Commercial VS NonCommercial Creative Commons [WAS: Re: [linux-audio-user] more odd music]
2 Apr
2005
2 Apr
'05
6:28 p.m.
Hello
En/na Ryan Gallagher ha escrit:
I don't know wheter it is OT or not...
I have one dilema. What do you think it is better NonCommercial or
Commercial Creative Commons License?
I think that NonCommercial has no sense for comunity made songs. If you
use it to make something complex (that's the point of working with the
community), then if you want to ever sell your records, it seems to me
that you will never find the way to pay (or at least contact to ask
permission to) all the contributors...
On the other hand, if I release something as allowing Commercial uses I
hate the possibility of knowing that maybe one day (let's say something
stupid) M$ will use my song without paying anything to me or asking me
permission, to market one of their become-a-slave-products.
Maybe we could think of something new as "CC Attribution-NonCommercial
2.0 (contact the authors for commercial purposes but if you are a music
artist contributing to this song, feel free to use it commercially if
you add something new to it and you sell it to people who will only
listen it (not businesses using the song for other purposes)"
what do you think of it?
I raise this issue because I'm starting a musical project and I would
like to never release any work that could end like
http://www.lokitorrent.com/ when the people shares it, I would like to
use other musicians works (and I can't afford to pay them for such work
now) and I would finally like to win fairly some money making good music
(without this money I will never be able to buy decent instruments)
is it an utopia?
Hi, I have one
question: are your songs under a Creative Commons License?
I found them very interesting material for remixes and other creations.
I didn't read the earlier thread about copyright, but in this case I'd
apply; Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0
3 Apr
3 Apr
9:05 a.m.
MarC <marc_contrib(a)ramonvinyes.es>es>:
I raise this issue because I'm starting a musical
project and I would
like to never release any work that could end like
http://www.lokitorrent.com/ when the people shares it, I would like
to use other musicians works (and I can't afford to pay them for such
work now) and I would finally like to win fairly some money making
good music (without this money I will never be able to buy decent
instruments)
is it an utopia?
Marc, I'm flabbergasted. This is 2005. There's no way you could prevent
people from copying or sharing things in the digital domain. DRM is a
joke. The industry that promotes it is a joke. The business model is
gone, don't you know that?
How can anyone *own* music? How did Bach do it? How did Capitol Records
do it? The only way to make that claim to some extent real were
technical limitations -- and those are gone for good.
Coming up with something like G-C-E7 is a complex process, sure ;) Hell,
make it Bbmaj9-Gm7-F/C-C-D/C. But do you really intend to say this is
yours? That you invented this, put it into the world, out of the blue?
Isolated from everything you've ever heard or experienced in your life?
Originality someone? What is that?
Share your stuff and you will get back more than you ever dreamed of. To
make money it is, in my experience, fairly promising to put your
family's estate to sensible use or, in the lack of an estate, work. The
clownesque, inspired, spiritual, grotesque, old-fashioned, great field
of making music will probably get you all *but* money.
I'm a bit ashamed to see that all this sounds quite patronizing. Excuse
me, Marc. This a patronizing day and it transfers.
Wolfgang
9:20 a.m.
On Apr 3, 2005 1:04 PM, Wolfgang Woehl <tito(a)rumford.de> wrote:
MarC <marc_contrib(a)ramonvinyes.es>es>:
I would like to share my "work" like GPL does it : You use it then you
have to go GPL as well;)
I raise this issue because I'm starting a
musical project and I would
like to never release any work that could end like
http://www.lokitorrent.com/ when the people shares it, I would like
to use other musicians works (and I can't afford to pay them for such
work now) and I would finally like to win fairly some money making
good music (without this money I will never be able to buy decent
instruments)
is it an utopia?
Marc, I'm flabbergasted. This is 2005. There's no way you could prevent
people from copying or sharing things in the digital domain. DRM is a
joke. The industry that promotes it is a joke. The business model is
gone, don't you know that?
