Copyleft And Commerce

I've been without email for a couple of days so I've had
to follow  
the discussion on copyleft via the archives. 

There are two interesting examples of commercial CC projects
that pay  
for themselves. Loca Records license their music BY-SA and
make money  
through CD sales and performances. It can be done.  And
Elephants  
Dream, a short (11 minute) computer animated film, was paid
for by  
pre-sales of DVDs (the "street performer
protocol"). Elephants Dream  
is also a seed project, it has all the 3D files and other
media  
needed to make a complete short film, but it is BY rather
than BY-SA.

The most successful Free Culture project, one that has
outperformed a  
proprietary alternative, is Wikipedia. It's FDL-licensed
rather than  
BY-SA-licensed, and it is a community project rather than a 
 
commercial project. But its use of FDL is historical, and
Wikipedia  
does help sell a for-profit company. Wikipedia could make
lots of  
money from adverts and from sales of DVDs and print
versions,  
although that might affect the willingness of people to
contribute.

Wikipedia is instructive in another way. It, like the GNU C
compiler  
and Emacs, is a "seed project". That is, it is a
base project that  
other projects can build on. The BY-SA world is
conspicuously devoid  
of seed projects. cc-mixter, which is BY, has acapellas and 

individual music tracks on, but without an FSF-style body
driving the  
creation of work and policing the contributions, the tracks 

contributed to mixter may use samples from CDs that do not
allow  
relicensing or other problem media.

There really should be a Free Music Foundation that pays
session  
musicians an honest rate to lay down drum and guitar tracks,
 
commissions songwriters to perform acapellas, and gets the  
documentation required to prove that the tracks are clean
for use in  
other BY-SA work. They may accept contributions from
commercial  
projects *if* they pass due diligence. This really is the
sort of  
project that is needed, there are artistic and video and
literary  
equivalents that are needed as well.

So:

1. We need seed projects for BY-SA work, done with the rigor
of the  
FSF's work, and funded by the community (which may include
commercial  
interests). There are non-SA projects such as Elephants
Dream and  
Open Clipart that help, but we need BY-SA ones to build a
commons.

2. We have realworld examples of free culture projects that
pay for  
themselves, whether through sales and performance or through
the  
street performer protocol. We need more people following
these  
examples in more media. Hopefully seed projects and better
education  
will help with this.

The problems we have are the profusion of restrictive CC
licenses  
(imagine if the FSF had felt honor bound to release a
non-commercial  
GPL...) that distract from copyleft, and the profusion of
unfocussed  
"community sites" that are graveyards for media
under restrictive  
licenses but that get a lot of publicity and goodwill.

- Rob.
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

>>
> There really should be a Free Music Foundation that
pays session
> musicians an honest rate to lay down drum and guitar
tracks,
> commissions songwriters to perform acapellas, and gets
the
> documentation required to prove that the tracks are
clean for use in
> other BY-SA work. They may accept contributions from
commercial
> projects *if* they pass due diligence. This really is
the sort of
> project that is needed, there are artistic and video
and literary
> equivalents that are needed as well.
<<

I see the seed project comparison though I have to push back
when we
bring the analogy to music because of the nature of
derivative audio
recordings of music.  In my experience, sampling is rarely
used for
the sake of convenience (e.g. "I need a horn line and
can't play
trumpet.")  More often, sampling is used within a new
work to
reference the cultural context of the sampled recording.

The free/open library would be valuable in a variety of
other contexts
(soundtracks, music education) but could not find the broad
adoption
we see in the GNU projects.  Few, if any, of the recordings
would have
the necessary cultural weight to impact popular music.

A greater goal would be to inspire older artists to open
their back
catalogs.  There is a financial incentive as they may
experience a
spike in sales when a sample of their original recording
finds popular
success and there is also the reputational benefit of being
associated
with the open content movement.

Kevin
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Thursday 25 May 2006 04:09 pm, Kevin Driscoll wrote:
> > There really should be a Free Music Foundation
that pays session
> > musicians an honest rate to lay down drum and
guitar tracks,
> > commissions songwriters to perform acapellas, and
gets the
> > documentation required to prove that the tracks
are clean for use in
> > other BY-SA work. They may accept contributions
from commercial
> > projects *if* they pass due diligence. This really
is the sort of
> > project that is needed, there are artistic and
video and literary
> > equivalents that are needed as well.
>
> <<
>
> I see the seed project comparison though I have to push
back when we
> bring the analogy to music because of the nature of
derivative audio
> recordings of music.  In my experience, sampling is
rarely used for
> the sake of convenience (e.g. "I need a horn line
and can't play
> trumpet.")  More often, sampling is used within a
new work to
> reference the cultural context of the sampled
recording.

