They claim we're supporting the evil EMI / Apple lobby
2011-12-15 34937, 2011
reosarevok
:)
2011-12-15 34931, 2011
hawke__
I’m still missing the link between whitehouse.gov and that site…
2011-12-15 34951, 2011
ruaok
they are claiming the beatles music is avilable under the CC licenses.
2011-12-15 34958, 2011
ruaok
so they are spamming the CC too.
2011-12-15 34921, 2011
hawke__
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”?
2011-12-15 34900, 2011
ruaok
I did mention the word nutter, right?
2011-12-15 34923, 2011
hawke__
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.
2011-12-15 34912, 2011
hawke__
We should leave voting open even after the vote fails just so I can pile on the no-votes.
2011-12-15 34933, 2011
Leftmost
It's really too bad that MusicBrainz has no interest in furthering the goal of open data under a liberating license.
2011-12-15 34929, 2011
reosarevok
:p
2011-12-15 34931, 2011
reosarevok
Indeed!
2011-12-15 34950, 2011
reosarevok
It's a shame we don't have a trained ninja commando for pressuring people into CCing stuff
2011-12-15 34954, 2011
reosarevok
:(
2011-12-15 34959, 2011
reosarevok
ruaok, please see to that
2011-12-15 34922, 2011
ruaok snaps to attention, heels clicking
2011-12-15 34933, 2011
nikki
ruaok: any reply to the lyrics thing yet?
2011-12-15 34952, 2011
Leftmost
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.
2011-12-15 34958, 2011
Leftmost
What the hell, wikis. What the hell.
2011-12-15 34937, 2011
reosarevok
Leftmost, might said volume be all similar links?
2011-12-15 34941, 2011
reosarevok
Or useful stuff too?
2011-12-15 34929, 2011
Leftmost
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.
2011-12-15 34958, 2011
hrglgrmpf
I think I don't really get CC licensed music :-(
2011-12-15 34918, 2011
hrglgrmpf
the more I think about it, the less it does make sense :-(
2011-12-15 34947, 2011
Leftmost
How so, hrglgrmpf?
2011-12-15 34936, 2011
hrglgrmpf
hmm... especially after what I've read on magnatune.com
2011-12-15 34917, 2011
hrglgrmpf
"Please do not put your downloads on a peer-to-peer network such as Limewire."
2011-12-15 34926, 2011
hrglgrmpf
"However, please don't give a friend more than one album from your download membership per month"
Of course, those are both requests, not requirements.
2011-12-15 34954, 2011
hrglgrmpf
yes, but why would I license something with a "free-distribute" license, and make such requests?
2011-12-15 34929, 2011
hrglgrmpf
I give you the license to put it on bittorrent/your website/whatever, but please don't do it
2011-12-15 34938, 2011
reosarevok would make a guess: "because of being weird"
2011-12-15 34944, 2011
reosarevok
But you might mail them and ask
2011-12-15 34949, 2011
Leftmost
Because they're running a business, I suspect.
2011-12-15 34950, 2011
reosarevok
(and then tell us!)
2011-12-15 34902, 2011
reosarevok
Yeah, the point is - why make it CC then?
2011-12-15 34905, 2011
hrglgrmpf
yes
2011-12-15 34908, 2011
hrglgrmpf
exactly
2011-12-15 34918, 2011
hrglgrmpf
I guess because of the advertisement
2011-12-15 34922, 2011
Leftmost
reosarevok, ethical business practices.
2011-12-15 34923, 2011
reosarevok
Don't do that, and once you decide a reasonable time has passed, make it CC
2011-12-15 34933, 2011
reosarevok
You get the sales + you free it
2011-12-15 34940, 2011
reosarevok
You can dual-license anyway
2011-12-15 34943, 2011
hrglgrmpf
reosarevok: I would do that
2011-12-15 34923, 2011
reosarevok
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
2011-12-15 34956, 2011
reosarevok
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
2011-12-15 34905, 2011
hrglgrmpf
hmm, I also don't really get why CC music is better for me as a music listener
2011-12-15 34912, 2011
hrglgrmpf
besides that I can get it for free
2011-12-15 34937, 2011
hrglgrmpf
it is so totally different from software...
