Re: [microsound] open audio license

[Sal Randolph <sal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Phil,

> Yes, the creative commons licenses are great, but it seems there's
> nothing to prevent someone from taking something released under any of
> their licenses, sampling it, releasing a mega-hit that makes a million
> bucks, and not sharing any of that wealth with the original artist.

There are several different Creative Commons licenses, including ones 
which permit only noncommercial use.  One thing to note about using 
these licenses, is that you do retain your full copyright, and give 
away only those rights you choose to (by selecting a license that suits 
your own goals).  If you choose a license that restricts commercial 
use, then the scenario you discuss would be illegal, and enforceable 
through the ordinary legal means. (you are free as the copyright holder 
to license broadly under a noncommercial license, and then also sell 
commercial rights to specific customers in the normal manner).

The GPL and other copyleft licenses (like the Creative Commons 
AttributionShareAlike license) are interesting to me in that they do 
allow the kind of scenario you're describing, but only in cases where 
the resulting mega-hit *is also licensed under the same license*.  
Copyleft licenses are viral, preventing re-privatizing of the common 
pool.  You would then be able to freely (legally) sell as many copies 
of the mega-hit yourself as you care to.  The ways in which artists (or 
programmers) make money under these licenses tend to be oblique 
(performing, selling objects like cds or t-shirts, customizing, being 
hired for their demonstrated talent and expertise, sponsoring 
commercial products because of their fame/reputation, etc) rather than 
through royalties, but there's some genuinely interesting territory to 
explore in that direction.

> This
> might be particularly problematic given the fact that, for example, the
> archive.org site contains a number of recordings by black blues 
> artists.

The copyrights on things in the archives still do belong to the 
original artists (or copyright holders), and some are offered under 
explicit Creative Commons licenses (which the archive makes possible 
through its software).  You cannot legally license something if you do 
not hold the copyright.  Putting music files up publicly anywhere on 
the internet can be problematic (as we know from the file sharing 
brouhaha) but it doesn't change the legal ownership of the material in 
question.

Sal

------------------------------