R Parker wrote:
GPL anything can be freely remixed. What's your
point?
The GPL defines a set of rights. What happens when I
violate those rights? You claim it's OK to violate the
rights of the copyright owner for music. What is the
difference? Why is it OK to violate a musicians rights
but not OK to violate a software developers rights?
I believe its' a personal choice that a digital musician makes to
incorporate legally or illegally any influence they feel intrinsic to
the nature of their artwork.
If we as artists are going to be held back by the rules that the
industry has created to monetize art then we might as well go and jump
off a tall building now.
Also, I prefer the GPL because it means that anyone small who copies
work I release under it doesn't have to worry about me chasing them down
with a lawyer and is a relatively safe bet that companies that are
paranoid about IP will not incorporate it directly into their code and
claim it as their own.
Apart from that it is up to the owner of artwork that is being "stolen"
to chase it up. There exist many organizations that will do it on their
behalf. If it gets to that point then you will probably be able to make
money off the next track you release.
If I was the owner of a piece of work that was ripped off and also made
a lot of money I would be calling my lawyers to get my fair share. In
that case I would be fairly happy that someone else had made more money
for me without much further effort on my behalf and I'm sure my lawyer
would be happy too.
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://lau.linuxaudio.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
"Anything your mind can see you can manifest physically, then it will
become reality" - Macka B