But inagine instead that music did not come to you just as a
final stereo 
mixdown but as the full multitrack project file as well.

Imagine it also came with any midi files, abc files, and
anything else that 
could be considered the equivalent of source code in the
preferred form...
>
> The free/open library would be valuable in a variety of
other contexts
> (soundtracks, music education) but could not find the
broad adoption
> we see in the GNU projects.  Few, if any, of the
recordings would have
> the necessary cultural weight to impact popular music.

One place to start making such multitrack project files
would be in each 
countries folk tunes.
>
> A greater goal would be to inspire older artists to
open their back
> catalogs.  There is a financial incentive as they may
experience a
> spike in sales when a sample of their original
recording finds popular
> success and there is also the reputational benefit of
being associated
> with the open content movement.

How many artists actually control their back catalog?
>
> Kevin

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedi
a.org/user/17145

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

> There really should be a Free Music Foundation that
pays session
> musicians an honest rate to lay down drum and guitar
tracks,
> commissions songwriters to perform acapellas, and gets
the
> documentation required to prove that the tracks are
clean for use in
> other BY-SA work. They may accept contributions from
commercial
> projects *if* they pass due diligence. This really is
the sort of
> project that is needed, there are artistic and video
and literary
> equivalents that are needed as well.

I agree, and I see problems in teh way:

(1) What is the minimum amount of time that a person needs
to
invest to make a contribution to such a project?
How does that compare to the amount of time that it takes
a complete newbie to contribute a minimal improvement to
wikipedia?

A typo on wikipedia can be fixed in seconds.
A small article contribution might take several minutes.
The smallest guitar track would take half an hour maybe?
(assuming Joe Guitar Player happened to surf to the site
for the first time and decided he wanted to contribute
something, he'd have to set up his gear, pipe it to his
computer, play, record, do a couple takes to get it just
right, then send it into the site.)

(2) What is the minimum amount of equipment needed to make
a contribution to such a project? Compared to wikipedia?

Wikipedia requires a computer and internet connection.
A music project requires that, plus, music equipment,
recording equipment, decent microphones, and maybe a
system that is set up some distance away from the computer
so that the fricken fan noise doesn't get into the track.

(3) What is the goal that would motivate large numbers
of people to make small contributions to this project?

Linux promises better software through transparency.
All bugs are shallow. Wikipedia promises the world
of information freely available on the net, and people
get to write about the topics that are important to them.

Would free music be better sounding than all rights
reserved?
Would the goal be bigger, like free movies?
Would the movies be better?


I don't know the solutions to these problems,
but I think they are solvable. And I think
they need to be solved before a free music
project could ever be successful on the same
level as linux or wikipedia.

(1) minimum time to contribute needs to make
it easy for someone to find music they're
interested in contributing to. If a newbie
musician could record a track, upload it to
the site, have it analyzed by some software,
and figure out where similar music is, then
that might help. Maybe a guitarist could upload
a guitar track, and then software could find
possible drum tracks that could go with it.

The genre "rock" is simply too big and too
varied to help. I've been looking for music
for a video project idea I have and have been
completely overwhelmed trying to find something
that has a certain feel to it.

(2) not much you can do about that, you need
a guitar to make a guitar track. but it might
help to have the above mentioned software
so that people with no instruments could
start with one track they like, and then find
other tracks that would fit, and/or find
artists who have uploaded similar tracks
and put a request out for a new track.

(3) A song project is too small.
An album project might be a good seed.
Or maybe a small set of albums.
But a seed for what? It has to be big
enough to inspire people to contribute
and small enough to be achievable.

-- 
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
http://www.gre
gbond.com/bountyhunters/
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

On Thursday 25 May 2006 08:32 pm, Greg bond wrote:
> > There really should be a Free Music Foundation
that pays session
> > musicians an honest rate to lay down drum and
guitar tracks,
> > commissions songwriters to perform acapellas, and
gets the
> > documentation required to prove that the tracks
are clean for use in
> > other BY-SA work. They may accept contributions
from commercial
> > projects *if* they pass due diligence. This really
is the sort of
> > project that is needed, there are artistic and
video and literary
> > equivalents that are needed as well.

