I converted a band to Creative Commons (now congratulate me)

[augied]

A friend of mine is in a band who have just release their first EP on Jamendo

Check them out here:
http://www.jamendo.com/en/artist/convey/
and here:
http://www.conveymusic.com/
and even here:
http://www.last.fm/music/Convey

[stmiller]

Hey awesome. I'm going to check out their stuff right now.

[starcraft.man]

Excellent. I love bands that work under Creative Commons. We really do have to support these more often.

[yabbadabbadont]

Not my cup of tea, but it is a good way to gain some recognition and popularity.

[az]

I also am thrilled at the use of CC licenses in music. All it would take is one hit for a lot of people to notice the benefits of getting away from the old guard of the music industry and for actual people to reclaim popular culture.

I wish the nc clause was used less. Wouldn't it be nice is some of that music could be played on the radio without the radio station having to go out and get that waived?

It is unfortunate that most of the good music I hear that is CC licensed is "demo-only" or CC licensed only until they can get discovered and sign a contract (which will take away all their rights to their own music). Kinda like the difference between freeware that is around for a short time and them just stops working and real free (free-libre) software.

Anyway, it sounds nice.

[Fidelio]

I'm a semi-pro musician. I might release the odd thing under a CC license, but I won't make a habit of it: I wouldn't get paid. I'm not Jeff Beck or Ryuichi Sakamoto, but to be honest, if I didn't make a few quid from performing or writing, I'd be pretty pissed off.
I don't see the point of CC music. You can put the stuff on the web anyway and retain full rights, but just get people to ask for permission to use it. It's a whole different kettle of fish from GNU and shared code.

[az]

I'm a semi-pro musician. I might release the odd thing under a CC license, but I won't make a habit of it: I wouldn't get paid.

That's completely false. Licensing a work under a CC licence does not prevent you from making money from it. Other than a free culture business model, you can distribute your work under other licenses too, at the same time.



I don't see the point of CC music. You can put the stuff on the web anyway and retain full rights, but just get people to ask for permission to use it. It's a whole different kettle of fish from GNU and shared code.

There are profound similarities between software and cultural works. Not the least of which is that creativity builds on the works of the past. CC licensing serves to remove restrictions imposed by copyright law so that others can benefit from your work.

[juxtaposed]

I like it =) Singer has a hint of Shannon Hoon from Blind Melon in his voice, noticably in the song Monique.

Bands that do this are the kind of bands that deserve to be popular.

[shen-an-doah]

All my music is released under Creative Commons. Check the link in my sig, or there's (many many) more tracks available here: www.soundclick.com/faywray

If you wanna know what we sound like, think Black Sabbath crossed with post-punk bands such as Joy Division and Big Black...

[Fidelio]

That's completely false. Licensing a work under a CC licence does not prevent you from making money from it. Other than a free culture business model, you can distribute your work under other licenses too, at the same time.



There are profound similarities between software and cultural works. Not the least of which is that creativity builds on the works of the past. CC licensing serves to remove restrictions imposed by copyright law so that others can benefit from your work.

So what is it then?
Is it just a legal clarification of what you do when you out a track up on myspace? Listen, use, but don't male any money out of it. In the UK that's an intrinsic right anyway. Personally, I'd rather people just ask.
I had a piece of music up a while ago which I said was available for free if people requested permission. One guy who wanted to use it seemed to be an extreme right-wing neo-con christian from the states. I told him he couldn't use it. Under CC he could have.

There are some similarities between code and the arts. But more differences. It would be pretty ridiculous to declare a piece of music 'open source'
For one thing, it would have to be brilliant before anyone would ever bother copying it. For another, people would get bored very quickly if they kept hearing other iterations of it.Code on the other hande is infinitely recyclable. Boredom don't enter into it.

Do you see what I mean? It's a false ...damn,,,,,false...thingy. Dichotomy. No not dichotomy. A false 'thing when you set up 2 things as being equivalent when they're not'
What is that word?

[Fidelio]

All my music is released under Creative Commons. Check the link in my sig, or there's (many many) more tracks available here: www.soundclick.com/faywray

If you wanna know what we sound like, think Black Sabbath crossed with post-punk bands such as Joy Division and Big Black...

No offence, but your music is avaliable under creative commons because no one would ever pay for it. I'm sure you'll get there and one day. I charge money for my services as a composer and musician because I'm good enough. You're not good enough for that (yet) so you put a CC license on it.

[shen-an-doah]

So what is it then?
Is it just a legal clarification of what you do when you out a track up on myspace? Listen, use, but don't male any money out of it. In the UK that's an intrinsic right anyway. Personally, I'd rather people just ask.
I had a piece of music up a while ago which I said was available for free if people requested permission. One guy who wanted to use it seemed to be an extreme right-wing neo-con christian from the states. I told him he couldn't use it. Under CC he could have.

