|
Lessig, Creative Commons, and My Life Changed |
|
Tuesday, January 04 2005 @ 11:14 PM EST
|
You've got to hear this. I am listening to Larry Lessig on the radio on my laptop, talking about Creative Commons licenses on public radio. You can listen too, if you like.
Creative Commons makes it possible to choose a license that says, you can use my creative work in the following ways, without having to contact me first. There are 11 different license choices, and you can choose one that tells others: I will let you be creative too. If you use my creative work and stick to the freedoms I've attached to my work and honor the restrictions, you will never face a copyright attorney. When it comes to music, the result can be wondrous.
That is the word version. If you are a right-brain kind of person, or just like to visit, here is what he is saying, only in music.
One man, Colin Mutchler, played a guitar track he called "My Life" [ogg], and then he released it under a Creative Commons license, which let others change it any way they wanted. A seventeen-year-old violinist, named Cora Beth, found it on the Internet, downloaded it, and added her own violin track on top of it, then put it up on the Internet, calling her version, "My Life Changed" [ogg]. Just listen. It is the soundtrack of free culture.
Lessig: "The important point is there was no lawyer in between these two creators. They didn't have to secure permissions and find a record label to enable them to be able to share work, sign contracts. They were able to do it because the freedoms were already built into the content. Now, there are a lot of people who thought that's the way the internet was in the beginning. That it said you are free to do anything you want and a lot of us wish that was the basic rule about the internet. But the copyright war that the RIAA has been fighting for the last five years has basically changed the default of the internet into a regime that says you have to ask permission first and we think that is wrong."
You don't need the words, though. Just listen to the mp3s. You will understand Creative Commons licenses with the right side of your brain, which is the part the heart needs. Your left brain will enjoy comparing Cora Beth with this music sampling ruling from the non Creative Commons world, in Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, or if you wish, read about it in this article.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 04 2005 @ 11:59 PM EST |
Keep Groklaw Clean... Thanks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Food for thought? - Authored by: kinrite on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 03:43 AM EST
- Autozone Preliminary Injunction motion and memo - Authored by: fudisbad on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 06:27 AM EST
- 24 December? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 09:20 AM EST
- Copyright 2005 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 07:04 AM EST
- Red hat letters - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 09:38 AM EST
- mainstream exposure to open source software - Authored by: free980211 on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 10:51 AM EST
- Freedows - following Mad Scientists post under a preyiouc article. - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 10:57 AM EST
- Why I hate Microsoft - A book long rant. - Authored by: davcefai on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 12:51 PM EST
- OT: RIAA loses fishing expedition - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 01:14 PM EST
- Sun to release code under the GPL. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 01:59 PM EST
- Speaking of Open Source Licenses - Authored by: jseigh on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 10:20 PM EST
- Economist muses on history of "IP" and value of Project Gutenberg - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 11:24 PM EST
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 12:18 AM EST |
Glad to see this. It takes both sides to make a whole, I must point out. Thanks
to PJ for the links.
---
inode_buddha[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not excellent at all - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 12:30 AM EST
- Not excellent at all - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 12:36 AM EST
- Not excellent at all - Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 01:02 AM EST
- Perhaps Debian - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 01:42 AM EST
- Perhaps Debian - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 01:53 AM EST
- Not excellent at all - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 01:43 AM EST
- Here's a link - Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 02:13 AM EST
- Not excellent at all - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 02:24 AM EST
- Not DFSG free, but not bad either - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 02:43 AM EST
- Not excellent at all - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 03:25 AM EST
- Not excellent at all - Authored by: robmyers on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 05:29 AM EST
- Not excellent at all - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 05:45 AM EST
- Yes and no, and a humble suggestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 09:38 AM EST
- Debian and document licenses... - Authored by: Scoops1300 on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 12:55 PM EST
- Your right but. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 03:03 PM EST
- Not excellent at all - Authored by: David Gerard on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 03:33 PM EST
- Excellent! - Authored by: ram on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 01:28 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 12:43 AM EST |
Only one part missing here - the ogg vorbis format vs mp3!
I vote for ogg vorbis.
Match ogg vorbis up with what is being said about the licenses and you then have
the creative and performance power back in the hands of the artists (and out of
the board rooms)!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fudisbad on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 01:20 AM EST |
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys for
"The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the
poster at "The SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official
capacity at "The SCO Group".
Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group" employees or
attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group"
must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the
honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as
appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or suggest or imply unethical
or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or attorneys.
This thread requires an extremely high standard of conduct and even slightly
marginal posts will be deleted.
PJ says you must be on your very best behavior.
If you want to comment on this thread, please post under "OT"
---
FUD is not the answer.
FUD is the question.
The truth is the answer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 02:02 AM EST |
It strikes me that there is much in the ruling which could potentially be
relevant to the SCO v IBM case, including late amendments to pleadings, suing
for copyright infringement of copyrights that you don't own, motion practice,
and discovery disputes, etc.
IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 02:37 AM EST |
Try Listening to them with Kaffeine with the Audio
Visualization set on Goom, Nice. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 03:45 AM EST |
Do they do torture? it reminds me of the Inquisition when artistic and
intellectual talents were under under the microscope to ensure
"correctness".