How can anyone *own* music? How did Bach do it? How did Capitol Records
do it? The only way to make that claim to some extent real were
technical limitations -- and those are gone for good.
Coming up with something like G-C-E7 is a complex process, sure ;) Hell,
make it Bbmaj9-Gm7-F/C-C-D/C. But do you really intend to say this is
yours? That you invented this, put it into the world, out of the blue?
Isolated from everything you've ever heard or experienced in your life?
Originality someone? What is that?
Share your stuff and you will get back more than you ever dreamed of. To
make money it is, in my experience, fairly promising to put your
family's estate to sensible use or, in the lack of an estate, work. The
clownesque, inspired, spiritual, grotesque, old-fashioned, great field
of making music will probably get you all *but* money.
I'm a bit ashamed to see that all this sounds quite patronizing. Excuse
me, Marc. This a patronizing day and it transfers.
Wolfgang
10:32 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 13:20 +0200, Jorge Salgueiro wrote:
I would like to share my "work" like GPL
does it : You use it then you
have to go GPL as well;)
There's a CC license for that too; Attribution-ShareAlike:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
You could of course also use the GPL, but it could probably be
confusing when it talks about "the Program" all the time.
--
Lars Luthman
PGP key: http://www.d.kth.se/~d00-llu/pgp_key.php
Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E
4 Apr
4 Apr
2:20 a.m.
MarC <marc_contrib(a)ramonvinyes.es>es>:
> I raise this issue because I'm starting a musical project and I would
> like to never release any work that could end like
> http://www.lokitorrent.com/
I've never before seen this website. Is this a joke?
> when the people shares it, I would like
> to use other musicians works (and I can't afford to pay them for such
> work now) and I would finally like to win fairly some money making
> good music (without this money I will never be able to buy decent
> instruments)
How can you begin to even think of using other people's work, without
paying royalties, and expect others not to use yours?
>
> is it an utopia?
Yes, but you're joking, righ?
Wolfgang Woehl <tito(a)rumford.de> writes:
How can anyone *own* music?
By composing it and performing it only in his/her own
bedroom/livingroom/basement etc., shut away from other people's ears.
It's possible.
How did Bach do it?
I think the question to ask is: did Bach own his music?
What was the attitude towards music ownership in the Baroque era,
anyways? I am not quite sure, although recently I started looking at
these issues, but all I know is that a very common practice in those
days was to copy other composers' scores in order to learn the craft,
quote other composers, use similar compositional techniques/vocabulary
as the masters, quote folk song, plainsong, etc.
It has been proven that many of the compositions that were attributed
to Bach, are not his, in fact. The famous Anna Magdalen Notebook
contains pieces that are now known to be not of his but simply
included in the collection which served as an 'instructional' book for
keyboard playing.
Also, for over 20 years Bach 'composed' weekly music for the church he
was employed by. Not all of his music survived but it is also known
that he has 'recycled' his own music for that purpose.
Did Bach actually pondered the idea of ownership of his own music?
I doubt it, since he make his pupils copy his scores.
How did Capitol Records
do it?
through exploitation?
The only way to make that claim to some extent real
were
technical limitations -- and those are gone for good.
yes, but I think that certain attitude towards morality and respect
could make such 'ownership' worthwile without the recourse to the
measures record companies dispose of. However, that attitude is gone
now, too.
However, the following has ot be taken into consideration, of course:
Coming up with something like G-C-E7 is a complex
process, sure ;) Hell,
make it Bbmaj9-Gm7-F/C-C-D/C. But do you really intend to say this is
yours? That you invented this, put it into the world, out of the blue?
Isolated from everything you've ever heard or experienced in your life?
Originality someone? What is that?
I totally agree!
I'm thinking, sometimes, that people are really trying hard to protect
their work with 'intellectual property' labels in fear that someone
else will use their ideas in a much more creative ways. Which has
happened, of course, and history is our witness.
Share your stuff and you will get back more than you
ever dreamed of. To
make money it is, in my experience, fairly promising to put your
family's estate to sensible use or, in the lack of an estate, work.
yup, Charles Ives is famous not only for extensive use of polytonality
but also for the fact that he was an insurance broker. Glen Gould is
known to live off stock market.
