1 Jul
2010
1 Jul
'10
6:25 p.m.
On 01/07/2010, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
Who has the right to control its expression? Nobody?
Yep, that sounds about right to me.
Now, if anyone wants to make money off it, I think Steve has a right
to expect to be given some of that money. (Indeed, one could argue
that if Steve's music helps someone pass the time as they tend their
crops, they have a moral duty to feed him should he turn up on their
doorstep.) But by and large we all agree that freedom of expression is
a basic human right - and freedom and control are necessarily
antonyms. So no, nobody has the right to control the expression of
Steve's composition.
1 Jul
1 Jul
11:58 p.m.
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 05:25:19PM +0100, Gwenhwyfaer wrote:
Now, if anyone wants to make money off it, I think
Steve has a right
to expect to be given some of that money. (Indeed, one could argue
that if Steve's music helps someone pass the time as they tend their
crops, they have a moral duty to feed him should he turn up on their
doorstep.)
Only Steve ? Or also the musicians who performed for the recording
you listened to while tending your imperfect garden, the sound engineer
who recorded it (and has to pay for his equipment), whoever invested in
whatever infrastructure used to enable you to get a copy of the recording,
etc. etc. ?
But by and large we all agree that freedom of
expression is
a basic human right
I fail to see the relation between making a copy of some artist's
work for your own use, and 'freedom of expression'.
Caio,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
2 Jul
2 Jul
12:48 a.m.
On Thursday 01 July 2010 17:58:17 fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
Copyright tends to cover the making of derivatives (freedom of expression /
speech could enter here) and distribution as well as the making of copies.
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 05:25:19PM +0100, Gwenhwyfaer
wrote:
Steve's english teachers, maths teachers, music teachers, mother and father?
Now, if anyone wants to make money off it, I
think Steve has a right
to expect to be given some of that money. (Indeed, one could argue
that if Steve's music helps someone pass the time as they tend their
crops, they have a moral duty to feed him should he turn up on their
doorstep.)
Only Steve ? Or also the musicians who performed for the recording
you listened to while tending your imperfect garden, the sound engineer
who recorded it (and has to pay for his equipment), whoever invested in
whatever infrastructure used to enable you to get a copy of the recording,
etc. etc. ? But by and large we all agree that freedom of
expression is
a basic human right
I fail to see the relation between making a copy of some artist's
work for your own use, and 'freedom of expression'.
Caio,
all the best,
drew
10:21 a.m.
Am 02.07.2010 00:48, schrieb drew Roberts:
Copyright tends to cover the making of derivatives (freedom of expression /
speech could enter here) and distribution as well as the making of copies.
On Thursday 01 July 2010 17:58:17 fons(a)kokkinizita.net
wrote:
These people may have helped to develop the needed craft and knowledge
in Steve Reich. And so his way to write music is probably a product of
education, a value developed by many. But all this people did not write
the music for mallets. They did not sit for hundreds of houres fighting
with timings, timbre, harmonics etc etc.Steve Reich did this, he did
this alone and it does not seem odd to me, that he shall have some
control about what is happening with his actual work. Work - as in:
"doing one thing for some time and having no time to do something else
in the same time".
And b.t.w.: I do not think, that the value of a work lies in the
hardship, the worker has to go through. If a punk-band writes a
3-min-song in 1-2 h filled up with beer and without feeling like working
at all it is still the genuine work of individuals that should be respected.
Of course Mr. Reich has no patent on writing music his way. Everybody is
free to study the music and to develop new pieces of minimal music in
the style of Steve Reich.
Ideas shall be free and in music they are actually. Actual work shall be
attributed and the person, who did the work shall get a
compensation/reward for the work. If an artist/worker decides, to
licence his/her work CC BY, then it is his/her decision, I would choose
CC BY SA and in most cases CC BY SA NC.
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 05:25:19PM +0100,
Gwenhwyfaer wrote:
Steve's english teachers, maths teachers, music teachers, mother and father? Now, if anyone wants to make money off it, I
think Steve has a right
to expect to be given some of that money. (Indeed, one could argue
that if Steve's music helps someone pass the time as they tend their
crops, they have a moral duty to feed him should he turn up on their
doorstep.)
