeks in, I'm making sufficient progress where
I'll likely use this instrument in my compositions, and maybe contribute
tracks of it to others.
>> Think about that in the context of our discussion here:  How cool would
>> that CC by SA/Commercial hybrid model be?  We'd still post our
>> individual tracks, but anyone wanting our "version" of our work could
>> buy it.
>>     
>
> I would suggest we offer it for download at a set your own price (including 
> $0)
>   
A reasonable proposal.  I assume Peter could turn on an e-commerce plug
in to PayPal or something.
>   
>> ALL our giant's shoulders would be sitting there inviting 
>> anyone interested to come and stand on them.  Anyone could download them
>> and mix and master them as they desire.  They could, as I suggested in
>> my original posting, drop my vocal and guitar parts, record their own,
>> and polish off a finished derivative work!  Sampling would take on a new
>> meaning in that model.
>>     
>
> They could then offer theirs for download at a set your own price (with 
> whetever lower limit they like)
>
> We could also offer other licenses at a cost to those refusing to do BY-SA. (I 
> think once you publish a song, you can't prevent some of this anyway so we 
> may as well play that game if the opportunity arises.
>   
Sure.
>>>> Playing the advocate of the devil here...
>>>>         
>>> Well.... who is going to pay you for your stuff when so many are doing
>>> the Free thing? Back at ya.... ~;-)
>>>
>>>       
>>>> \r
>>>>         
>> Well, I rarely advocate the devil, but fully support your right to do so!
>>
>> Seriously, Rosea, these are indeed interesting, and valid questions, but
>> I believe most folk's reflexive assumptions and answers are subject to
>> scrutiny.  We've ALL had our brains washed...and creme rinsed, I
>> suppose.  Go back and reread Bill Gates' open letter to the Homebrew
>> Computer Club to see just how entrenched his assumptions were at such an
>> early stage, and then trace the subsequent course of proprietary
>> software, copyright, patents, P2P, lawsuits,  SPA/RIAA/MPAA, etc. to
>> gain some appreciation for exactly how big a red pill you'd have to
>> swallow to shuck the influences under which we've labored to even begin
>> to see the alternatives.
>>     
>
> Something that is really telling to me is the lengths the big boys feel they 
> need to go to to make the old ways work with the new tech available these 
> days. See: Is Copyright Dangerous To Democracy? 
> http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-copyright-dangerous-to-democracy.html
>   
Telling, indeed.  Stubbornness yielding to nothing and no one.  What's
most puzzling is that those embracing new opportunities are so often
successful, and wildly so...
>   
>>> all the best,
>>>
>>> drew
>>>       
>> Frank
>>     
>
> drew
>   
Frank