> Now, some music giant, say Sony Music digs my work (yeah, right...) > and they go 'Oh, we can distribute this guy's work and make > millions off him without paying him a cent!' But they have to > include my license agreement with their product, my artwork (on > which I have my contact info) etc. Just imagine that this record company doesn't understand or care about your licence, and neglects to include this information. Your only recourse would be to sue, and that might not be practical or affordable. Or worse, they do understand your licence, but it gives them the right to redistribute your music commercially without paying you. They would then have the upper hand in any negotiation, since they aren't going to invest in promoting your music without first having got you to sign something. > How many people will actually > buy it if they see that they can download it for free That's exactly the position that labels are in now with conventional CDs, and they are still selling. > I don't see how anyone could make money on this... You're probably right - I think most labels would be very reluctant to sign any 'open licenced' artist at the moment. > And why would I be unable to charge money for _my_ work, even if it > was distributed by a 3rd party is beyond me. If they distribute > it, they have to do it on the terms of my license so they cannot > claim exclusive distribution rights. They don't need exclusive distribution, they just have to be able to do it better and cheaper than you! > If, on the other hand, Sony Music hands my CD to some hot shot > producer and they use it, sample it, modify it and sell a billion, > they still have to credit me and make all derivatives under the > same license. Again, I think it would be more likely that they would negotiate a royalty, just as they do for conventional samples. But if you've already declared that your work can be sampled gratuit, then you're not likely to get a cut. Cheers Daniel