Only Steve ? Or also the musicians who performed for the recording
you listened to while tending your imperfect garden, the sound engineer
who recorded it (and has to pay for his equipment), whoever invested in
whatever infrastructure used to enable you to get a copy of the recording,
etc. etc. ? But by and large we all agree that freedom of
expression is
a basic human right
I fail to see the relation between making a copy of some artist's
work for your own use, and 'freedom of expression'.
Caio,
all the best,
drew
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
1:49 p.m.
On Friday 02 July 2010 04:21:18 Hartmut Noack wrote:
Ideas shall be free and in music they are actually.
Actual work shall be
attributed and the person, who did the work shall get a
compensation/reward for the work.
This is where it breaks down. You don't get paid for your work unless someone
agrees to pay you.
Some people get hired to be a fisherman. Some people pay for the opportunity
to go out and fish. Some people just go out and fish. They may each put in
the same number of hours in a day.
"doing one thing for some time and having no time
to do something else
in the same time".
But they don't each get paid. Some actually pay. Some get paid. With some, no
money changes hands.
But, if you don't get hired to make music and ensure your pay before you make
the music. You can make it and hold on to it yourself until you get paid. If
it is difficult to do that, that is life in a free world. Asking for chains
to be put upon everyone else to make this easier for a musician is asking too
much. Especially when the chains already in place are so burdensome and yet
still not good enough.
all the best,
drew
3 Jul
3 Jul
1:42 a.m.
Am 02.07.2010 13:49, schrieb drew Roberts:
In this I agree.
The chains in use today are anachronistic and more a burden than
something helpful. But still creators shall have the right to choose how
their work is spreading. Even if it is the old bad way, they choose and
that choice should be respected.
To break the rules will not change them. It will only provide assertions
for more enforcement, more control, more trouble and less progress for
everyone.
Who wants to break the old system of ASCAP, GEMA and the like should
promote better alternatives. And such alternatives will only be
powerfull enough to break the old ways if they can persuade creators to
use them. Radiohead made much more money with the nearly free downloads
of In Rainbows(1) than they ever made with an album released the old way.
Thatś some persuation I'd say ;-)
But of course they get all the download-donations because they where a
big industry-act already. So a new and better system should also provide
ways to make artists that release freely heared worldwide. Big concerts,
videoclips, airplay etc etc etc.
And payment to allow them to work fulltime, with adeaquate equipment....
best regs
HZN
1: man, was I disappoited by In Rainbows, I did not download but bought
it Vinyl, listened trice or so and then put it on my "stuff to sell at
ebay"-shelf....
On Friday 02 July 2010 04:21:18 Hartmut Noack wrote:
OK, yes: "reward" is the word if money changes hands. Maybe I should be
more specific. last year I worked for about 60h to record a song that is
7min long. I choosed to release it CC BY SA because seeing the song
spreading and some 1000 people listening to it seemes quite some reward
to me. I can do so because:
1.) I made some money writing about working with the software we made
the song with.
2.) The other guitar-player in the song agreed to release the tune that way.
3.) I cut the time I make music to have time to do other things some
people agree to pay me for ;-)
Ideas shall be free and in music they are
actually. Actual work shall be
attributed and the person, who did the work shall get a
compensation/reward for the work.
This is where it breaks down. You don't get paid for your work unless someone
agrees to pay you.
Some people get hired to be a fisherman. Some people pay for the opportunity
to go out and fish. Some people just go out and fish. They may each put in
the same number of hours in a day.
This is a very very complicated matter. Only 3 hints on how I think
about fishing:
- Supertrawlers/Industrial fishing
- Marine Life census: http://www.coml.org/
- Piracy (the kind with speedboats and machine-guns that is...)
If we really take it only as a metaphor it is still linked to social
issues. Some can afford to go fishing just for fun, even if they have to
pay for, others make little money fishing all day and do not care that
much about elegance, the joy of hunting and much less about how many
fish will survive to be available for coming generations. A single
blue-finned tuna can be sold for more then 100.000 USD so there is
fishing and there is fishing.