Why would such a project have a greater need for due
dilligence than 
wikipedie? And would it be harmed more by someone trying to
poison it?

Mind you, if something like that can get off the ground, I
am all for it.

Will no one comment of the idea of PBS and NPR funding
sources stipulating 
copyleft licenses as a requirement for future funding?
>
> I agree, and I see problems in teh way:
>
> (1) What is the minimum amount of time that a person
needs to
> invest to make a contribution to such a project?
> How does that compare to the amount of time that it
takes
> a complete newbie to contribute a minimal improvement
to
> wikipedia?

One problem with wikipedia that has discouraged me from
further contributions 
is that they get rid of your work for reasons that are to my
mind not right. 
They have done this to me on numerous occasions from what I
could tell.

I noticed areas where I wanted information that were not
covered. I put up 
some basic info in the hopes that those with more knowledge
in the area would 
see the lacking current page and make it better. Seems they
didn't thin it 
was a proper encyclopedia article and poof. (That is my
take. They may have a 
different story.)
>
> A typo on wikipedia can be fixed in seconds.
> A small article contribution might take several
minutes.

See what I posted above. I don't think this is so unless
you are perhaps a 
seasoned contributor and know the ropes. (It could be so
thoug if there was a 
different policy in place.)

> The smallest guitar track would take half an hour
maybe?

Nope, that could be created in five or ten minutes.


> (assuming Joe Guitar Player happened to surf to the
site
> for the first time and decided he wanted to contribute
> something, he'd have to set up his gear, pipe it to
his
> computer, play, record, do a couple takes to get it
just
> right, then send it into the site.)

Some people live with their gear set up. (I would but I
don't trust the local 
electric company.)
>
> (2) What is the minimum amount of equipment needed to
make
> a contribution to such a project? Compared to
wikipedia?

Well. Let's assume they have a computer. (Granted, one for
recording would 
probably want a little more oomph.)

Samson makes a USB Studio Condenser Mic.

http://www.zzoun
ds.com/item--SAMC01U

$79.95

Software can be had libre and gratis if needed.

I assume that would work with linux. I need to get one to
check. What I use 
now is an Alesis MultiMix 8USB

http://w
ww.zzounds.com/item--ALEMULTIMIX8USB

$149.00

and a shure sm58

http://www.zzoun
ds.com/item--SHUSM58

$99.95

Definately works with linux. (Alsa, jack, ardour.)

>
> Wikipedia requires a computer and internet connection.
> A music project requires that, plus, music equipment,
> recording equipment, decent microphones, and maybe a
> system that is set up some distance away from the
computer
> so that the fricken fan noise doesn't get into the
track.

The above is all a singer would need. let's assume the
musician already has 
his instruments. If not, people around are known to use an
old saw and a 
screw driver.


Or you could make some:

http://www.google.c
om/search?hl=en&lr=&q=homemade+musical+instruments&a
mp;btnG=Search

http://www.rhythmw
eb.com/homemade/

http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/explore/homemad
emusic.htm

>
> (3) What is the goal that would motivate large numbers
> of people to make small contributions to this project?
>
> Linux promises better software through transparency.
> All bugs are shallow. Wikipedia promises the world
> of information freely available on the net, and people
> get to write about the topics that are important to
them.
>
> Would free music be better sounding than all rights
reserved?

I don't know where a person wanting to learn can get songs
in multitrack form. 
This would allow learning mixing and mastering. it would
allow for the 
addition and, or replacements of parts. So much. I
personally think this 
could catch on. We shall see.

> Would the goal be bigger, like free movies?
> Would the movies be better?

Perhaps just ones that you could share or use parts of
without the threat of 
going to jail would be enough.
>
>
> I don't know the solutions to these problems,
> but I think they are solvable. 

I do too. I keep thinking and talking.

> And I think 
> they need to be solved before a free music
> project could ever be successful on the same
> level as linux or wikipedia.

It would not have to succeed on that level to be a hugh
success though.
>
> (1) minimum time to contribute needs to make
> it easy for someone to find music they're
> interested in contributing to. If a newbie
> musician could record a track, upload it to
> the site, have it analyzed by some software,
> and figure out where similar music is, then
> that might help. Maybe a guitarist could upload
> a guitar track, and then software could find
> possible drum tracks that could go with it.

