Still, I'm not convinced.
Ken Restivo wrote:
This would require big money people to keep existing and ruling. The
only way you can make some money would be to play with them. I hope
something different. Like voluntary support from appreciators, for instance.
Moreover, this takes into account old (and falling apart) revenue models.
Preventing sharing doesn't make sense. And I incite it. Thus the 'music
sharing cc-license'. It's enough of a statement compared to almost all
the musician you know and care of. But I can't understand why I should
not impose some restrictions on using my own music. There's plenty of
musicians out there if you want to use some music for any kind of
projects. Or you can just come and ask. I, for one, have never said no.
I just want to know.
It's a kind of control, I know. I'm not proud of using this word.
Btw, has somebody here seen the movie 'Instinct'?:
It's about control, and freedom. I've seen it yesterday on tv with my
wife. Really good movie.
Of course I agree on copyleft and free (as in freedom) for software and
information (in the sense of knowledge) - these are tools. And in fact I
spend almost all my free time to help in spreading these and contribute
in any possible way. I would like to have more time, but this is another
Anyway, music is something much more personal. Maybe I'm wrong, but
that's what I feel at the moment.
In the end, I make music because I love it. Not for money. If I just
wanted to make some money I would make a website with some content (like
cc license music, for instance) crawled automatically and put a ton of
ads. It would probably be much more rewarding than struggling with
something you care.
All the best,
Linux-audio-user mailing list