In all cases one needs the ressources to do it: time and money that is.
"doing one thing for some time and having no
time to do something else
in the same time".
But they don't each get paid. Some actually pay. Some get paid. With some, no
money changes hands.
But, if you don't get hired to make music and ensure your pay before you make
the music. You can make it and hold on to it yourself until you get paid. If
it is difficult to do that, that is life in a free world. Asking for chains
to be put upon everyone else to make this easier for a musician is asking too
much. Especially when the chains already in place are so burdensome and yet
still not good enough.
all the best,
drew
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
4:02 a.m.
On Friday 02 July 2010 19:42:03 Hartmut Noack wrote:
Sure. I could have chosen some other activity that is practiced for various
purposes. Fishing is just a fairly big part of our lives here in the Bahamas.
Our soil is very poor.
Am 02.07.2010 13:49, schrieb drew Roberts:
Sure. I am involved in some recording efforts right now that should end up
being released BY-SA. There is a temporal black hole hanging out nearby it
seems. Part of this long time is likely due to everyone's (or just about
everyone's) lack of experience in a recording studio. So we can't really
properly charge all of this time to the cost of making the recordings as some
should properly be charged to our educations.
On Friday 02 July 2010 04:21:18 Hartmut Noack
wrote:
OK, yes: "reward" is the word if money changes hands. Maybe I should be
more specific. last year I worked for about 60h to record a song that is
7min long. I choosed to release it CC BY SA because seeing the song
spreading and some 1000 people listening to it seemes quite some reward
to me. I can do so because:
1.) I made some money writing about working with the software we made
the song with.
2.) The other guitar-player in the song agreed to release the tune that
way.
3.) I cut the time I make music to have time to do other things some
people agree to pay me for ;-) Ideas shall be free and in music they are
actually. Actual work shall be
attributed and the person, who did the work shall get a
compensation/reward for the work.
This is where it breaks down. You don't get paid for your work unless
someone agrees to pay you. Some people get hired to be a fisherman. Some
people pay for the
opportunity to go out and fish. Some people just go out and fish. They
may each put in the same number of hours in a day.
This is a very very complicated matter. Only 3 hints on how I think
about fishing:
- Supertrawlers/Industrial fishing
- Marine Life census: http://www.coml.org/
- Piracy (the kind with speedboats and machine-guns that is...)
If we really take it only as a metaphor it is still linked to social
issues. Some can afford to go fishing just for fun, even if they have to
pay for, others make little money fishing all day and do not care that
much about elegance, the joy of hunting and much less about how many
fish will survive to be available for coming generations. A single
blue-finned tuna can be sold for more then 100.000 USD so there is
fishing and there is fishing.
In all cases one needs the ressources to do it: time and money that is.
In this I agree.
The chains in use today are anachronistic and more a burden than
something helpful. But still creators shall have the right to choose how
their work is spreading.
I disagree that they should have this right. That they do legally now is one
thing. That this is natural and not artificial is another. I also disagree
that comedians should have the right to choose how and where their jokes are
repeated. I do not agree that we should have water cooler police.
"doing one thing for some time and having no time to do something else
in the same time".
But they don't each get paid. Some actually pay. Some get paid. With
some, no money changes hands.
But, if you don't get hired to make music and ensure your pay before you
make the music. You can make it and hold on to it yourself until you get
paid. If it is difficult to do that, that is life in a free world. Asking
for chains to be put upon everyone else to make this easier for a
musician is asking too much. Especially when the chains already in place
are so burdensome and yet still not good enough. Even if it is the old bad way, they choose and
that choice should be respected.
Personally I choose not to respect the decision of people who choose to exert
this control over others except to keep their works Free via a copyleft play.
That is not to say that I break the law or encourage others to do so. So
while obeying the law I have no respect for the decision made and my respect
for the people involved is lessened by their decision.
To break the rules will not change them. It will only provide assertions
for more enforcement, more control, more trouble and less progress for
everyone.
Well, while I choose to obey the rules and make a Free and copyleft play to
work towards a counterbalance, I think history has example that tend to argue
against your thought being universally true.
