Ken Restivo wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:36:43AM +0800, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:08:53AM -0700, Bob van der Poel wrote:
If I can rant for a moment, I get quite annoyed by the whole
*music business* which seems to screw artists, reward mediocrity,
and promote business models which evolved in a very different
world. I'm just glad (very glad) that I've been able to enjoy
music as a passion over my life and never needed it as income.
For now I'll just leave my songs up on my site. If I get a C&D
I'll take them down. No big deal to me either way. And, if I am
technically breaking a copyright, I'll sleep well knowing that
I'm not hurting anyone's income :)
Another way to combat the tide of irrational copyright attitudes is
to create your own original content/songs/whatever and then release
them under a license that frees people of the restrictions. If each
one of us does this it will slowly change things. The Creative
Commons licenses seem to be popping up in more and more places
every day, for example.
Indeed. All my stuff is Creative Commons licensed, and I am
definitely not alone. There is a huge wealth of material out there
with CC licenses, everything from music to mixes (ccmixter.org) to
sound effects and field recordings (freesound archive) to photographs
(Flickr.com has a Creative Commons section), etc.
Professor Lessig of Creative Commons was inspired by the approach
that Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen took with the GPL, and it's
very smart. You can't change a horribly broken and deeply-entrenched
system, but you *can* go off and create your own better alternative
to it.
I had a _quick_ look at Creative Commons a few weeks ago. I guess all
those choices are a _good_ thing ... but I got quite confused :) Which
CC license are you using?
--
Bob van der Poel ** Wynndel, British Columbia, CANADA **
EMAIL: bob@xxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW: http://www.mellowood.ca