The
clownesque, inspired, spiritual, grotesque, old-fashioned, great field
of making music will probably get you all *but* money.
of course. Your agent, producer and distributor will make sure to get as
much as they can.
./MiS
10:48 a.m.
On Monday 04 April 2005 12:20 am, Michal Seta wrote:
Interesting stuff! (above)
MarC
<marc_contrib(a)ramonvinyes.es>es>:
How did Bach do it?
I think the question to ask is: did Bach own his music?
What was the attitude towards music ownership in the Baroque era,
anyways? I am not quite sure, although recently I started looking at
these issues, but all I know is that a very common practice in those
days was to copy other composers' scores in order to learn the craft,
quote other composers, use similar compositional techniques/vocabulary
as the masters, quote folk song, plainsong, etc.
It has been proven that many of the compositions that were attributed
to Bach, are not his, in fact. The famous Anna Magdalen Notebook
contains pieces that are now known to be not of his but simply
included in the collection which served as an 'instructional' book for
keyboard playing.
Also, for over 20 years Bach 'composed' weekly music for the church he
was employed by. Not all of his music survived but it is also known
that he has 'recycled' his own music for that purpose.
Did Bach actually pondered the idea of ownership of his own music?
I doubt it, since he make his pupils copy his scores. However, the following has ot be taken into
consideration, of course:
> Coming up with something like G-C-E7 is a complex process, sure ;) Hell,
> make it Bbmaj9-Gm7-F/C-C-D/C. But do you really intend to say this is
> yours? That you invented this, put it into the world, out of the blue?
> Isolated from everything you've ever heard or experienced in your life?
> Originality someone? What is that?
The following is way OT, and having written it, I'm debating whether to send
it, trash it, or just stick it somewhere in my own "files" for further
"cogitation". As you may have guessed ;-) (especially if you're reading
this), I succumbed to temptation and pressed send.
<troll/thinking out loud>
Have you ever thought about how land ownership started? (e.g., starting from
the nomadic lifestyle in prehistoric times) And how it's maintained? (Not
really seeking an answer / discussion.) I think about it sometimes, and have
to ask: was it a good thing that the concept of ownership (of land) started?
Add to that the specialization of labor.
Where would we be without them? I really don't know, possibly a much smaller
(world) population, possibly more "idyllic" lifestyle, but less advanced
science, medicine, etc.? I haven't reconciled these things in my own mind.
When the concept of ownership prevents me from doing things that I want to do
(obtain music, medical care, etc. at less than the "prevailing" cost, I
resent how we got to this state. When I think that I might not be alive, or
have, for example, computer technology except for things that may be
partially the result of the concept of ownership and/or specialization of
labor, I tend to consider them a good thing.
But, if I wasn't alive (i.e., had never been born), I don't think I'd resent
anything. ;-) And, whatever conclusion I come to about whether ownership /
specialization of labor in the past has been a good thing or not does not
prove that they are still a good thing / the way forward.
</troll/thinking out loud>
Randy Kramer
I totally agree!
I'm thinking, sometimes, that people are really trying hard to protect
their work with 'intellectual property' labels in fear that someone
else will use their ideas in a much more creative ways. Which has
happened, of course, and history is our witness.
1:07 p.m.
New subject: Commercial VS NonCommercial Creative Commons [WAS: Re: [linux-audio-user] more odd music]
En/na Michal Seta ha escrit:
I'm afraid it's not.
erm... this paragraph was horribly written. sorry. I wanted to see if
there's a way to only make big companies pay royalties. Not other
musicians of course. I now realise that sounds totally innocent but I
don't consider myself a monster... you know?
no. I'm just the worst english writer in the world... apologies...
MarC <marc_contrib(a)ramonvinyes.es>es>:
>I raise this issue because I'm starting a musical project and I would
>like to never release any work that could end like
>http://www.lokitorrent.com/
>
>
I've never before seen this website. Is this a joke?