2011-12-15 34938, 2011
Leftmost
hrglgrmpf, it's not better for you as a listener. I think it's better for you as a person, though.
2011-12-15 34940, 2011
reosarevok
Because if it has a good part, someone can take it and make a better song changing the bad ones!
2011-12-15 34912, 2011
hrglgrmpf
reosarevok: well, but for me the mp3 file is just like an exe file
2011-12-15 34941, 2011
reosarevok
It's more of a principles thing
2011-12-15 34906, 2011
reosarevok
If it's CC, you know the artist is clever enough to want you to help him share the music you like with others
2011-12-15 34918, 2011
reosarevok
(erm, unless it's a magnatune release, I guess :p)
2011-12-15 34919, 2011
hrglgrmpf
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
2011-12-15 34935, 2011
reosarevok
Exactly
2011-12-15 34940, 2011
reosarevok
You're a coder, not an user
2011-12-15 34949, 2011
hrglgrmpf
hmm, yes
2011-12-15 34902, 2011
reosarevok
For a normal user, it's just free
2011-12-15 34909, 2011
hrglgrmpf
yes, I guess so
2011-12-15 34912, 2011
Leftmost
For me, open source is both a practical and a philosophical consideration.
2011-12-15 34927, 2011
reosarevok
For a musician, a CC which is not ND gives the same options (more or less)
2011-12-15 34927, 2011
hrglgrmpf
but an mp3 file is not really open-source, is it?
2011-12-15 34933, 2011
Leftmost
As a coder, having the source code is very helpful. However, I also believe it's more philosophically viable.
2011-12-15 34951, 2011
Leftmost
No, but it's the same principle. It doesn't have the practical bit, but it still has the philosophical one.
2011-12-15 34951, 2011
reosarevok
hrglgrmpf, it depends
2011-12-15 34959, 2011
reosarevok
If I give away a full CC song, maybe not
2011-12-15 34915, 2011
reosarevok
If I give away, say, a single with an a cappella track included... that changes :)
2011-12-15 34932, 2011
reosarevok
(in hip hop for example, it's common to have singles with full song + instrumental + a cappella)
2011-12-15 34941, 2011
Leftmost
Or if you give away a source file. :)
2011-12-15 34954, 2011
reosarevok
(by-nc-sa and there you go - you can use the beat or the vocals for your music)
2011-12-15 34904, 2011
hrglgrmpf
ah ok
2011-12-15 34908, 2011
reosarevok
Some artists do give away the actual unmixed tracks
2011-12-15 34910, 2011
reosarevok
It's still rare
2011-12-15 34919, 2011
reosarevok
But I guess it will become less rare
2011-12-15 34926, 2011
Leftmost
Anyhow, for me CC music is a philosophical thing.
2011-12-15 34938, 2011
reosarevok
Yeah
2011-12-15 34947, 2011
reosarevok
For me too - because I don't make music
2011-12-15 34950, 2011
hrglgrmpf
yes, that would be open-source music for me... release e.g. the audacity raw file
2011-12-15 34915, 2011
reosarevok
I think a lot of people don't even realize that's useful (yet)
2011-12-15 34939, 2011
reosarevok
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
2011-12-15 34921, 2011
hrglgrmpf
hmm, maybe
2011-12-15 34931, 2011
reosarevok
(but I haven't tried)
2011-12-15 34944, 2011
reosarevok
I don't think there's even a good, central place with that idea
2011-12-15 34954, 2011
reosarevok
("post your raw files for CC")
2011-12-15 34954, 2011
hrglgrmpf
because to say open-source music and then release mp3 files is like to say open-source software and then release an exe
2011-12-15 34919, 2011
hrglgrmpf
("go disassemble")
2011-12-15 34926, 2011
Leftmost
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.
