Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Requiring Source [Was Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Requiring Source [Was Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
  • Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 00:11:38 +0100

On 29 May 2005, at 12:33, drew Roberts wrote:

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

280MB is nothing these days. If a song's source would fill a DVD or three, that's a small price to pay for a student or practitioner of music, and as Drew says:

BitTorrent may help in some way as well.

Bandwidth and storage media are the major chargeable commodities of a data/culture "gift economy", so passing big files over p2p or handing DVDs around is no bad thing. p2p bandwidth will be a major revenue driver *if* we can move enough content. Providing source is a good way of doing this.

I also wonder if it may be possible to have ogg and wav versions of the
multitrack project files. Get the ogg version for experiments, then get the
wav version if you think you made something worth while and want to release.

This is where understanding what transparent, editable and source material resources for a work might be is useful.

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.


I am not into the windows/mac side of things, but the Free Software world is
getting some nice tools together:[...]

Free just seems to make sense in so many areas.

Yes, free formats complement free culture. A free song in a proprietary format is not truly free, whether it is DRM encumbered or not. But that said, professionals may use particular tools that are not replaceable by free equivalents yet, and I personally believe that providing professional-quality editable work is important. So freedom of cultural work *for cultural professionals* may be an ongoing project.

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.


This is a valid issue, but it can prevent the release of the musiciaans work
under some of the existing CC licenses as well from what I gather.

For me, if something isn't CC licensed you don't touch it. Fair use/ fair dealing is too vague and is shrinking. YMMV, but it will take a lot of money to defend unclear rights. CC is better IMHO.

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.

Working towards full-strength open formats is therefore vitally important for free music. Whether it is more important to make editable music sources:
a) available but possibly low quality
or:
b) high quality but possibly only accessible to professionals with expensive facilities
is an issue in the meantime. Possibly both can be done until then. Trent could provide the original sources on a p2p network and an easily editable lo-res version from his site, for example.

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page