#musicbrainz-devel

got link?

lessig isn't really involved with the CC, but I have friends who are.

Well, rather, links to these narod.ru stuff

The one on http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Case_Studies/Wh... for example

I'd just suggest them to make a search for links on narod.ru and see if they find strange things

mail sent

:)

…am I missing something there?

reosarevok: got the link to the edit handy?

hawke__: there are some nutters in russia who think they have a legit beatles streaming solution and demand that we link to it.

hawke__, http://musicbrainz.org/edit/15763653

Demand, eh?

Yes

They claim we're supporting the evil EMI / Apple lobby

:)

I’m still missing the link between whitehouse.gov and that site…

they are claiming the beatles music is avilable under the CC licenses.

so they are spamming the CC too.

How does one get from “creative commons is aware that stuff on whitehouse.gov is under the CC license” to “stuff on http://beatles80.narod2.ru/ is licensed the same”?

I did mention the word nutter, right?

I mean, if the streaming was hosted on whitehouse.gov and whitehouse.gov declared that everything it hosted was CC-licensed, that would make sense.

We should leave voting open even after the vote fails just so I can pile on the no-votes.

It's really too bad that MusicBrainz has no interest in furthering the goal of open data under a liberating license.

:p

Indeed!

It's a shame we don't have a trained ninja commando for pressuring people into CCing stuff

:(

ruaok, please see to that

ruaok: any reply to the lyrics thing yet?

What the hell... the link he provides does indeed point to the CC website, with a link to that site. And it looks like a high volume contributor reverted its removal as vandalism.

What the hell, wikis. What the hell.

Leftmost, might said volume be all similar links?

Or useful stuff too?

reosarevok, it was useful stuff sort of things. It looks like someone who was shooting first and forgetting to ask questions saw someone removing content, assumed vandalism, reverted, moved on.

I think I don't really get CC licensed music :-(

the more I think about it, the less it does make sense :-(

How so, hrglgrmpf?

hmm... especially after what I've read on magnatune.com

"Please do not put your downloads on a peer-to-peer network such as Limewire."

"However, please don't give a friend more than one album from your download membership per month"

Okay, that's silly.

it is, right?

Of course, those are both requests, not requirements.

I give you the license to put it on bittorrent/your website/whatever, but please don't do it

But you might mail them and ask

Because they're running a business, I suspect.

(and then tell us!)

Yeah, the point is - why make it CC then?

yes

exactly

I guess because of the advertisement

reosarevok, ethical business practices.

Don't do that, and once you decide a reasonable time has passed, make it CC

You get the sales + you free it

You can dual-license anyway

reosarevok: I would do that

I mean, running a for-profit CC label makes sense if you trust users will like what you do enough to do what basically amounts to donate for it

And I know artists who sell CC - people pay because they know the artist gets the profits and they want to give him money for his work

hmm, I also don't really get why CC music is better for me as a music listener

besides that I can get it for free

it is so totally different from software...

hrglgrmpf, it's not better for you as a listener. I think it's better for you as a person, though.

Because if it has a good part, someone can take it and make a better song changing the bad ones!

reosarevok: well, but for me the mp3 file is just like an exe file

It's more of a principles thing

If it's CC, you know the artist is clever enough to want you to help him share the music you like with others

(erm, unless it's a magnatune release, I guess :p)

for me open-source software is great, because it gives me the freedom to a) see what exactly the software is doing b) use parts of the software for my own software

Exactly

You're a coder, not an user

hmm, yes

For a normal user, it's just free

yes, I guess so

For me, open source is both a practical and a philosophical consideration.

For a musician, a CC which is not ND gives the same options (more or less)

but an mp3 file is not really open-source, is it?

As a coder, having the source code is very helpful. However, I also believe it's more philosophically viable.

No, but it's the same principle. It doesn't have the practical bit, but it still has the philosophical one.

hrglgrmpf, it depends

If I give away a full CC song, maybe not

If I give away, say, a single with an a cappella track included... that changes :)

(in hip hop for example, it's common to have singles with full song + instrumental + a cappella)

Or if you give away a source file. :)

(by-nc-sa and there you go - you can use the beat or the vocals for your music)

ah ok

Some artists do give away the actual unmixed tracks

It's still rare

But I guess it will become less rare

Anyhow, for me CC music is a philosophical thing.

Yeah

For me too - because I don't make music

yes, that would be open-source music for me... release e.g. the audacity raw file

I think a lot of people don't even realize that's useful (yet)

On the other hand, if you write to an artist who releases by-nc-sa and ask for a raw file, I'd expect him to provide it if he still has it

hmm, maybe

(but I haven't tried)

I don't think there's even a good, central place with that idea

("post your raw files for CC")

because to say open-source music and then release mp3 files is like to say open-source software and then release an exe

("go disassemble")

I'd also like to say that my motivations for avoiding DRM when possible are similar. I can usually strip the DRM, but I don't want to have to.

Well, it includes "you must go disassemble, but if you do and become popular with it I won't sue you for it"

hrglgrmpf, "open source" was meant to be an illuminating example, rather than to call CC music "open source".

Leftmost: well, but I think they advertise CC as open-source for music?

It's a free/open license. I don't see it referred to as "open source" at all.

ok

maybe that is the main point of my misunderstanding :-)

but why is CC (only free distribution) music better philosophical than non-CC?

Because it allows everyone to access your cultural production, even if they can't afford to pay for it

(in that way, just releasing it for free with copyright would also work, but people who license CC usually care about it, I'd say)

It's an acknowledgement that it is meant to be shared, meant to be enjoyed. And that it's yours. That someone can't take it from you or make you pay money because of something you choose to do with it (with certain, less common restrictions).

hmm, yes, that makes sense

Any creative works I do, I license as CC-BY-SA.

Or CC-NC-BY-SA.

Basically

The main use I see to CC

Is putting stuff in something reasonably similar to the public domain

Without being defenseless if someone uses it for something you oppose

(say, advertisement)

If I ever catch the military using my translations of the Exeter riddles for the purposes of war, I can force them to stop. :P

Depends!

Is war non commercial?

Well, for the US, surely not

So yeah, you probably can

Heheh.

I can see it now. "US military uses nerd's translations of Exeter riddles to befuddle, distract enemy; nerd threatens lawsuit".

well, I think I get it better now

thanks

I was just totally confused by the magnatune site

if real CC artists want to let their works spread as much as possible, it makes all sense

Leftmost, imagine if they used your cat list!

hrglgrmpf: yeah, I really don't get the Magnatune thing

I'd understand it if it was "give it to your friends, but tell them to come and buy it if they like it and want to support us!"

yes

because I can give the non-CC music I buy on amazon also to three friends

legally

In Spain, I can even put it on a torrent site, legally

(no idea here)

wow, really?

Sure, you can put it on a torrent site in the US. You just can't seed it. :)

hrglgrmpf: we have a fairly open right to private copy

In exchange, we pay a "tax" on lots of random stuff