On Monday 18 January 2010 16:10:22 you wrote: > drew Roberts wrote: > > On Monday 18 January 2010 05:26:46 rosea grammostola wrote: > >> frank pirrone wrote: > >>> <snip> > >>> We hoped others might build upon our music and anticipated the delight > >>> at hearing a remix, or someone substituting their soaring vocals or > >>> guitar for my humble efforts. It never happened, but I can't think of > >>> a greater "reward" for what we did should it ever. > >>> > >>> So, think of it as a kit that you can Freely give to anyone who is > >>> interested, and who can in turn Freely pass it on, inside which are ALL > >>> the parts needed to first do everything we did but more importantly to > >>> start at that point and do something we never imagined. > >> > >> There is at least one difference. Scientists get payed for their > >> job/work by the university. Who's gonna pay the musician who is making a > >> cd (and is not an live musician)? > > > > This will require some experiments... > > > > Some thoughts: > > > > 1. the people who want your fancy, numbered, limited edition boxed sets? > > 2, the people who want to use it in their blockbuster film which they do > > not want to license BY-SA? > > > > See: http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Income > > > > for even more thoughts. Basically, I just write lyrics when it comes to > > music. So who is going to pay me? > > Greetings Rosea and Drew, > > I was making a broader philosophical, and political, point about how the > advance of human knowledge and technology occurred via the process of > building upon prior work, for most of history - freely shared. > Absolutely nothing novel or profound here. It's the essence of the > concept of Free Software, and the essence of what was lost when > knowledge became proprietary. Surely, although there were / are other ways to keep knowledge out of the hands of some even without copyrights and patents. > > It's what Stallman wrote about, and the reason for the GPL, or > copyleft. Raymond's bazaar is largely where Open Source resides. True, buy RMS makes a distinction wrt functional works. > > The point here is more circumscribed and sharply focused. First, we did > not even offer to sell our music - we simply gave it away. I'm not sure > if we ever even had a donation link up. I don't think we did anything for income. > I don't believe so. However, > had we offered our work for sale, in addition to what Drew cites above, > the answer to your question is...our customers. Anyone wanting to buy > our finished CD could/would have paid for it. Especially if we posted > no freely downloadable mixed and mastered finished tracks. Of course, that play could turn off our fans as much as get them to buy. I would be interested in experimenting with the limited edition set sale if we ever get a popular album / single recorded Frank. Perhaps you and I can work on that some after Feb this year if you have some time. > > Think about that in the context of our discussion here: How cool would > that CC by SA/Commercial hybrid model be? We'd still post our > individual tracks, but anyone wanting our "version" of our work could > buy it. I would suggest we offer it for download at a set your own price (including $0) > ALL our giant's shoulders would be sitting there inviting > anyone interested to come and stand on them. Anyone could download them > and mix and master them as they desire. They could, as I suggested in > my original posting, drop my vocal and guitar parts, record their own, > and polish off a finished derivative work! Sampling would take on a new > meaning in that model. They could then offer theirs for download at a set your own price (with whetever lower limit they like) We could also offer other licenses at a cost to those refusing to do BY-SA. (I think once you publish a song, you can't prevent some of this anyway so we may as well play that game if the opportunity arises. > > >> Playing the advocate of the devil here... > > > > Well.... who is going to pay you for your stuff when so many are doing > > the Free thing? Back at ya.... ~;-) > > > >> \r > > Well, I rarely advocate the devil, but fully support your right to do so! > > Seriously, Rosea, these are indeed interesting, and valid questions, but > I believe most folk's reflexive assumptions and answers are subject to > scrutiny. We've ALL had our brains washed...and creme rinsed, I > suppose. Go back and reread Bill Gates' open letter to the Homebrew > Computer Club to see just how entrenched his assumptions were at such an > early stage, and then trace the subsequent course of proprietary > software, copyright, patents, P2P, lawsuits, SPA/RIAA/MPAA, etc. to > gain some appreciation for exactly how big a red pill you'd have to > swallow to shuck the influences under which we've labored to even begin > to see the alternatives. Something that is really telling to me is the lengths the big boys feel they need to go to to make the old ways work with the new tech available these days. See: Is Copyright Dangerous To Democracy? http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-copyright-dangerous-to-democracy.html > > > all the best, > > > > drew > > Frank drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
