Re: [Librefm-discuss] Libre.fm as the central place for obtaining free music

[George De Bruin]

I am really enjoying this discussion, and have a few things to add
that I think will help focus it a bit better.

First, in talking about the content that libre.fm can consider
offering via torrents, I would suggest that either (a) there is some
"authority" that can outline what licenses can be considered to be
compatible with "Libre Culture" as a whole, or if there isn't one,
maybe this is an area that we could engage someone through the
Software Freedom law Center, or a similar group to take a role in
defining the licenses that are compatible with these goals.

Currently I would think there are three or four major licenses that
would be compatible with our objectives: Public Domain (okay, not
exactly a license, but a foregoing of copyright as a whole), Creative
Commons (indeed, the foundation that most of this work is based on in
the first place), GPL, Artistic License, and possibly others.  Then
there are some of the newer extensions to copyright such as
SafeCreative, which may have varying levels of applicability to the
goals of sharing music that fits into a "Libre Culture".

Next, while I've seen several mentions of Jamendo in this thread, I
think it would be to our benefit to consider trying to bring together
as many sources as possible.  Some of the ones that I can think of off
the top of my head would include: Internet Archive (especially the
netlabels collection), Phlow Magazine, Sonic Squirrel, and
LegalTorrents (which was founded by Simon Carless - the man behind the
Monotonik Netlabel) .  I especially think that Internet Archive and
LegalTorrents would be excellent partners for putting together the
resources that we need for this kind of project.

Anyway, that's just some input from my side.

George

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:53 PM, address@hidden <address@hidden> wrote:
> One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who
> willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the
> conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the
> highest respect for law.
>  - Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
>
> On 03/02/2010 12:16 AM, Blaise Alleyne wrote:
>
> ----- Original message -----
>> Dne ponedeljek 1. marca 2010 ob 07:04:37 je Matt Lee napisal(a):
>> > Let's not forget that free songs are often copyrighted, but that
>> > Libre.fm will never be allowing nonfree materials for download.
>>
>> Well, to be strict, all songs with a known author are copyrighted.
>> Free/libre
>> songs are only licensed then with a copyleft license on top of that.
>>
>> What did you have in mind here then? Free as in beer songs that are not
>> subject to any free/libre license?
>
> You can "uncopyright" a song by releasing it into the public domain (e.g.
> CC0 waiver), and there are non-copyleft free licences (e.g. CC BY). I think
> Matt was just trying to clarify that it's not "copyrighted" music that would
> raise legal issues, rather it's the free versus non-free (libre) distinction
> that's relevant.
>
> It's not quite accurate for us to say "copyrighted" when we really mean
> "non-free," but I think we all knew what you meant. Good to be accurate
> though.
>



-- 
---
Faster moments spent spread tales of change within the sound...