I'll ask a question and admit I don't know the correct answer
first hand. If I were to sit beside a David Hockney self portait and do my own
version which I called "David Hockney as understood by Brian S.", would I be
breaching his copyright? I bet he'd only take umbrage if he thought my version
was artistically inept and ugly.
The more crazy decisions that are made like
this, the sooner the general public will realise the RIAA and the legislature
have lost their marbles.
By the way PJ, I'm a bit of a music buff, and your
example has shown me the implications that open source has for that
art.
Whatever peoples taste may be, the Beatles only made Beatles music
bcause they lived close together and went to the same schools or college. We now
have a situation where one musical genious can release their output only to have
another genious improve it from the other side of the world. Just imagine their
combined output when they find each other.
Brian S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 04:23 AM EST |
Understand this: the music business is about money. Thats why 99% of the bands
are in it. To make it to the bigtime. Record companies have some very good
reasons to keep music distributed the way its is, but DO NOT FORGET, musicians
also have the same reasons.
So .. its entirely possible a 'hobby' musician may well release an amount of
work under a creative-commons license, they'll never get rich doing it. A
mainstream group might release a track or two under creative commons licencing,
but the vast majority of the work will stay licensed the way it is.
The only way I can see it working commercially is for a performance group who
make their income from their live performances, for them, releasing under
creative commons would be fine. (perhaps a string quartet or a ceildh band).
The rest of the industry (both its publishers and its authors) are mainly in it
for the money, so dont expect any great changes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Nice try, but it won't work - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 05:12 AM EST
- Nice try, but it won't work - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 05:19 AM EST
- You assume civilisation is static. - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 05:29 AM EST
- Nice try, but it won't work - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 05:33 AM EST
- Nice try, but it won't work - Authored by: robmyers on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 05:38 AM EST
- Nice try, but it won't work - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 06:20 AM EST
- Go Read "Free Culture"... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 07:44 AM EST
- Grateful Dead, was a performance art band. Some fans could have improved their art - but, - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 08:47 AM EST
- Nice try, but it won't work - Authored by: apessos on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 08:54 AM EST
- Nice try, but it won't work - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 10:53 AM EST
- You ignore much about the music industry - Authored by: josmith42 on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 11:18 AM EST
- most musicians won't make money, period. Creative Commons or not - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 11:28 AM EST
- You're right, sort of - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 12:47 PM EST
- Nice try, but it won't work - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 01:24 PM EST
- Nice try, but it won't work - Authored by: QCumber on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 01:44 PM EST
- Music isn't about business - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 02:57 PM EST
- 99.9% of bands don't make money. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 03:06 PM EST
- Nice try, but greed is driving force - Authored by: RedBarchetta on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 03:25 PM EST
- Nice try, but it won't work - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 03:58 AM EST
- Nice try, but You don't understand the Business - Authored by: dvusmedia on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 06:14 AM EST
- Amen! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 05:54 PM EST
- The nail in the coffin. - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 07:08 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 05:54 AM EST |
Magnatune is a record label that sells
CC-licenced albums. You set the price, within limits, and 50% goes to the
artist. See this USA Today
article for more. Their automatic licensing system
for commercial use is worth looking at, too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stumbles on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 08:35 AM EST |
Here are some links from some peoples own personal experience in
the
music industry and the RIAA.
This one is from Janis Ian and
her thoughts about music downloads;
The
debacle
Janis
And
here is a link to an email with links contained within it with some
thoughts
by George Ziemann;
the
email
Granted these are some what dated but I do
beleive they are still valid.
Like corporations chasing after that nebulous
"IP" thingy and doing their
best to, um shall we say conjole law makers to "see
it their way". The
music industry, ie, RIAA, MPAA and others will do anything
they think
needs to be done to make all your thoughts, ideas, activities
belonging
to us. Like all monopolies they have no regard for personal freedoms
of
any sort.
--- You can tune a piano but you can't tuna
fish. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 09:28 AM EST |
Andy Hertzfeld of the original Macintosh team has a website called folklore.org with a ton of stories about the early
history of Apple and the Mac, all under a Creative Commons
license.
O'Reilly is publishing a book of those stories.There's an
interview about it and of course you can just decide whether to
buy the book.
Clearly Tim O'Reilly thinks he can make money for
himself and Hertzfeld selling books despite the fact that the stories are
already available at zero cost. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Benanov on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 09:40 AM EST |
A couple of others have made differences to My Life and My Life Changed. The
final version as I knew of it was called "Our Lives are Changing."
Search Opsound.org for the details.
---
That popping sound you hear is just a paradigm shifting without a clutch.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Freespirit on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 09:43 AM EST |
I recently had the pleassure of hearing Lessig speak on this topic, at the anual
H. C. Andersen celebration lecture at Odense University, Denmark. Did not really
know what to exepect, but he does make some really good points. Not to mention
being really funny and having the entire audience lying on the floor laughing at
times!