2011-12-15 34954, 2011
reosarevok
Well, it includes "you must go disassemble, but if you do and become popular with it I won't sue you for it"
2011-12-15 34955, 2011
Leftmost
hrglgrmpf, "open source" was meant to be an illuminating example, rather than to call CC music "open source".
2011-12-15 34931, 2011
hrglgrmpf
Leftmost: well, but I think they advertise CC as open-source for music?
2011-12-15 34938, 2011
Leftmost
It's a free/open license. I don't see it referred to as "open source" at all.
2011-12-15 34943, 2011
hrglgrmpf
ok
2011-12-15 34957, 2011
hrglgrmpf
maybe that is the main point of my misunderstanding :-)
2011-12-15 34942, 2011
hrglgrmpf
but why is CC (only free distribution) music better philosophical than non-CC?
2011-12-15 34909, 2011
reosarevok
Because it allows everyone to access your cultural production, even if they can't afford to pay for it
2011-12-15 34947, 2011
reosarevok
(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)
2011-12-15 34901, 2011
brianfreud joined the channel
2011-12-15 34906, 2011
Leftmost
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).
2011-12-15 34931, 2011
ruaok joined the channel
2011-12-15 34933, 2011
hrglgrmpf
hmm, yes, that makes sense
2011-12-15 34938, 2011
Leftmost
Any creative works I do, I license as CC-BY-SA.
2011-12-15 34904, 2011
Leftmost
Or CC-NC-BY-SA.
2011-12-15 34941, 2011
reosarevok
Basically
2011-12-15 34946, 2011
reosarevok
The main use I see to CC
2011-12-15 34958, 2011
reosarevok
Is putting stuff in something reasonably similar to the public domain
2011-12-15 34911, 2011
reosarevok
Without being defenseless if someone uses it for something you oppose
2011-12-15 34925, 2011
reosarevok
(say, advertisement)
2011-12-15 34909, 2011
Leftmost
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
2011-12-15 34924, 2011
reosarevok
Depends!
2011-12-15 34928, 2011
reosarevok
Is war non commercial?
2011-12-15 34934, 2011
reosarevok
Well, for the US, surely not
2011-12-15 34940, 2011
reosarevok
So yeah, you probably can
2011-12-15 34911, 2011
Leftmost
Heheh.
2011-12-15 34905, 2011
Leftmost
I can see it now. "US military uses nerd's translations of Exeter riddles to befuddle, distract enemy; nerd threatens lawsuit".
2011-12-15 34908, 2011
hrglgrmpf
well, I think I get it better now
2011-12-15 34910, 2011
hrglgrmpf
thanks
2011-12-15 34926, 2011
hrglgrmpf
I was just totally confused by the magnatune site
2011-12-15 34958, 2011
hrglgrmpf
if real CC artists want to let their works spread as much as possible, it makes all sense
2011-12-15 34927, 2011
reosarevok
Leftmost, imagine if they used your cat list!
2011-12-15 34908, 2011
reosarevok
hrglgrmpf: yeah, I really don't get the Magnatune thing
2011-12-15 34932, 2011
reosarevok
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!"
2011-12-15 34947, 2011
hrglgrmpf
yes
2011-12-15 34907, 2011
hrglgrmpf
because I can give the non-CC music I buy on amazon also to three friends
2011-12-15 34910, 2011
hrglgrmpf
legally
2011-12-15 34902, 2011
reosarevok
In Spain, I can even put it on a torrent site, legally
2011-12-15 34910, 2011
reosarevok
(no idea here)
2011-12-15 34918, 2011
hrglgrmpf
wow, really?
2011-12-15 34945, 2011
Leftmost
Sure, you can put it on a torrent site in the US. You just can't seed it. :)
2011-12-15 34918, 2011
reosarevok
hrglgrmpf: we have a fairly open right to private copy
2011-12-15 34937, 2011
reosarevok
In exchange, we pay a "tax" on lots of random stuff
