I agree with you, Mark. I'd love to see more detail about what exactly "commercial uses" are. I am in a taiko group and am hoping to release my (eventually) recorded songs under a CC license. I certainly don't want to use a license that would stop somebody from DJing my music, but I don't know how I feel about some company using it in their TV advertising or publishing it themselves and selling the CD. Are those all of the same "commercial" nature? I'm a bit shady on the term, "performance" as well. Is there a difference between playing a recording of a piece, and re-performing the piece live with instruments (perhaps making a score of the track and reading that while playing on one's own instrument)? Thank you all for the discussion, this is an exciting topic. Kris Bergstrom On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:17:39PM +1000, Mark Constable wrote: > 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 -- H5n9d0+5