>when the people shares it, I would like
>to use other musicians works (and I can't afford to pay them for such
>work now) and I would finally like to win fairly some money making
>good music (without this money I will never be able to buy decent
>instruments)
>
>
How can you begin to even think of using other people's work, without
paying royalties, and expect others not to use yours?
>is it an
utopia?
>
>
Yes, but you're joking, righ?
5 Apr
5 Apr
3:17 p.m.
New subject: Commercial VS NonCommercial Creative Commons [WAS: Re: [linux-audio-user] more odd music]
Michal Seta wrote:
I think the question to ask is: did Bach own his music?
What was the attitude towards music ownership in the Baroque era,
anyways? I am not quite sure, although recently I started looking at
these issues, but all I know is that a very common practice in those
days was to copy other composers' scores in order to learn the craft,
quote other composers, use similar compositional techniques/vocabulary
as the masters, quote folk song, plainsong, etc.
It has been proven that many of the compositions that were attributed
to Bach, are not his, in fact. The famous Anna Magdalen Notebook
contains pieces that are now known to be not of his but simply
included in the collection which served as an 'instructional' book for
keyboard playing.
Also, for over 20 years Bach 'composed' weekly music for the church he
was employed by. Not all of his music survived but it is also known
that he has 'recycled' his own music for that purpose.
Did Bach actually pondered the idea of ownership of his own music?
I doubt it, since he make his pupils copy his scores.
I think "ownership" is a bit of a side issue; I don't think it's
unreasonable, though, for a writer to think of the work she wrote as
being in some way "hers", although we may legitimately discuss what
rights that bond of authorship brings with it.(Worth googling for Kant
on copyright, by the way).
That said, what matters is how (and whether) musicians and other
creative producers get paid.
Bach was employed as a musician: he enjoyed the patronage of the Church
and of various feudal rulers. The question we have to face up to is
whether it will be possible to earn a living as a professional musician
when all music is freely shared.
Today's equivalents of the feudal rulers who sponsored Bach are the
giant shoe and soft-drink corporations. I have a nightmare vision of a
world where all professional music is sponsored and controlled by giant
corporations, with the rest produced by amateurs in their time away from
working as wage-slaves for the said giant corporations.
Unfortunately I don't have an answer. I can tell you for free that the
answer is not conventional DRM, nor does it involve suing your best
customers. If anyone is willing to commission me, as a professional
copyright consultant, I will write a suitably expensive report
explaining the above lack-of-answer in considerable detail, using the
proceeds to fund my record-buying habit.
Now, though, back to coding my jukebox software - (I may even get round
to releasing a GPL'd alpha soon...)
--
Edward Barrow
Copyright Consultant
edward(a)copyweb.co.uk
***Important: see http://www.copyweb.co.uk/email.htm for important
information
about the legal status of this email
6 Apr
6 Apr
4:34 a.m.
New subject: Commercial VS NonCommercial Creative Commons [WAS: Re: [linux-audio-user] more odd music]
Noah Roberts wrote:
On Apr 5, 2005 10:53 AM, Edward Barrow
<edward(a)copyweb.co.uk> wrote:
oh dear. Last time I tried it I got a load of good links, but
"copyright" is always a difficult word to search on.
Anyway, the essay concerned is "On the injustice of counterfeiting
books" and it's an argument, not all of which I agree with, in favour of
what is known as the natural theory of copyright, prevalent in Europe
and anathema to US constitutionalists. Here's a key quote:
"The author and the owner of the copy may both say of it with equal
right:
it is my book! but in a different sense. The first takes the book as a
writing or a speech; the second as the mute instrument merely of the
delivering of the speech to him or to the public, i. e. as a copy. This
right of the author's, however, is no right in the thing, namely, the copy
(for the owner may burn it before the author's face), but an innate right
in his own person, namely, to hinder another from reading it to the public
without his consent, which consent can by no means be presumed, because
he has already given it exclusively to another"
this from the full text at
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/kant_counterfeiting.htm
Of course, as a professional author himself, Kant was certainly not a
disinterested observer....
