Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy

Save Internet Radio

I should have added this link earlier. SaveNetRadio.org raises awareness of the immediate issue. If the campaign fails, after May 15 many of the radio stations we like may simply go bankrupt. These extreme royalty price increases in USA are nothing short of a misdirected attack on the internet and culture as a whole.

May 15. Yes that's the day your station may be silenced by a yet another move to make us all servants and mere consumers (in a real sense of the word) to the entertainment industry cartels who would commit genocidal acts upon the internet culture, with help of the US government, just to fatten their wallets even further.

Comments

Free Art License

 

Ok so they're focussed on their art and not the conditions under which they transact, this is like the lack of awareness situation RMS faced back in the 80's with programmers using EULA's just because it's the norm. A Free Art Foundation would do the trick here and I think RMS is the man with the contacts to inspire it.

Combine the free art idea with the Fairtrade ethos and Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you, the Free Art License. If the underground artists you like to listen to are not greedy or against sharing then they'll welcome it, happy days.

I think the artistic community need to step up to the plate on this and get their ethical spines connected, I've virtually stopped buying music because it's hard to tell parasites from symbiotes. But that's just me, uncompromising on greed.

There also already is a Free

There also already is a Free Culture Foundation launched at the very end of 2006. It doesn't seem to be doing much from what I've seen so far, but it could be a good starting point to something you describe.

One of the co-founders of the FCF is also the chief webmaster of the GNU Project and he seems quite busy with other things too which might explain why the FCF is in such a slow (or barely existant) progress, but I guess we could stir something up? Smiling

Edit: I spoke a bit too soon about the progress of the FCF. It might be a bit slow, but it's moving. The recent announcement promises some good things such as commissioning some stimulative essays on the Free Culture debate and even a live debate at iCommons in Croatia this year, which I am actually attending! Laughing out loud

I should've googled first,

 

I should've googled first, but that's great news, thanks for pointing those out, very encouraging.

They seem to be taking lessons learned in the Free Software movement in inviting input from interested parties to clarify the goals of the organisation. That site can be grand central with links to free art radio, a riff conservatory, gpl'd sequencers etc. Sweet city.

It exists.

 

There already is something called the Free Art License.

Increase royalties away say I

 

Increase royalties away say I, let them charge as much as they like. It's another nail in the coffin of the wealth-concentration model. Just watch the free alternatives blossom and pump out the freedom message between tracks.

Edit: Is arguing for cheap/free proprietary art not like arguing for cheap/free proprietary software?
Free the art, then gigs, merchandising, fansite privileges etc are where the loot can roll in.

It's a valid point to be

It's a valid point to be made, but I tend not to compare software and culture so directly. With software we now really do have an abundance of alternatives that we practically don't need the proprietary code at all.

With culture, the vast majority of it is still under traditional licenses including some of the best works of art in history, from music to movies to books. Can we really afford to limit ourselves from it completely and create new culture clean slate? Is that really possible even?

Culture is built upon culture, not clean slate. Unfortunately, I am not so sure there is enough of it in the free realm to inspire enough Free Culture to displace the proprietary stuff.

I mean, when I listen to my favourite station, di.fm, I can get inspired to create music on my own which would be completely free. Would the same thing happen if I ceased to listen to di.fm completely?

It'd make things harder for sure.

Even a more extreme case: should have I given up on watching Star Trek the moment I knew it wasn't licensed under Creative Commons or something? Would I really be better off if I didn't expose myself with it? I most certainly do not think so. A Free OS was built originally using the proprietary UNIX. We wont build free culture without at first being influenced by whatever else is out there.

Thank you

Fair point for motion

 

Fair point for motion pictures, "The Elephants Dream" is an early example of what's to come, think seti style distributed community render-farms, but hollywood blockbuster quality and quantity is further off. Also youtube et al are already taking time from normal tv. It'll be years before collaborative productions can arise to rival star trek, stargate, scrubs, lost, law & order etc.

I disagree that the vast majority of culture is licensed though, the machine hypes licensed content but there's far more. For inspiration just look at and read up on the world around us, our individual and collective history, folklore, and into your heart, then say something that needs to be said. This makes for motion picture stories and lyrics for songs, look at all the movies based on history for example, private interests have no monopoly on that.

When it comes to music the best inspiration comes from going back to the roots, traditional music from around the world. It's a fusion of these sources that produced Blues, Soul, Gospel, Jazz, Rock, Pop etc. Aside from obvious legends like Dark Eyes and Santa Lucia, the marginal stuff is an Alladins cave of powerful inspiration. That's in stark contrast to the banal formulaic tripe that gets troweled out by the machine.

Overall I guess we could call most art 'open source', we can view and/or listen, it can't be hidden if expressed. My main issue here is fair trade, I'm not inspired by corporate domination or MTV cribs. The 'stars' engaged in this are not rebels, they're not just apologists, they've sold out for cash becoming part of the machine and they know it. This can rob them of self respect and contentment, how can they write about those ills of the world due to greed when they're making out like bandits themselves?

I think a lot of rebels made this mistake then lost heart and fell into self-destructive instant gratification behaviour that led to early demise, even suicide. Others handle it better, they give to charity and find something worthwhile to do so that the net effect of their efforts is positive, Eg Bob Geldof. You see the same thing with some business people.

Really I think the answer could be a fairtrade mark for the arts that means the deal is fair and not an orgy of greed, the Indie labels could kick it off and as we've discussed before dependence on the big four is gone. Without this ethical differentiation I find it hard to get behind measures that benefit the greedy, unless they are strategically in the best interests of the needy or the worthy.

As always I remain open to other views, it's just quicker to lay down thoughts without 'imho' in every sentence.

democrates wrote: I

democrates wrote:

I disagree that the vast majority of culture is licensed though, the machine hypes licensed content but there's far more. For inspiration just look at and read up on the world around us, our individual and collective history, folklore, and into your heart, then say something that needs to be said.

Majority may not be licensed, but the majority of what is easily accessible and often representative of great quality (because of the resources available) seems to be.

But I think this really depends on which style of music, if talking about music, are we into. I love and listen to electronic music, and this doesn't include the mainstream types like r'n b, hip hop etc. I listen to various kinds of progressive, trance and ambiental music which is still greatly "underground" and much more rebellious than mainstream styles.

The most succesful among trance artists are the ones with years of experience and lots of quality music production equipment. They tend to be the ones new artists compare with, because they really represent the highest quality (for example, Armin Van Buuren, DJ Doboy, Gabriel & Dresden, Nu NRG, Active Sight and many many others, since there are a lot of trance artists). These more underground electronic music producers don't seem to care so much about licensing as much as about the music they love. The reason why they often end up releasing it under default restrictive copyrights is probably because "everybody else does". They simply don't think about these things. Their primary concern is music.

And so it happens that this music gets shared illegally all over various forums and sites and none of these artists really cares nor opposes this. Kind of paradoxical.

Di.fm is a station I love to listen because it streams a lot of these kinds of artists, including some new and not yet well known ones. Am I supposed to condone a law that will silence this station because the music it promotes happens to be, almost accidentally or incidentally, under default restrictive copyright?

I'm not so sure this would do anything I would call "good" or even ethical. Software and music are different things and different issues. And even among music, various sub-cultures have various differences too, including differences in the attitude towards copyrights.

not traditional

 
libervisco wrote:

traditional licenses

It's not traditional, it's modern. The best adjective to use would be "restrictive".

Yeah, that's quite right.

Yeah, that's quite right.