Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

[Ram Samudrala <ram AT zen.compbio.washington.edu>]

tom poe wrote:

>On Monday 01 April 2002 02:13, Ram Samudrala wrote:
>- - -snip - - -
>> Okay, I definitely have some views on this regard. I do have a
>> personal aversion to licenses in general (in fact, the whole notion of
>> public domain and licenses I think are orthogonal to each other), but
>> I've also been involved in the creation of a few of them.

>I think there are many who would agree.  So, let's pose the question,
>what are the options?  If not a license, then what?  Is there some
>other vehicle that will ensure the placement of a musical work in the
>Public Domain, and have it available to all for all time?

This is exactly why the studios idea is a good one--if musicians are
covered for their recording costs, then there's more incentive for
them to not claim copyrights on works. I'd use the term "encourage"
rather than "ensure".  Ultimately, we don't want to hold guns to
people's heads (which is after all the problem with the copyright).
The benefit of a rich public domain should be self-evident, like with
online music trading and Linux (neither of these are in the public
domain but for most practical purposes, they are treated as such).


>> >2] Once you have reviewed the information in the binder, and, if you
>> >think it would be appropriate, I would like your assistance in
>> >connecting with the Chairperson of the Music Dept at the university.
>>
>> Why not? I can give it a shot and maybe they'd listen to another
>> faculty member.  I think it may be worth contacting people at places
>> like the Experience Music Project, which do have some interesting
>> community-oriented endeavours (for example, a radio station without
>> commercials supported by donations). Though given how the creators
>> made money, we might not have a receptive audience.

>Nope. Not interested.  Studio For Recording, Inc., creators will not
>make money, but any project that intends to line the pockets of the
>University is rejected outright.

I'm not sure where you read that the U will make money from this.  The
Experience Music Project is not related to the UW. And no matter what
happens, no one's pockets will be lined with money---I was just making
a statement that EMP might not be receptive to the idea of "let's make
a rich public domain" (since it is the brainchild of Paul Allen who
made a lot of money from Microsoft).

>The university must have the opportunity to champion a
>community-based recording studio, but will not generate revenues from
>it.  The only option available to them is the offer to take the lead
>role, thus the "goodwill" generated by such a position, and integrate
>their projects as appropriate for such an entity.  If they decide to
>create a recording studio based on the model, but then modify it to
>generate funds for the university instead of the recording studio, a
>second studio will be initiated elsewhere in the community, for those
>not served by the first.  So, bottom line, not a problem.  When you
>do contact the Chairman of the Department, it will simply be to
>introduce the idea, and inquire as to whether something like this is
>of interest.  If not, eventually there will be an individual, or
>group in the Seattle area that will want to do it.

That's what I mean. The EMP is a good place to try. The radio station,
KEXP, is surprisingly good and so far, in terms of being "pure".

--Ram