Who wants to break the old system of ASCAP, GEMA and the like should
promote better alternatives.
+1 Agree.
And such alternatives will only be
powerfull enough to break the old ways if they can persuade creators to
use them.
+1 Agree. I actually got into doing BY-SA stuff as thanks for all the GPL
stuff I enjoy and the fact that I don't enjoy programming as much as I once
did and don't do what I consider my fair share of GPL stuff.
Radiohead made much more money with the nearly free
downloads
of In Rainbows(1) than they ever made with an album released the old way.
Thatś some persuation I'd say ;-)
Yes, and it could likely have done just as well as a BY-SA play without the
need for an NC play.
But of course they get all the download-donations because they where a
big industry-act already.
W do have a lot of experimenting and documenting to do for each other.
So a new and better system should also provide
ways to make artists that release freely heared worldwide.
Care to join in and help with the FreeMusicPush?
http://freemusicpush.blogspot.com/
Big concerts,
videoclips, airplay etc etc etc.
And payment to allow them to work fulltime, with adeaquate equipment....
One thing I would like to see for those that want it. It should be obvious
that some don't is for people with the requisite skills to be able to earn a
decent living making Free Music for the rest of us. I really don't care if a
system we discover together that allows this allows any in that new system to
achieve huge wealth. If it does, fine, but if it doesn't, I would not
consider that to be a defect.
best regs
HZN
1: man, was I disappoited by In Rainbows, I did not download but bought
it Vinyl, listened trice or so and then put it on my "stuff to sell at
ebay"-shelf....
all the best,
drew
2 Jul
2 Jul
3:01 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:58 PM, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
I fail to see the relation between making a copy of
some artist's
work for your own use, and 'freedom of expression'.
Making a copy of something and changing it is a primary mode of
artistic expression.
Consider, for example, the following from the "Fine arts":
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol#1960s
Or "sampling" in old-school hip hop. Or DJing and turntablism.
-- Niels
http://nielsmayer.com
7:02 a.m.
On 01/07/2010, fons(a)kokkinizita.net <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
Yet you introduce the concept here, so you must see some connection
between the two.
Perhaps you'd like to have the rest of the argument you're so
desperate for on your own? God knows, your rudeness has put me right
off discussing anything with you.
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 05:25:19PM +0100, Gwenhwyfaer
wrote:
Yep.
Now, if anyone wants to make money off it, I
think Steve has a right
to expect to be given some of that money.
Only Steve ? Or also the musicians who performed for the recording
you listened to while tending your imperfect garden,
They got session rates. And you don't know a damned thing about my
gardening skills.
But by and
large we all agree that freedom of expression is
a basic human right
I fail to see the relation between making a copy of some artist's
work for your own use, and 'freedom of expression'.
11:25 a.m.
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 06:02:21AM +0100, Gwenhwyfaer wrote:
On 01/07/2010, fons(a)kokkinizita.net
<fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
The 'imperfect garden' is not a comment on your gardening
skills. It's a metaphor used in discussions about Humanism
and related issues ever since 16th century French filosopher
Montaigne first used it.
Neither nature, nor the gardener have full control over a garden,
from both points of view it will always be 'imperfect'.
See for example <http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7253.html>
or <http://www.bibliomonde.com/livre/jardin-imparfait-4035.html>
for the original. Which is hanging around on my desk and would
be a good read for anyone wanting to contribute to the discussion
in this thread.
Or also the musicians who performed for the
recording
you listened to while tending your imperfect garden,
They got session rates. And you don't know a damned thing about my
gardening skills. >> But by and large we all agree that freedom of
expression is
>> a basic human right
>
> I fail to see the relation between making a copy of some artist's
> work for your own use, and 'freedom of expression'.
Yet you introduce the concept here, so you must see
some connection
between the two.
I certainly did not introduce the concept of making free copies,
it is what all of this thread has been about. You introduced
'freedom of expression' in this context, so you'd have to explain.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
5291
days inactive
5293
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
drew Roberts -
fons＠kokkinizita.net -
Gwenhwyfaer -
Hartmut Noack -
Niels Mayer