[Dynagroove] Re: higher open source

[t-bird]

--- Fatima Mojaddidy <fatima.mojaddidy at earthlink.net>
wrote:
> I was just putting forward an open-minded solution
> to what some are
> calling the death of house music. In fact, according
> to some, copyright
> laws are the death of all art and communication. If
> artists could live
> off their art, that's great. But if not, would the
> art itself die? As
> long as there are music lovers, I don't think so.
> The greatest blues
> musicians died poor, but their music carries on.

they didn't die poor because no one bought their
records.  they died poor because they were taken
advantage of--usually by record companies.  which is a
completely different issue than what i was talking
about.

copyright laws are not the death of art and
communication.  however, copyright LAWYERS, and
corporations that abuse their copyrights (which were
intended along w/patents to help move innovation,
communication and art FORWARD) may be.  it is not in
the public interest for people not to be compensated
for their work--and let me tell you, art IS work.  

however it is ALSO not in the public interest for
innovation to be stifled because one utilizes elements
of someone else's work.  , BUT i think we should try
to work something out so that the creators of *works*
(aka "art") can support themselves with the
contributions they make to society at large.  i'm not
talking about puffy-style "largin' it," more like
being able to pay their rent and live like people that
go to the office m-f 9-5 or run their own small
business--which is essentially what the "artist" does.
 
> Check out: http://www.opsound.org/opsound/about.html
> "Opsound is an experimental record label.. Opsound
> explores the
> possibilities of developing a gift economy among
> musicians, borrowing
> from the model of the open source software
> community..."
> 
> um, ah, I guess my so-called "bad analogy" is being
> realized and
> implemented by those who dare to break out of the
> box!
>
> http://www.locarecords.com/nf_index2.html
> "LOCA believes that creativity requires that
> musicians reappropriate and
> reinterpret music and sounds to enable them to
> create truly innovative
> music... that the fight over Free/Libre and Open
> Content and Media is a
> struggle over the freedom of expression and the
> freedom of speech,
> radically opening up the possibilities of media...
> LOCA is attempting to
> release music under so-called copyleft, a license
> that enables music
> writers to develop music collaboratively and
> equitably and then release
> it into the public domain... resulting in a radical
> rejection of the
> whole capitalist ethos of these multinational media
> corporations."
> 
> http://www.libresociety.org/
> http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/
> 
> Did you read the article before writing your
> comments? If not, here is
> the link again:
>
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource.html
> 
> Sincerely,
> "putting-forward-ideas-even-if-they-sound-stupid"
> Fatima.

ok, i've read the articles & links.  what they seem to
be trying to counteract is the stranglehold that large
corporations have on knowledge and information.  the
labels have an interesting idea that seems mostly
appealing to people that make music that incorporate
samples.  there's a lot of dance music that don't have
the issues these people mention.

i make electronic music that doesn't incorporate
samples for 2 reasons:
1. clearing samples is expensive (this is what they're
addressing)
2. i'm an ex-jazz pianist, so i can play many things
that other people often need to sample.  (mmm... new
wrinkle)

the open source folks in the wired article are *making
money* doing what they love.  find a way that this can
happen for recording artists and i'm all for it.  i
don't have all of the answers--lest i sound like i've
got a complex, and think i do...

<stepping off soapbox>

-t

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree