Fabio Pesari wrote:
> While I appreciate Magnatune's offer, it is a cultural ghetto (you won't
> find The Smiths, Depeche Mode or Nick Drake there), just like Jamendo.
That strikes me as a matter of taste and siding with power; you won't find
Magnatune's artists or work on the more widely-advertised label releases
either. I find it more valuable to figure out what I like by listening to
the music for myself.
> I don't doubt there are good musicians releasing music on it, however
> most of those artists are necessarily derivative of influential nonfree
> music: for example, I can't imagine someone who makes progressive rock
> and isn't in any way influenced by Pink Floyd, Genesis or Yes.
I fail to understand what this has to do with the topic of discussion. This
reads to me as a digression which tries to subtly position more popular
artists as somehow better than less popular artists without acknowledging
how derivative artists in general are. I think a better discussion would
convey how derivation is at the heart of everything humans do, how the
popular label system is corrupt in that it over rewards the more popular
artists, and how assessing artist's worth is not valuable to this discussion.
> In short, especially if you are a musician, you will have a hard time
> connecting with other people with similar musical tastes if you only
> listen to music released on Magnatune.
Until you mentioned this twice (once above and once at the end of your
post), nobody said one had to or would "only listen to music released on
Magnatune". That is a false dichotomy. However you bring up a point which
(perhaps inadvertently) puts Magnatune in a better light -- unlike so many
of the more widely-advertised labels, Magnatune doesn't require exclusivity.
> DRM is not the problem, and fighting it is a complete waste of time in
> nearly all cases: people actually like services like Netflix and Spotify
> because they are cheap, and this will *never* change unless proprietary
> software is outright outlawed.
I don't know who you're replying to here, but it's not me. Your post you
made it seem like I wrote "Everyone has the right freely to participate in
the cultural life of the
community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its
benefits.". I did not write that and you didn't credit who did write that.
To respond to your point: DRM is a problem for me because I don't run the
nonfree software needed to get past the DRM in the manner proscribed by the
publisher. Laws prohibiting breaking DRM (even for personal use or fair use
purposes) are often part of copyright legislation. Therefore a lot of the
well-advertised distributors don't allow me to partake of their work
without accepting what could be malware. I find that tradeoff to be
completely unacceptable and I blame them for putting that potential malware
in my way nor do I buy any of the defenses about how unnamed copyright
holders might balk at having DRM-free distribution to paying customers.
> The real problem is copyright laws, because works in the public domain
> could be distributed DRM-free by everyone.
Copyright laws certainly are problematic but I think we can continue to
work on improving multiple issues simultaneously.
> An example of their unfairness: Miles Davis recorded his best tunes in
> the 1950s and he died in 1991, and copyright on his music in many
> countries lasts 70 years after his death (if it's not extended
> infinitely by the current holders, the record labels). That's 2061 at
> the very least, for music that is considered fundamental for our
> culture. How can that be fair?
I believe most popular label artist's copyrights aren't held by the artist,
I believe that copyright is signed over to the label when the artist/band
signs a contract with the label. Janis Ian is a notable exception; I
believe she bought the copyright to her recordings and now holds the
copyright on them. It would benefit the argument for copyright reform to
frame the debate in terms of how most media is licensed.