I think it will be interesting to see how many artists will indeed embrace the
Creative Commons License and how many think mainly in terms of $$$
Freespirit[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sholton on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 09:51 AM EST |
Perhaps someone in the know can better explain to me the relationship between
works (such as My Life) released under a Creative Commons License and the
effects of compulsory licensing?
I was under the impression that the
compulsory licensing laws for audio works removed the artist's right to choose
thair own fee for a work in exchange for a guarantee of payment through the
compulsory license.
It seems to me, if this is the case, then an artist who
releases a work under a CC license must still accept the compulsory licensing
payment, which means those who wish to use the work must still pay the
compulsory licensing fee.
Can anyone help me understand this better> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 10:04 AM EST |
Neal
Stephenson summed it up rather well (thanks, /.)...
"Anyone
who has ever bought a piece of software in a store has had the curiously
deflating experience of taking the bright shrink-wrapped box home, tearing it
open, finding that it's 95 percent air, throwing away all the little cards,
party favors, and bits of trash, and loading the disk into the computer. The end
result (after you've lost the disk) is nothing except some images on a computer
screen, and some capabilities that weren't there before. Sometimes you don't
even have that--you have a string of error messages instead. But your money is
definitely gone. Now we are almost accustomed to this, but twenty years ago it
was a very dicey business proposition. Bill Gates made it work anyway. He didn't
make it work by selling the best software or offering the cheapest price.
Instead he somehow got people to believe that they were receiving something in
exchange for their money." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rben13 on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 11:01 AM EST |
Here's something I'd love to see, an Open Source approach to music building
based on this example. Start with a composer, someone who will act as the
coordinator for the project. The composer proposes a theme for a piece, maybe
picks a time signature, key, provides a basic melody. Basically the same role
as in Open Source software, provide something like My Life to build
on.
Then accept and evaluate submissions of alternate notations, new
tracks, etc. Once the basic composition is settled on and refined, allow any
who wish to do mixes and submit them.
It would be interesting to see how
such a piece of music would evolve and change.
Another intestesting
project would be to take this approach and apply it to a classic that is not
encumbered by IP restrictions. What might happen to Mozart with the world
turned loose to riff on it? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ssavitzky on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 01:14 PM EST |
This seems like the right place to mention a song I wrote back in May of last
year, now that I've finally gotten around to making an ogg and made
a link from the lyrics file
to the appropriate CC license
(by-sa-nc/2.0).
High
Barratry: lyrics
ogg
(I'm
in the process of putting all my songs under a CC license. Note that other
songs on the site
don't have proper CC notices yet, the ogg isn't properly tagged, and I haven't
put in the XML yet. By the end of the month, hopefully...)
--- The
SCO method: open mouth, insert foot, pull trigger. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PeteS on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 02:54 PM EST |
There are a number of projects out there, but the latest (and has my interest)
is Science Commons
For non-scientists, I must explain why this is
such a huge deal.
In the past, to have a scientific paper published, you not
only had to get the approval of a journal (and some might say that has stood in
the way of science, others it has kept out a lot of hogwash), but then
you often had to pay.
To add insult to injury, you could not read the
article without a (usually expensive) subscription.
Reprints / reproductions
were the money factory for these journals that considered themselves the
'gatekeepers of knowledge', although they produced no real knowledge themselves,
and provided a (high priced) forum, where the views expressed, regardless of
scientific virtue, were subject to the censorship of the journal based on their
view of the science.
This is indeed a wonderful
project.
PeteS
--- Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural
Stupidity [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Fixed link - Authored by: PeteS on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 04:06 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 03:32 PM EST |
Reminds me of the mod scene. They use a modular music format instead of
mp3/ogg/wav format. The format only contains wav samples and the "music sheet."
It's easier to modify than plain mp3/ogg/wav provided that you can get the
tracker software to run on your computer. It's kind of open source for music
since the final sound is actually compiled when you listen to it. Because of
the nature of the format, these music usually get remixed, modified and samples
reused for other music.
Unfortunately these music usually don't contain
copyright notices or licenses. Generally there's an unwritten code of ethics
when it comes to use and modifications of these mod files.
Check out ModArchive and Scene.org to listen to some scene music. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Scene music - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 10:06 PM EST
|
Authored by: Naive on Wednesday, January 05 2005 @ 08:43 PM EST |
Not sure why no one has mentioned it (as far as I've seen), Baen Books free
library: here at http://www.baen.com/library/ . I know that it has little to do
with the CC license, but it is interesting to note that others are learning that
free access is sometimes key to sales.
More on topic, I use the CCL on my works, though I write more for myself than
anyone else. I like that people have access and that someone may use my works to
create something new and interesting that I might benifit from. I think that
inovation is like most things in life - a series of building blocks. Without the
original blocks nothing is ever created. So, as an artist (in the loosest sense
of the word), I find the CCL to be a great opportunity for artists and creative
thinkers. Sharing is part of the human experience. It makes life better.
To PJ, Linus, and all the others out there willing to share: here's to you!
People making the world better.
Naive[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Baen Books - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 01:27 AM EST
|
|
|
|