On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:54 am, R Parker wrote: > ... > 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. 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. > 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
