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, dave3 AT dslprime.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, lucas AT gonze.com, 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, 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, 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, jchester AT pop.mail.rcn.net, 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, kevin AT werbach.com, odlyzko AT dtc.umn.edu, pozar AT lns.com
  • Subject: [Community_studios] Re: Checking out rumors
  • Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 08:19:47 -1000 (HST)

I have labeled my points from two emails ago with "LG: ", and
Richard's responses with "RMS: ".

........................................

LG: We are better
LG: off replacing non-free music with free music than trying to make non-free
LG: music free.

RMS: One program can substitute for another; if one C compiler is non-free,
RMS: we can solve that problem by developing another C compiler that is
RMS: free. If the Unix system is non-free, we can solve that problem by
RMS: developing another Unix-like operating system that is free. That is
RMS: what I did.
`
RMS: Songs are different: one song does not substitute for another. So if
RMS: we are free to share song A, that doesn't solve the problem that we
RMS: are not free to share song B. We have to fight for the freedom to
RMS: share all music.

Songs are surprizingly substitutable. You can't retroactively make
songs that you like into shareable songs, but you can change your
habits so that songs which you get to like come from the pool
of shareable songs.

When I say that songs are substitutable I am not saying that all songs
are the same, I am saying that our affection is transferrable.
Because our affection is transferrable we can spend most of our
listening time on things that are shareable, and if the things we are
listening to are shareable then we can follow the golden rule.

RMS: However, I don't believe that music has to be free. The right to
RMS: share copies noncommercially is sufficient for artistic works. It is
RMS: ok if people must get permission for commercial use and modified
RMS: versions.

What we are achieving with our work to create a substitute universe of
songs is the ability to share. What is new is that we are not trying
to liberate (by law or technology) existing songs.

I agree with you that expressive and functional works are different
kinds of things with different requirements. I don't agree that this
means expressive works are stranded, but I'm not working on that (just
yet) so don't have any reason to argue.

LG: The GPL was
LG: precise both because it had to be and because code allows that kind of
LG: precision. With things like tunes and punchlines you don't need it and
LG: can't have it.

RMS: While you're saying this is impossible, Creative Commons has already
RMS: done the job.

Drafting of licenses won't solve any problems until we first get
control over the issue of substitutability. Musicians have had the
ability to use free licenses for many years, but music libre was a
dead zone until recently. What changed is that a number of people
abandoned the Napster strategy and took up this new strategy.
Creative Commons has done a lot to help this happen, of course, but to
my mind drafting licenses was a small part.

What should you personally do about this? The main thing you can do
is to start changing your listening habits. Make a firm decision that
you will neither listen to unauthorized music nor agree to
unacceptable terms -- that will force you to seek out the good new
stuff, and from that point on you'll be launched.

- Lucas Gonze






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page