--
Edward Barrow
Copyright Consultant
edward(a)copyweb.co.uk
***Important: see http://www.copyweb.co.uk/email.htm for important
information
about the legal status of this email
Worth googling for Kant
on copyright, by the way).
All that did was turn up a bunch of copyrighted stuff about Kant.
More direct links might be more helpful.
4 Apr
4 Apr
3:25 a.m.
Well I agree what Wolfgang has to say about the Digital public domain ..
and one should he happy(?) when they find out that they are being copied .
every one has copied charlie parker to chuck berry and if copy rights
were in place all the white folks would be paying through their nose to the
black folks. All the the modern music (leaving out some bits of
electronica) have their ideas, structures, progressions etc derived from
black man's music and it is as simple as that :) So let us give our respect
to all those people who showed us the way and go ahead and make music. I
think that is why we are musicians and w sholud make money by playing live.
If your music is getting circulated on the digital domain and your name
remains intact with the song while it goes from one hard disk to another to
cd's to the internet to P2P .. in a way i think it is good for you maybe
someone wil call you up and give you gigs .i think we should exploit these
virtual channels now that we are in 2005.
<>ISh
Copyright : here is your copy .....right(?)
On April 3, 1:04 pm Wolfgang Woehl <tito(a)rumford.de> wrote:
MarC <marc_contrib(a)ramonvinyes.es>es>:
I raise this issue because I'm starting a
musical project and I
would like to never release any work that could end like
http://www.lokitorrent.com/ when the people shares it, I would like
to use other musicians works (and I can't afford to pay them for
such work now) and I would finally like to win fairly some money
making good music (without this money I will never be able to buy
decent instruments)
is it an utopia?
Marc, I'm flabbergasted. This is 2005. There's no way you could
prevent people from copying or sharing things in the digital domain.
DRM is a joke. The industry that promotes it is a joke. The business
model is gone, don't you know that?
How can anyone *own* music? How did Bach do it? How did Capitol
Records do it? The only way to make that claim to some extent real
were technical limitations -- and those are gone for good.
Coming up with something like G-C-E7 is a complex process, sure ;)
Hell, make it Bbmaj9-Gm7-F/C-C-D/C. But do you really intend to say
this is yours? That you invented this, put it into the world, out of
the blue? Isolated from everything you've ever heard or experienced
in your life? Originality someone? What is that?
Share your stuff and you will get back more than you ever dreamed of.
To make money it is, in my experience, fairly promising to put your
family's estate to sensible use or, in the lack of an estate, work.
The clownesque, inspired, spiritual, grotesque, old-fashioned, great
field of making music will probably get you all *but* money.
I'm a bit ashamed to see that all this sounds quite patronizing.
Excuse me, Marc. This a patronizing day and it transfers.
Wolfgang
10:59 a.m.
On Monday 04 April 2005 01:25 am, ish(a)sarai.net wrote:
Well I agree what Wolfgang has to say about the
Digital public domain ..
and one should he happy(?) when they find out that they are being copied .
every one has copied charlie parker to chuck berry and if copy rights
were in place all the white folks would be paying through their nose to the
black folks. All the the modern music (leaving out some bits of
electronica) have their ideas, structures, progressions etc derived from
black man's music and it is as simple as that :)
So let us give our respect
to all those people who showed us the way and go ahead and make music.
I
think that is why we are musicians and w sholud make money by playing live.
If your music is getting circulated on the digital domain and your name
remains intact with the song while it goes from one hard disk to another to
cd's to the internet to P2P .. in a way i think it is good for you maybe
someone wil call you up and give you gigs .i think we should exploit these
virtual channels now that we are in 2005.
Maybe I should have read this before sending my <troll/thinking out loud>
reply. I guess the last paragraph (as I have broken it) reflects the
pragmatic way forward at this time. The people that used to make their
living as (music) producers, distributors, etc. will find (gradually or not)
that they have to seek a new way to make a living. Those that "squeezed out"
enough millions to live on may not have to worry. That they squeezed out
those millions may make me feel jealous / resentful, but that's life.
