From: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org (alloy-digest) To: alloy-digest@smoe.org Subject: alloy-digest V4 #281 Reply-To: alloy@smoe.org Sender: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "alloy-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. alloy-digest Tuesday, October 19 1999 Volume 04 : Number 281 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Alloy: Freeing The World One Song At A Time ["Stephen M. Tilson" ] Alloy: doh! ["Stephen M. Tilson" ] Re: Alloy: doh! [Brian Clayton ] Alloy: names to faces [RThurF@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 02:19:26 -0400 From: "Stephen M. Tilson" Subject: Alloy: Freeing The World One Song At A Time Crackers, Clarify, please, how a musician or other artist would, under your proposed system, make a living? Clearly I haven't considered this as deeply as yourself, but it seems on the surface of things that undoing "copy protection" will adversely affect a creative artist's income earning ability. Perhaps the performing artist would be relatively unaffected, but what about the lady, Canadian as I recall, who wrote "Let's Give Them Something To Talk About"? She's not a performer per se, so the reward she reaps for her creation comes entirely from licensing the work to Bonnie Raitt and the other artists that have recorded the song. Now maybe Ms. Raitt has the correct value structure to deal honorably with the author, but her record company doesn't, I'll wager. So where's the incentive for non-performance artists to create? Naive as I am, I still don't expect the entertainment industry to function on the honor system. Sad but true in my world view. Copyright laws are there to protect us from natural oversights, and unscrupulous people and corporations. Perhaps if you examined and discussed the mechanism whereby Red Hat earned 48 megabucks selling free software, that might go a ways toward understanding how we might do the same. Curious, /\/\iles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 04:31:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris Cracknell Subject: Re: Alloy: Freeing The World One Song At A Time In article <199910180219_MC2-895F-8EE2@compuserve.com>, you wrote: >Crackers, > >Clarify, please, how a musician or other artist would, under your >proposed system, make a living? Clearly I haven't considered this as >deeply as yourself, but it seems on the surface of things that >undoing "copy protection" will adversely affect a creative artist's >income earning ability. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ "Open Art" won't work for all artists much like "Open Source" won't work for all software companies, but I think the vast majority of musicians would benefit from "Open Art". The average working musician makes very little money if any from royalty cheques so they have little to lose by realeasing their work as "open art". They'll continue to be employed as session musicians, they'll continue to make money from gigs, and they'll continue to draw income from commissioned works for other projects such as writing songs for other musicians, or soundtracks for film, video, videogames, etc. There's nothing stopping a musician from choosing which works they wish to release as "Open Art" and which works they choose to not to. So if I'm commissioned to write a song for Bonnie Raitt then I wouldn't be releasing that work as "Open Art", but then the music that I write for myself I would. Of course Bonnie could feel free to just grab one of my "Open Art" works and release it on her album and not have to pay me a cent but then one of the conditions of "Open Art" is that it can only be included with other works of "Open Art". Let's face it, even if Bonnie Raitt wished to release an album of "Open Art" works it's doubtful that the record companies that control her would allow her to do so. Look at all the trouble 2 Live Crew got into when they tried to give their music away for free a few years ago. For the average musician "Open Art" would likely be a benefit. It's a trade off. They lose the SOCAN cheque (which for the average Canadian musician amounts to sweet-dick-all) but in return their work becomes more accessible to the world. For a certain segment of the arts community this will be worth far more than their SOCAN cheque. Like "Open Source", "Open Art" will not be a concept that will be embraced by everyone in the artworld. Infact, like "Open Source" [Bill Gates wrote a paper in the 70s in which he called on computer organizations to Blackball programmers who wrote public domain software], "Open Art" will likely be seen as a threat by many in the artworld, especially the music industry. The record industry is already begining to reel from the assault of independently released albums (which is why Canada has passed a law that imposses a levy on independently released albums that goes directly into the pockets of the big record labels) they may feel that if radio stations don't have to pay royalties, they may begin to play more "open art" music and less royalty music. To the songsmith who makes his bread writing songs for Bonny Raitt and George Micheal, "Open Art" won't be a viable option. For the indie band from Moosejaw "Open Art" could be more valuable than the $12 they'd likely recieve from SOCAN. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ >So where's the incentive for non-performance artists to create? ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ Incientive? The act of creation is its own incentive. Like I said, how many of us would lay down our tools of creation if we knew for a fact that we would never make a single penny from our efforts? ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ >Naive as I am, I still don't expect the entertainment industry to function >on the honor system. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ Who says it has to? If you're releasing a work as "Open Art" then there's nothing stoping someone from coming along and recording your song on their album, except for the terms of use implicit in the employment of a work of "Open Art". They use your song on their album then every song of theirs on that album becomes "Open Art" and you're just as free to turn around and start selling covers of their work. The honorarium I suggested is just that, a suggestion. There's absolutely nothing manditory about it. There will be some who share the wealth and there will be some who won't. In the end it doesn't matter because for the artist who released their work as "Open Art" the work itself is more important than money. Basically I envision "Open Art" as a movement of artists who are more interested in having their works made accessible to the world than they are in making money off their works. That's not to say they still won't make money by selling their CDs and tapes of "Open Art" songs, it's just that the money is more of a fringe benefit it's the distribution of the work itself that's the goal. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ >Sad but true in my world view. Copyright laws are there to protect >us from natural oversights, and unscrupulous people and corporations. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ But originally copyright laws were created to ensure the public access to works of art. Granting a limited monopoly to the work's creator was the means with which this end was met. You make it, it's yours for 28 years, after that it belongs to the masses. The 28 year monopoly encouraged artists to tackle the huge obstacles that used to stand in the way of publishing and distributing a work and as a result the number of works available to the public grew. But then, very quickly, the means became an end in itself as soon as works of art ceased to be art and became instead corporate assets. Now the public has very little rights when it comes to access of works. If your a corporation and you wish to censor an artist all you have to do is buy them off then refuse to publish their works (which happens more often than you might think). By the time the public gets the right to access the artists work you will be dead, the artist will be dead, the artists's children will be dead, and the artists grandchildren will be very, very old. That is, if by that time you haven't been successful in lobbying the government into extending copyright protection for, oh, another 100 or 200 years. Copyright laws are a double edged sword. Let's face it, with tools like inexpensive, powerful computers, the internet, and things like Beatnik and MP3 files, the obstacles that stood in the way of artists back when copyright laws were first penned no longer exist. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ >Perhaps if you examined and discussed the mechanism whereby Red Hat >earned 48 megabucks selling free software, that might go a ways >toward understanding how we might do the same. ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ According to my friend who works in a computer retail store, the two most common reasons people give for buying a copy of Linux over downloading and burning their own CD are. 1) Downloading and burning their own CD is a time consuming pain in the ass. 2) Having a real, material, paper manual to read is a lot nicer and more convenient than having a bunch of text files on your hard drive. When I finally get around to making my Linux box (but first I have to build some kitchen cabinets) I'm going to buy a copy because I'd rather spend $35 for a CD and manual than go through the hassel of making one myself. Of course Red Hat has more going on than just the retail sales of Linux. Where they make their real money is from selling support contracts. How that last one would apply to the arts world is beyond me. Perhaps the equivalent would be if you release a work as "open art" and it becomes popular through that avenue of distribution it will attract the attention of people in the entertainment industry who will recognize your talent and commission you for other projects. The harsh reality of the entertainment biz is that only a tiny percentage of working musicians will be able to live off their royalty cheques, only a tiny percentage of working musicians will ever sell a song to Bonnie Raitt (or anyone else), and only an extremely, fractional, tiny percentage of musicians will ever become "superstars". "Open Source" saved Linux from falling into obscurity. I believe that "Open Art" can do the same for a sizable number of independent musicians. In the end it's just another option for musicians. They can play the lotto and gamble on the hopes that they'll become superstars, or they can sacrifice their tiny SOCAN cheques (or whatever copyright organization is used in their country) in the hopes of increasing public access to their art. And if anyone is curious, the last royalty cheque I cashed was for about $200 US. Of course it was a cheque for software royalties, not music ones. ;) In anycase, as you can no doubt tell, I'm very passionate about refining the definition and terms of "Open Art" as I am quite eager to make available the body of my works under such a system. All input on this subject will be greatly appreciated. CRACKERS (Becoming very open from hell!!!) -- Collector of Atari 2600 carts - Accordionist - Bira Bira Devotee - Anime fan * http://www.hwcn.org/~ad329/crab.html | Crackers' Arts Base * * http://www.angelfire.com/ma/hozervideo/index.html | Hozer Video Games * Nihongo ga dekimasu - 2600 programmer - Father of 2 great kids - Canadian eh ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:12:22 EDT From: RThurF@aol.com Subject: Re: Alloy: Freeing The World One Song At A Time In a message dated 10/17/99 10:26:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, crackers@hwcn.org