There are some similarities between code and the arts. But more differences. It would be pretty ridiculous to declare a piece of music 'open source'
For one thing, it would have to be brilliant before anyone would ever bother copying it. For another, people would get bored very quickly if they kept hearing other iterations of it.Code on the other hande is infinitely recyclable. Boredom don't enter into it.

Do you see what I mean? It's a false ...damn,,,,,false...thingy. Dichotomy. No not dichotomy. A false 'thing when you set up 2 things as being equivalent when they're not'
What is that word?

Juxtaposition?

I use CC because it sets guidelines for what people can do with my music and that's how I want it. It allows people to download it all for free and share it with whoever they like for free. It also lets them create derivative works (covers, remixes, whatever), without having to seek my permission, but it does restrict them to having to release those works under the same license. It also restricts them from using my work for commercial purposes (obviously I don't care if someone copies my stuff for a friend and they charge them for what the blank CD cost, etc).

I do this because I like having control over what happens to my work, but I don't want people who want to share my work to be criminals, because that is ridiculous.

[shen-an-doah]

No offence, but your music is avaliable under creative commons because no one would ever pay for it. I'm sure you'll get there and one day. I charge money for my services as a composer and musician because I'm good enough. You're not good enough for that (yet) so you put a CC license on it.

And how would you know that? Are you the sole bastion of taste in this world that everyone should follow?

Before I decided to license everything under CC and make everything available for free, I sold a fair few copies of our first two EPs. While it wasn't much, it was a considerable amount considering we're a band that has never played live and has no promotion other than what I do over the net...

[Fidelio]

So if some neo-nazi used your music in a party political broadcast, that would be OK with you?

[shen-an-doah]

So if some neo-nazi used your music in a party political broadcast, that would be OK with you?

That's a commercial use, which the license I use doesn't allow without my permission.

[Fidelio]

Well, if they did it on a privately run website, which is what happened to me, you'd have to let them?

[shen-an-doah]

Well, if they did it on a privately run website, which is what happened to me, you'd have to let them?

How does that make it any different? Legally they are not allowed to make money from my work without my permission, whether it's from the general public or just members of their website...

[az]

So what is it then?
Is it just a legal clarification of what you do when you out a track up on myspace? Listen, use, but don't male any money out of it. In the UK that's an intrinsic right anyway. Personally, I'd rather people just ask.

Permission culture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Permission culture is a term often employed by Lawrence Lessig to describe a society in which copyright restrictions are pervasive and enforced to the extent that any and all uses of copyrighted works need to be explicitly leased. This has both economic and social implications: in such a society, copyright holders could require payment for each use of a work and, perhaps more importantly, permission to make any sort of derivative work.

This term is often contrasted with remix culture.



I had a piece of music up a while ago which I said was available for free if people requested permission. One guy who wanted to use it seemed to be an extreme right-wing neo-con christian from the states. I told him he couldn't use it. Under CC he could have.

Obviously, if this sort of thing is important to you, then you should release your work under very restrictive terms and CC is not for you.



There are some similarities between code and the arts. But more differences. It would be pretty ridiculous to declare a piece of music 'open source'
For one thing, it would have to be brilliant before anyone would ever bother copying it. For another, people would get bored very quickly if they kept hearing other iterations of it.Code on the other hande is infinitely recyclable. Boredom don't enter into it.

Remix culture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Remix culture is a term employed by Lawrence Lessig to describe a society which allows and encourages derivative works. Such a culture would be, by default, permissive of efforts to improve upon, change, integrate, or otherwise remix the work of copyright holders. Lessig presents this as a desirable ideal and argues, among other things, that the health, progress, and wealth creation of a culture is fundamentally tied to this participatory remix process.

Sampling in musicmaking is a prime example of reuse, and hip-hop culture's implicit acceptance of the practice makes it a remix culture.

This term is often contrasted with permission culture.

Lessig is now using the term 'Read/write culture' to refer to broadly the same thing and 'Read only culture' to refer to a permission based culture. He has been queried as to his reliance on a binary opposite rather than a spectrum of permissions but this he explains is his way to broadcast this message to a mainstream audience.



I'll stop quoting wikipedia for the moment and point out that in developing countries, ones that are now getting connected to the internet but who have been too poor to participate in western multimedia culture are finding the internet, or rather, the freedom to express their culture using the internet a very powerful way of sharing their culture.

If given the choice of having only a small number of people benefit financially from the music industry, at the expense of preventing people from using the works freely or having the music industry use what costs next to nothing to get the same job done, but without such restrictions, what do you think is more popular in these situations?




Do you see what I mean? It's a false ...damn,,,,,false...thingy. Dichotomy. No not dichotomy. A false 'thing when you set up 2 things as being equivalent when they're not'
What is that word?

How are they different again?