Could music be free?

[Cosmic Pig]

Ha. Sorry Bob. But I really have been wondering something along those lines; is it possible to put a song you've written striaght into the public domain?

My little tune can't compete with the millions out there being pushed a lot more actively, so I got to thinking maybe it would at least give me a better shot at gaining a track record.

Cos.

[imagineaudio]

It could, but it shouldn't. I've never been to an art gallery that just let people walk up and take paintings off the wall just because they were from lesser known artists.

Shit, the hole-in-the-wall local dive punk bar sells art from locals, who knows who the hell these people are, on the wall, most for upwards of a couple hundred dollars.

If painters and sculptors and authors and dancers aren't giving their art awat for free, neither should musicians, EVER.


That said, I don't see so much of a problem giving people a place where they can listen to your music, say inside a flash player, where it's not so easily d/l-able, but if they want to take it with them, they should pay for it. Much like visiting an art gallery, doesn't cost you anything to look and you can look as long as you want, but if you want to take it with you, you pay for it.


my $.69

[MacGregor]

Ha. Sorry Bob. But I really have been wondering something along those lines; is it possible to put a song you've written striaght into the public domain?

My little tune can't compete with the millions out there being pushed a lot more actively, so I got to thinking maybe it would at least give me a better shot at gaining a track record.

Cos.

Have a look here: http://creativecommons.org/ (http://creativecommons.org/)

This way you can give it away for free and be still in control of
what's allowed and what's not.

[bunnerabb]

That said, I don't see so much of a problem giving people a place where they can listen to your music, say inside a flash player, where it's not so easily d/l-able, but if they want to take it with them, they should pay for it. Much like visiting an art gallery, doesn't cost you anything to look and you can look as long as you want, but if you want to take it with you, you pay for it.

Wasn't that "radio"?

[imagineaudio]

missing my analogy a bit. I would assume most art galleries are not supported by advertising. They are supported by people who buy art.

This is where music differs. It has never been on display in it's entirety (damn wheres the spellchecker) for purchase by people who buy music. It has been handpicked and displayed for the people who buy advertising.

I've never been to a fine art gallery that only displays 15% of a piece of art, covering the rest behind a white sheet, and makes you pay for a glimpse at the rest.

If you're not one of the 12 artists on rotation on the radio, you should be giving people a place to interpret your art in its entirety, and if they want a piece for themselves, they should pay you.


I guess my point, really, is that music should be free to listen to, just not whenever and wherever you damn please. That condition implies ownership, and you should pay for that right.

[malice]

I guess my point, really, is that music should be free to listen to, just not whenever and wherever you damn please. That condition implies ownership, and you should pay for that right.

nailed

malice

[nobby]

Have a look here: http://creativecommons.org/ (http://creativecommons.org/)

This way you can give it away for free and be still in control of
what's allowed and what's not.

I'd be careful with that. I checked into that a while ago, and IIRC once you have allowed, say, a song to be used for free, you can't decide later to collect royalties for that song. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Mixerpuppet]

Whats the overall goal?


My first experimental album was made on a digital 8 track and I made 50 cd's and gave them all away...

It probably cost me $20,000 in terms of equipment, time and manufacturing the discs.

I got mixed reviews from the people who recieved thier copies.

To those people it's free...

I was told that people assume that free music by unknown artists implies it's not worth purchasing and via simple logic not really good enough to listen to...

Consequently, good music is valuable and therefore people are willing to steal it making it free to themselves. So while I willing lost $20,000, some artists lose more than $20,000 unwillingly...

Music cannot be free because someobody is aways paying for it in one way or another.

The closest you'll get to free is live music..... sorta

[Bob Olhsson]

There's nothing to stop you from granting somebody a free license. To me it makes a lot more sense to donate the proceeds to charity than surrender the copyright. If you follow the money trail, you'll generally discover big Silicone Valley money behind most of these "free music" campaigns. It isn't about being free, it's about adding value to somebody else's product without compensating the creators of the "content."

[MacGregor]

I'd be careful with that. I checked into that a while ago, and IIRC once you have allowed, say, a song to be used for free, you can't decide later to collect royalties for that song. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course it's a good idea to think about which of these licenses
you choose BEFORE you actually do it.

I think for 90% of the indie artists it's a good idea to choose the
model where you allow the usage for noncommercial projects.

And as soon as someone makes money he has to negotiate with
you anyway.

[Bob Olhsson]

It doesn't require a "model." It just requires making a deal with somebody whose music you want to use. With the internet available, finding the person to make a deal with has become trivial.

[con mucho gusto]

There's actually an interesting book about this topic...

http://www.futureofmusicbook.com/

Don't buy it...the way it's written will really start to piss you off right away.

In fact, I'm getting pissed right now just thinking about it.

BUT...The point/prediction that they make (over and over again) is that music is like water. You can buy the premium shit if you want, but the dirty mp3s are pretty much going to end up as freebees everywhere. pretty much what's going on now, but legal.

It seems that if they had everything set up as a monthly service that you subscribe to (like satellite radio) and a beefed up BMI or ASCAP to track all of this shit, it may work..

[Bob Olhsson]

My question is the future of whose music?

The problem with compulsory licensing of recordings is that it eliminates any incentive to sign and promote new artists. As soon as you get something happening, each of the major labels would be able to release their own version. It would also cost exactly the same amount to release a Beatles record as yours. Where does the promotion money come from?

The way it is, the artist has monopoly control over their own music. I don't see how taking that away helps anybody but big record distributors.

[Bob Olhsson]

Here's an interesting article:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/16/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_Lashinsky_copyright.fortune/index.htm?section=money_latest%22%3E%3Cb%3EWakeup% 20and%20Smell%20the%20Copyright

[nobby]

Munns got props for his willingness to represent his industry on hostile territory. He pointed out that change is hard, that EMI collected virtually no revenue from digital sales three years ago and that that figure could hit 13 percent this year. It's the reason the company changed its name from EMI Records to EMI Music. He acknowledged that EMI certainly is talking to YouTube's new owner, Google, about how EMI will be compensated when its artists' songs are played without permission on the video site.



That's interesting. I think Google paid over $2,000,000,000 for youtube, a site whose only possible business model (correct me if I'm wrong) would be ad space for banners and they hadn't thought through potential copyright issues?