24 Jan
2004
24 Jan
'04
11:42 p.m.
I agree with you, Mark. I'd love to see more detail about what exactly
"commercial uses" are. I am in a taiko group and am hoping to release my
(eventually) recorded songs under a CC license. I certainly don't want to use a
license that would stop somebody from DJing my music, but I don't know how I feel
about some company using it in their TV advertising or publishing it themselves and
selling the CD. Are those all of the same "commercial" nature?
I'm a bit shady on the term, "performance" as well. Is there a difference
between playing a recording of a piece, and re-performing the piece live with instruments
(perhaps making a score of the track and reading that while playing on one's own
instrument)?
Thank you all for the discussion, this is an exciting topic.
Kris Bergstrom
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:17:39PM +1000, Mark Constable wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:54 am, R Parker wrote:
If an artist is stupid enough to depend on some middleware
infrastructure to pay their way for them then they deserve
what they get... either way, good or bad. As if everyone
deserves to be a well paid "artist" just because they want
to be.
--
H5n9d0+5
...
If we met drunk in a bar and you used the word
obnoxous in the above context, I'd give you the
beating of your life. Or, I'd force you to beat me.
Indeed we would. If you think for one moment I am happy about
any musical proceeds going towards the limos and cocaine habits
of those in control of most of the funds involved with the music
industry then you and I would be at loggerheads.
Yes, it's sad that the cost of the chlorine that goes towards
keeping up the swimming pools for the drummer of metalica would
probably feed you and a few african villages.
There are two ends to any piece of string.
I would
like to think the point of music in the
commons is that
there are no inhibitions or restrictions to people
hearing it !
I see nothing but inhibitions and restrictions for
people to hear commons licensed music because artists
can't afford to finance the ideal you describe. Discussing altnerative methods of payment
isn't an
option because I'm hungry and need to eat. If you are
not or haven't experienced sustained years of poverty
and hunger as a result of being an artist, I don't
want you speaking for me.
Sorry, you get to walk in your own shows. If you haven't released
your music under a open source license then I don't want you
speaking for me either. If you have, and are complaining about
not getting paid for giving up your copyrights to a record
company, then I still don't you speaking for me.
Where can I buy your music online, to help support music that
is produced with linux based software, wether I like your music
or not ? Can it compete with the ton of freely-distributable
music I download via irate.org ?
Back to the original topic... unless I have not looked hard
enough, it seems there needs to be a specific license to define
more precisely just what commercially associated exposure is
allowed for the CC, or similar, "non-commercial usage" clause.
--markc