Well, that depends. If you got a good amount of songs put
out as both stereo 
mixes and as multitrack (ardour) project files (or just
individual wav files 
for each track) people could use something like the old
napster, or irate 
radio, or even word of mouth to find something they like.
From there, pull 
down the big project and add or change a track. (Even
something as small as a 
harmony part to a chorus.)

>
> The genre "rock" is simply too big and too
> varied to help. I've been looking for music
> for a video project idea I have and have been
> completely overwhelmed trying to find something
> that has a certain feel to it.

Have you thought of trying the reverse direction? Put the
video out under a 
BY-SA license and ask for songs to fit?
>
> (2) not much you can do about that, you need
> a guitar to make a guitar track. but it might
> help to have the above mentioned software
> so that people with no instruments could
> start with one track they like, and then find
> other tracks that would fit, and/or find
> artists who have uploaded similar tracks
> and put a request out for a new track.

Software like that would be nice indeed.
>
> (3) A song project is too small.
> An album project might be a good seed.
> Or maybe a small set of albums.
> But a seed for what? It has to be big
> enough to inspire people to contribute
> and small enough to be achievable.

Well, as a start, how about a collection of each country's,
each ethnic 
group's traditional music, newly recorded and under a BY-SA
license?

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmed
ia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedi
a.org/user/17145

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Quoting Kevin Driscoll <driscollkevingmail.com>:

> I see the seed project comparison though I have to push
back when we
> bring the analogy to music because of the nature of
derivative audio
> recordings of music.  In my experience, sampling is
rarely used for
> the sake of convenience (e.g. "I need a horn line
and can't play
> trumpet.")

Much music, particularly rap and dance, uses drum or synth
lines or 
even vocals,
from sample collections. This would not be regarded as
sampling, but it is use
of a sample.

> More often, sampling is used within a new work to
> reference the cultural context of the sampled
recording.
>
> The free/open library would be valuable in a variety of
other contexts
> (soundtracks, music education) but could not find the
broad adoption
> we see in the GNU projects.  Few, if any, of the
recordings would have
> the necessary cultural weight to impact popular music.

Yes I agree with that and this is why licensing alone is not
enough for free
culture. We need to protect and expand fair use / fair
dealing as well. The
referential nature of art, and the fact that art does not
have functional
equivalents (a GNU/Mona Lisa would not be the Mona Lisa) are
both differences
from software that mean that the exact same approach will
not work, 
although it
can be instructive.

That said, if a few free music tracks become classics, they
can be referred to
as works with cultural weight. This would change the
equation.

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Quoting Greg bond <emailgregbond.com>:

>> There really should be a Free Music Foundation that
pays session
>> musicians an honest rate to lay down drum and
guitar tracks,
>> commissions songwriters to perform acapellas, and
gets the
>> documentation required to prove that the tracks are
clean for use in
>> other BY-SA work. They may accept contributions
from commercial
>> projects *if* they pass due diligence. This really
is the sort of
>> project that is needed, there are artistic and
video and literary
>> equivalents that are needed as well.
>
> I agree, and I see problems in teh way:
>
> (1) What is the minimum amount of time that a person
needs to
> invest to make a contribution to such a project?

If we take the FSF or real-world open source projects as a
model (not 
that they
are ideal, just that they are a useful model) then it's
actually quite 
a lot of
time. Quality hacking takes time.

So:

They'd be paid for several hours as a session musician.

Or they'd be required to co-operate with the foundation to
do due diligence on
their contributions.

But then making art for other people, rather than amusing
oneself musically,
does require a lot of time anyway.

> How does that compare to the amount of time that it
takes
> a complete newbie to contribute a minimal improvement
to
> wikipedia?

They can download cleared material, rip it legally to their
MP3 player and
listen to it to their heart's content, or change the mix or
make a quick
mash-up. They would not upload it back to the FSM site,
though. This is not a
graveyard-for-free-expression model, it is a
quality-selection-for-an-audience
model.

> Would free music be better sounding than all rights
reserved?
> Would the goal be bigger, like free movies?
> Would the movies be better?

They would be Free, which is ethically better. But would
they be aesthetically
better? Aesthetics may be unethical, and bad art comes from
the best of
intentions. But unrestricted access to high quality
materials to learn or
derive from may help make more better art quicker. This
would be helped by
Freedom. So there may be a utilitarian argument for the
aesthetic benefits of
the ethics of Freedom.

To take the example of Elephants Dream, if someone improved
the character
movement animation the film would be even better than it
already is. 
Having the
source under BY (grrr...) allows this, you couldn't do that
with "Ice Age".

