Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mark Ivey <zovirl1_list AT sbcglobal.net>]

On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 00:06 +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
> > This is why I wanted to limit the initial discussion to digital  
> > music. If we
> > can't get anywhere with such a limited area, we have no hope with  
> > the rest.
> > If we get somewhere useful, the process may lead to insights when  
> > we come to
> > consider other areas.
> >
> > Does this idea make sense to anyone?
> 
> Require the original sequencer file and samples. See NIN's Garageband  
> release of one of their songs for a good example. Scans of the napkin  
> the lyrics were written on wouldn't hurt.
> 
> The file should be an open format wherever possible.
> 
> I know requiring editable sources, or source material, for cultural  
> works may seem silly, but the potential it could release would be far  
> greater than just allowing sampling.

I agree that the potential is great, simply because it opens up so many
more options for how a work can be reused.  I'm also glad Drew spoke up,
as I was able to find the beginning of this thread.

The GPL says "the source code for a work means the preferred form of the
work for making modifications to it."  This seems like a reasonable
starting point and would certainly retain the most flexibility for
anyone wanting to make modifications.

Although I think it is cool (really cool) that NIN released their track
for Garageband, it wouldn't count as "source" under the GPL definition.
Trent said he converted the files from Pro Tools and reduced their sizes
(the garageband download is 20 tracks in 70 Mb from what I'm reading),
so it is no longer the format or quality which was used to create the
real track.  Trent also mentioned there were some copyright issues,
although it wasn't clear what they were.

This example actually suggests several fairly large problems with a GPL-
style definition:

1) The original source material for music tracks is going to be huge.  I
think wav files are about 70 Mb for 7 minutes.  Even with only 4 tracks
(guitar, bass, drum, vocal) that's 280 Mb

2) The tools being used can be very expensive.  The software itself can
be pricey:
   Pro Tools: $350
   Fruityloops: $150
   Reason: $500
And that's not counting any needed hardware.  I have a friend who makes
dance music and he has thousands of dollars of gear.  Even if he gave me
his source material and all the software, it wouldn't be worth much
unless I had the same gear he has.

3) If the source material isn't owned by the creator, it isn't clear if
they are even allowed to distribute it.  For example, if the original
samples in a song are from a stock sound library, I don't think the
composer would be allowed to distribute them.  The GPL handles this by
saying all the included sources must also be licensed under the GPL, but
I don't know if that makes sense for music.

It seems like the only way around #1 and #2 is to release sources in a
format far removed from what the composer actually used, which certainly
lessens their usefulness.

-Mark Ivey-