Re: [linux-audio-user] Announcing Gnomoradio

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Announcing Gnomoradio
From: iriXx (m_AT_irixx.org)
Date: Wed Oct 29 2003 - 23:40:03 EET


we used this for the Madonna remix project CD but were forced to dual
license with regular copyright so we could get around the MCPS (our
equivalent of ASCAP). thats a sting in the tail to watch out for, but
the EFF / Creative Commons and i are going to do some lobbying which
should hopefuly make things easier at least in the UK.

m~

John Bleichert wrote:

> Greetings (took me a while to catch up). What does everybody think of the
> Open Audio License?
>
> http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.php
>
> It won't really have any teeth until it survives litigation once, but...
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>
>>Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:43:59 +0100
>>Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Announcing Gnomoradio
>>
>>Hallo,
>>Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The non-commercial CC
>>>>license makes it a gift with a catch, or actually it makes it not a
>>>>gift at all in some sense.
>>>
>>>I disagree. We don't usually offer a gift to someone and expect the
>>>recipient to sell it. That's not a catch, that's just an expectation
>>>of civilised behaviour.
>>
>>Maybe, but we also wouldn't disallow anyone to sell a gift. There are
>>many reasons why someone would sell a gift, for example because some
>>money is needed and everything else's already sold.
>>
>>
>>>>"non-commercial use or
>>>>distribution only" means non-free
>>>
>>>I'm not sure the 'freedom' to make a living from someone else's work
>>>without contributing back is something that licences should
>>>encourage.
>>
>>True, and this is the catch of the "share alike" in creative commons
>>or open sourc/free software licenses: You can sell, but you must not
>>take away rights when selling.
>>
>>
>>>I'm not talking about remixers or samplers here - people
>>>who take the work and add something to it. I'm talking about the
>>>people who would sell the work as it is without adding any value, and
>>>keep the money for themselves.
>>
>>Just some more food for thought:
>>
>>CC is discussing a sampling license currently, see
>>http://creativecommons.org/projects/cc-sampling. This is of course an
>>interesting concept, but I keep asking myself, what other licenses the
>>lawyers will come up with, when future, yet unknown "common" uses will
>>pop up. Today it's sampling, that gets a special treatment, yesterday
>>it was filesharing, tomorrow it might be "public place sound
>>designing" or whatever. All these use cases might require special
>>exceptions to allow them without charge for some people. Compare that
>>to the simplicity of a real free license. You wouldn't need a
>>"sampling license" if you would be allowed to "sample" the whole tune
>>for whatever purpose in the first place.
>>
>>But I'm getting utopian now, I know. It's an old grassroot anarchist
>>heritage coming up again...
>>
>>ciao
>>--
>> Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
>>
>
>
> // John Bleichert
> // syborg_AT_earthlink.net
>
>

-- 

|\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." -- Bruce Graham

Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers!

Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/

.::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Oct 29 2003 - 23:46:31 EET