Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

community_studios - [Community_studios] Re: Checking out rumors

community_studios AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Lucas Gonze <lgonze AT panix.com>
  • To: Richard Stallman <rms AT gnu.org>
  • Cc: bruce AT newnetworks.com, jec AT law.georgetown.edu, daniel.sieberg AT turner.com, amccann AT beyondthecommons.com, sethf AT sethf.com, nb AT cisto.com, jays AT panix.com, dtype AT dtype.org, dpreed AT reed.com, heyjoe AT bway.net, gbsohn AT publicknowledge.org, leflaw AT leflaw.com, jeff AT pulver.com, isen AT isen.com, nancy.kranich AT nyu.edu, npavlos1 AT swarthmore.edu, fred AT metalab.unc.edu, dyfet AT gnu.org, hoofnagle AT epic.org, bartow AT law.sc.edu, love AT cptech.org, pshapiro AT his.com, glenn AT creativecommons.org, Open_Studios AT yahoogroups.com, compustretch AT yahoo.com, calabrese AT newamerica.net, tomsong AT earthlink.net, phyland AT cpsr.org, tom poe <tompoe AT amihost.com>, markcooper AT aol.com, hfeld AT mediaaccess.org, robin AT ipjustice.org, Thor AT bchands.org, ehensal AT starpower.net, barlow AT eff.org, community_studios AT lists.ibiblio.org, dan AT danielberninger.com, fred AT eff.org, jchester AT pop.mail.rcn.net, serge AT tux.org, seth.johnson AT realmeasures.dyndns.org, manon.ress AT cptech.org, mnemonic AT WELL.COM, rmfxixB1 AT bobf.frankston.com, racine AT centerpd.org, dave3 AT dslprime.com, mitchell AT interactionlaw.com, ian.peter AT ianpeter.com, mcgarty AT mertongroup.com, sgannes AT stanford.edu, wynkoop AT wynn.com, petri AT prometheusradio.org, jkohlenberger AT cox.net, pozar AT lns.com, odlyzko AT dtc.umn.edu, kevin AT werbach.com
  • Subject: [Community_studios] Re: Checking out rumors
  • Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 15:45:57 -1000 (HST)


On Thu, 5 May 2005, Richard Stallman wrote:
This description focuses exclusively on the interests of the
musicians. As a result, I can't tell what rights the listeners might
have in using the music they get from this site. The description
doesn't even touch on the listeners' point of view.

As I understand Song Storm, it is a project that evangelizes openness to
musicians who are not on the internet and not interested in computers, and
who have bought the cartel's story in every detail. The details of the
license are not important from Song Storm's perspective.

It's important to realize how tough a nut the musicians are. They're not readers and they're specifically against learning. For example, dogma among musicians is that there exists a thing called 'thinking too hard' and that you should avoid doing it.

Helping and supporting musicians is a good thing, but it isn't the
only thing. Just being an alternative to the record companies doesn't
automatically mean it is better for us. To be better, it has to
respect the listener's fundamental right: specially, the right to
share copies noncommercially (such as, on the internet).

Does a right to share copies noncommercially apply to functional things such as Microsoft Word as well as to expressive things like songs? Not one worth defending. There is no such right in either case.

What is important is for people to be able to opt in to freedom. For example, users of text editors can opt in by adopting GNU Emacs in place of Word. The existence of Word doesn't prevent me from using Emacs, so the conditions attached to it don't affect my freedom. (Except when I need Word for interoperability) Similarily, as long as listeners can opt in to music which respects their fundamental rights, they don't lose freedom if there exists music which does not respect their rights.

We are now reaching a watershed moment for music libre, but understanding it requires a shift in thinking. The issue of sharing copies noncommercially is not so important. That was on our minds while Napster was the focus, but Napster does not have to be the focus. We are better off replacing non-free music with free music than trying to make non-free music free.

There are now a number of us are working to help musicians who are more open to prosper as a result of their good behavior. The more popular these musicians get, the more freedoms listeners have. The more that listeners get to like music which happens to be libre, the more liberty they have.

This is a deliberately loose formulation, much looser than the GPL was. That is on purpose. Culture is a different domain and set of problems than code. It has to be attacked from a different angle. The GPL was precise both because it had to be and because code allows that kind of precision. With things like tunes and punchlines you don't need it and can't have it. What has done a lot of good is to make music which is incrementally more open incrementally more popular.

- Lucas Gonze

(long email, sorry, but I couldn't find a way to say this tersely).




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page