> I don't know the solutions to these problems,
> but I think they are solvable. And I think
> they need to be solved before a free music
> project could ever be successful on the same
> level as linux or wikipedia.

Certainly. But size is no guarantee of quality. A few good
tracks would be
better than a sea of mediocrity.

> (1) minimum time to contribute needs to make
> it easy for someone to find music they're
> interested in contributing to. If a newbie
> musician could record a track, upload it to
> the site, have it analyzed by some software,
> and figure out where similar music is, then
> that might help. Maybe a guitarist could upload
> a guitar track, and then software could find
> possible drum tracks that could go with it.

The probem with cultural works rather than software is
evaluation. If a patch
doesn't run, it isn't accepted. If a track has low
aesthetic or technical
quality, it also should not be accepted. We then come to how
we define
aesthetic quality, which is a problem, but rcord companies
seem to think they
can spot it. 

This is different from Wikipedia, which is *not* structured
as an open source
project. It doesn't refuse contributions (although it does
rollback). The free
music foundation would refuse contributions that couldn't
pass legal due
diligence or or quality control. This would be no different
from Linux: Open
Source projects are selective about accepting contributions.

> (3) A song project is too small.

Agreed.

> An album project might be a good seed.
> Or maybe a small set of albums.
> But a seed for what? It has to be big
> enough to inspire people to contribute
> and small enough to be achievable.

If we take the example of DJ Danger Mouse's Grey Album,
that used an acapella
version of The Black Album mixed with other music (The White
Album...). So
getting enough material for album(s) would be a start. But
you get albums of
breakbeats and bass lines and synth lines as well, so all
these would be good
root contributions.

People do not have to contribute back to the project, they
just have to be
inspired to use it and to make their own projects on the
same principles. Some
of these may be at the FMF, some elsewhere. And we
shouldn't undervalue the
importance of listening as an entry point for casual users.

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

> The probem with cultural works rather than software is
evaluation.
> If a patch doesn't run, it isn't accepted. If a track
has low
> aesthetic or technical quality, it also should not be
accepted.
> We then come to how we define aesthetic quality, which
is a problem,

For software, functionality is a simple, objective,
make/break test.
And good functionality is the key to successful software.

I'm not convinced that aesthetics is something that works
as a
good make/break test for accepting or rejecting a track.
The main reason is that I like certain types of music and
I don't like other types of music. So, if I'm the
gatekeeper
deciding whether to let a track in or not, you're going to
find
a site filled with tracks that fit the sound and feel of
students of Hendrix, Led Zep, Stevie Ray Vaugn, and the
like.

And my wife likes to point out, she can't dance to any of
that
stuff, which means she wouldn't be interested in that
project at all.

This magical software I was talking about, this musical
recognition tool, is basically taking the idea of
super-tagging,
super-searching, meta-data, and gearing it specifically for
music.
Which I get is simply vaporware, but if a good license is
one
enabler, the other is good searching tools.

So maybe the problem is that the meta-data, super-searching
idea is too diffuse for a seed project. Maybe what's needed
is a search tool specifically for music. Can software
analyze
tracks and find beats, find keys, figure out if its in a
major or minor key, and all that?

With a good search tool, you could catalogue everything and
nothing has to be rejected by the system. Instead, people
look for the tracks they want. And if they want Hendrix,
they get Hendrix. And if they want Club, they get dance
music.

THen you solve the storage problem by offloading tracks to
whoever is contributing them, they store them on their
website.
And the central site maybe stores just the more popular
ones.

The central site could then also combine the software
analysis of music with the listening patterns of its
users, to get some "taste" metrics. And you've
got a
hyper-intelligent radio station that only plays the
music you want.

That's the goal anyway. Anyone who subscribes to
Rhapsody music knows that their "radio stations"
try to do something like this, but it never seems
to meet expectations for me.

for 9 bucks a month, you can listen to their entire
catalogue, so, you start out listening to what you
know. Then when you finally want something new, you
can spend hours following the "people who liked this
also liked that" links and get nothing. I am surprised
that Rhapsody users haven't figured out a way to program
their own "radio station", use rhapsody as the
music
source / jukebox, and get people to listen to rhapsody
through their station and make a little bit of money
doing it.

That's the problem with music as compared to something
like wikipedia or something like GPL software.
With wikipedia and software, you can usually do a
simple text search using the basic keywords you're
looking for and you'll probably find something that
works. easy to find and read/use. Easy to find and
contribute.