Randy Kramer
1:07 p.m.
New subject: Commercial VS NonCommercial Creative Commons [WAS: Re: [linux-audio-user] more odd music]
En/na Wolfgang Woehl ha escrit:
MarC <marc_contrib(a)ramonvinyes.es>es>:
Yes, I agree that the business *model* is gone but I continue paying for
music shows and I continue buying CD's at the stores and I like it. I
have more freedom to listen to the music before paying for it and I like
this, but I continue paying for it whenever I can, because I feel I must
pay for well done jobs (that's the way they will continue making music
for me, in my opinion).
Maybe a "business model" based only in massive CD sales based on stupid
marketing is totally gone but "sincerely paying for good live/studio
music" is still valid in my opinion.
I raise this issue because I'm starting a
musical project and I would
like to never release any work that could end like
http://www.lokitorrent.com/ when the people shares it, I would like
to use other musicians works (and I can't afford to pay them for such
work now) and I would finally like to win fairly some money making
good music (without this money I will never be able to buy decent
instruments)
is it an utopia?
Marc, I'm flabbergasted. This is 2005. There's no way you could prevent
people from copying or sharing things in the digital domain. DRM is a
joke. The industry that promotes it is a joke. The business model is
gone, don't you know that?
How can anyone *own* music? How did Bach do it? How did
Capitol Records
do it? The only way to make that claim to some extent real were
technical limitations -- and those are gone for good.
Coming up with something like G-C-E7 is a complex process, sure ;) Hell,
make it Bbmaj9-Gm7-F/C-C-D/C. But do you really intend to say this is
yours? That you invented this, put it into the world, out of the blue?
Isolated from everything you've ever heard or experienced in your life?
Originality someone? What is that?
First, please notice that I'm talking about
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en
in the worst case. That is not "owning" strictly the song but do not
allowing others to make business with your work without getting anything
back from them (I hope this wouldn't be true for people like you and me,
but it could be true for some big aggressive companies. You already know
them...)
On the other hand, protecting a stupid repetitive poppy/blues melody
would be silly (that would be my case). But I don't know if real classic
compositors would think the same with their works (they spend some time
making them... don't you think it is hard sometimes?).
What I wanted to protect from agressive companies, in my case, was the
result of working together during several years with a keyboard player,
a bass, a singer and a drummer to produce some reasonable mix of well
played music. Do you think a score is enough for you to play Keane's
songs or Massive Attack's songs for example? (I give an example of some
popular music but which requires some hard hidden work in my opinion).
Share your stuff and you will get back more than you
ever dreamed of. To
make money it is, in my experience, fairly promising to put your
family's estate to sensible use or, in the lack of an estate, work. The
clownesque, inspired, spiritual, grotesque, old-fashioned, great field
of making music will probably get you all *but* money.
Yes of course I'm going to share it at least under
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en
I would like to sum up all this saying that even that I don't rely on
music for earning my living, I expect from people to reward me when I
produce something good in all fields and I when somebody who is rolling
in money (and in the future will ask me money for his/her work) refuses
to give me back something, I get angry.
(I understand money as a simple abstract exchange of work, not talking
about marketing rip offs...)
for software GPL is good for me because a company which uses it, will
have to release its code under the GPL. However with music, they could
use it for a malboro's advert without any problem and without giving
anything back to the comunity. I don't agree with this.
I'm a bit ashamed to see that all this sounds quite
patronizing. Excuse
me, Marc. This a patronizing day and it transfers.
Wolfgang
don't worry, I don't feel patronized... lol XD
It's always good to hear about other opinions in order to "evaluate" my
convictions...
7172
days inactive
7176
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
12 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Edward Barrow -
ish＠sarai.net -
Jorge Salgueiro -
Lars Luthman -
MarC -
Michal Seta -
Noah Roberts -
Randy Kramer -
Wolfgang Woehl