OK, so it's a little off topic, but I've just spotted this http://www.magnatune.com. Has anyone else heard of this site or the "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike" license their music is released under? I'd be really interested to know how some of the GPL gurus on this list think it compares to the GNU General Public License for software. Are music and software comparable in terms of freedom and distribution? Are there any obvious flaws in what they're trying to do?
I'd really like to give support to this label, I may even submit some of my own music if I get a decent enough recording. One thing I'm not clear on is what happens when the music you pay to download from this site leaks onto P2P networks... surely 99% of people will dowload the music for free from Kazaa, Gnutella etc. and 1% will pay to download? Is it down to the listener whether or not they give any money and if so can the site survive on this basis?
The following is from the web site:
We're a record label. But we're not evil. We call it "try before you buy." It's the shareware model applied to music.
Listen to hundreds of MP3'd albums from our artists. Or try our genre-based radio stations. If you like what you hear, buy our music online for as little as $5 an album or license our music for commercial use. Artists get a full 50% of the purchase price. And unlike most record labels, our artists keep their rights to their music. Founded by musicians, for musicians. No major label connections. We are not evil.
What is "Open Music" ?
Open Music is music that is shareable, available in "source code" form, allows derivative works and is free of cost for non-commercial use. It is the concept of "open source" computer software applied to music. All our music is available under the "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike " license from Creative Commons to promote these goals.
-- Ben "tola" Francis P.S. sorry if that was all too off topic for this list
On 2003-09-28 21:02:45 +0100 Ben Francis ben@franci5.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
"Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike" license their music is released under? I'd be really interested to know how some of the GPL gurus on this list think it compares to the GNU General Public License for software.
I've not heard of that site, but I have seen others. If you look at the EFF site and particularly their radio project, they link to some sites that use what they call "open audio" licences.
I don't like the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike creative commons licence. It discriminates against commercial use, which the GPL does not, and is "incompatible" with many other licences, which the GPL is too. If they really want to claim that "open music" is "open source" applied to music and they are using the OSI definition of "open source," then their work is not "open source" because it discriminates against fields of endeavour (all commercial ones).
Are music and software comparable in terms of freedom and distribution?
That music looks like software to me. Certainly all seems to be on computers. Maybe you meant "music and programs"? I think there are a lot of arguments for similar freedoms for all software, yes. You have to do a little translation from the FSF's Free Software Definition from programs to other works, though.
-
Ben Francis -
MJ Ray