With music, it seems to be bloody hard to find new
music if you haven't already been introduced to it
through the radio or some other source. It's hard to
find new stuff that you like, so it's also hard to
find stuff you'd like to contribute to.

So, maybe the seed project is really just a music
search tool. Something that can listen to tracks
and get its tempo, speed, major/minor, stuff.
Maybe combined with a website so that it can track
user's preferences, and allow users to
"program"
radio stations for other listeners, which then
also helps music contributers find tracks they
can use.

You would then be taking care of all the main
user types around music: creators, listeners,
and the music geeks who have a knack for finding
new music that fits their tastes. Put all three
together, and you've got a seed that is plausibly
achievable, is a pretty cool long term goal:
a site where people can contribute new music,
other people can create 'radio stations' that
reflect their tastes, and the mass of listeners
can then use all of that to hear the kinds of
music they want to hear.

I guess it goes back to "enabling".
Either you do it all by yourself,
or you figure out how to enable others so
that a million people who want the same
thing that you do will come out and build
it for you.

Greg

-- 
Barbara Bauer makes SFWA's 20 Worst Literary Agencies list
http://ww
w.sfwa.org/beware/twentyworst.html

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Greg bond wrote:
> > There really should be a Free Music Foundation
that pays session
> > musicians an honest rate to lay down drum and
guitar tracks,
> > commissions songwriters to perform acapellas, and
gets the
> > documentation required to prove that the tracks
are clean for use
> > in other BY-SA work. They may accept contributions
from commercial
> > projects *if* they pass due diligence. This really
is the sort of
> > project that is needed, there are artistic and
video and literary
> > equivalents that are needed as well.
>
>
>  I agree, and I see problems in teh way:
>
>  (1) What is the minimum amount of time that a person
needs to invest
>  to make a contribution to such a project? How does
that compare to
>  the amount of time that it takes a complete newbie to
contribute a
>  minimal improvement to wikipedia?
>
>  A typo on wikipedia can be fixed in seconds. A small
article
>  contribution might take several minutes. The smallest
guitar track
>  would take half an hour maybe? (assuming Joe Guitar
Player happened
>  to surf to the site for the first time and decided he
wanted to
>  contribute something, he'd have to set up his gear,
pipe it to his
>  computer, play, record, do a couple takes to get it
just right, then
>  send it into the site.)

There are already sharing / remixing communities online
which are
based on "module" format music
("trackers").

 From what I've observed, they are a bit backward with
respect to
licensing issues (rather than recognizing any formal
licensing and/or
sharing rules, they rely on social norms and do not respect
copyright
law as such -- or so it seemed to me. It's not unlike a lot
of fan fiction
or fan art sites).  However, those norms are very much like
CC license
norms.  These are generally amateur sites with no commercial
sales,
so there's little reason why the same dynamics couldn't
work for
a By-SA site.

However, this and free software show that contribution
doesn't
have to be as easy as contributing to a wiki for stuff to
get done.

Cheers,
Terry


-- 
Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Greg bond wrote:
>  This magical software I was talking about, this
musical recognition
>  tool, is basically taking the idea of super-tagging,
super-searching,
>  meta-data, and gearing it specifically for music.
Which I get is
>  simply vaporware, but if a good license is one
enabler, the other is
>  good searching tools.
>
>  So maybe the problem is that the meta-data,
super-searching idea is
>  too diffuse for a seed project. Maybe what's needed
is a search tool
>  specifically for music. Can software analyze tracks
and find beats,
>  find keys, figure out if its in a major or minor key,
and all that?

Apparently so:
http://freshm
eat.net/projects/smart-dj/

>  THen you solve the storage problem by offloading
tracks to whoever is
>  contributing them, they store them on their website.
And the central
>  site maybe stores just the more popular ones.

Somebody has to foot the bill for that. It shouldn't
really be the artists, but the fans.  Consider the
importance of Sourceforge.net download servers to
the free software community.  Music downloads are
extremely heavy.

OTOH, there's the Internet Archive, which is already
providing something like this.

>  The central site could then also combine the software
analysis of
>  music with the listening patterns of its users, to get
some "taste"
>  metrics. And you've got a hyper-intelligent radio
station that only
>  plays the music you want.

(Smart DJ does something like that).

See also:
http://lam.fugal.net/

This site provides some decent search capabilities.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community