writes: :: People of Alloy, please share with me any ideas, insights, and suggestions you might have that will help to make an "open art" movement a reality. If you know of any arts organizations that have similar goals in mind please share them with me too. :: crackers, your idea is intriguing! I can say that in the graphic arts world there are already many collections of copyright-free designs - 'clip art' - which anyone is free to use for anything they like, without even having to refer to the source (many times the source is forgotten by now anyway!) though in my own design work, I deliberately look for motifs which have a distinct historical source that I can cite. I think of it as important to my work itself, that the designs I use should be referenced to their own history. That's just me. It delights me to feel like an almost anonymous 'transmitter' of these beautiful old symbols/object replicas - not to mention the Early Music instruments I intend to continue making. Giving voice to the past is an incredible fulfillment in itself! For making my living, restoration bookbinding is very creative & fulfilling in itself (and incidentally, pays a HELL of a lot better that instrument making believe it or not, at which someone starting off like myself could never hope to make a living from - just like music, it seems) in addition to serving as a possible future means to make my own artwork more accessable and attractive to the public. A skillfully hand-bound book containing images of my work would be interesting to quite a few people, one day. Anyway, back to your idea of Free Art as pertains to Music. Are you considering that artists might self-publish collections of a musical equivalent of 'clip art' - that is, under the artists name (and possibly with the name or code embedded within it so that the artist will always get proper recognition) but with no copyright restrictions? Putting out music that anyone can access for free *does* make sense in this light, because as we all know, the only music that gets airplay is that which the companies push with all their might/financing, if they think it will make them richer. Never mind what the people want to hear... it's what the record companies are telling them they want to hear. Propaganda such as this has always proven extremely effective in swaying unsuspecting people who aren't used to deciding for themselves, having never had any variety of offerings to choose from in the first place anyway thanks to the record companies (and round and round the cycle goes) Your living as a musician would indeed be made if people come to know you and love your work, and attend your concerts & eventually purchase your CDs, perhaps, which you would by then have recognition enough to risk financing on your own after concert proceeds (of which NO percentage would have to go to any record companies whatsoever). I can see that creating a sort of 'share ware' of music, writing, and visual art would definitely jolt the existing structure of art marketing (and in visual arts there are many of the exact same problems as those musicians face, everything is stacked against the one who is the actual creative force - - without whom the structure of this moneymaking racket would collapse utterly, of course... ant yet are continually kicked around, obscenely underpaid, neglected, etc) What sort of media would you be proposing? Internet is of course considered the most widely accessable... though not everyone is connected to the 'net (after all, it seems 17% of Americans are living below poverty level, not to mention the rest of the earth's population who are under similar circumstances or worse... I just read the stats this morning & I'm ticked off, sorry for the mini-rant :) Self-publishing is definitely an answer. I can see that your proposal involves more than just self-publication though. In what ways would it differ, if you don't mind explaining once more (to the ditzy impractical visual artist and craftsperson that I'm made out to be by corporate propaganda spinners who want to rob me and my colleagues blind ;) Robin T ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 13:25:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Clayton Subject: Alloy: doh! It seems the main trick to getting Science 1999 running under Netscape is be sure that, in addition to enabling Java and JavaScript, one should also enable style sheets! Works fine on my office computer now. Doh! BC ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:37:45 -0400 From: "Stephen M. Tilson" Subject: Alloy: doh! > It seems the main trick to getting Science 1999 running under > Netscape is be sure that, in addition to enabling Java and > JavaScript, one should also enable style sheets! Works fine on > my office computer now. Thanks, Brian! Tired of studying airplane systems and procedures, I started working on a Science1999 remix last night. This will take some time, I think. After just fooling around with it and trying to do it blind I began to take a more studied approach to it - making up an event list that will help me map out the changes I want. Still working on that list . . . I need to listen carefully to all 12 presets before I'll be done. Hmmmm. 12 x 4:23 = 51 minutes! Those "B" presets are fun. Carry on, /\/\iles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:10:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Clayton Subject: Re: Alloy: doh! On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Stephen M. Tilson wrote: > After just fooling around with it and trying to do it blind I > began to take a more studied approach to it - making up an event list > that will help me map out the changes I want. > > Still working on that list . . . I need to listen carefully to all > 12 presets before I'll be done. Hmmmm. 12 x 4:23 = 51 minutes! Yes, listening through each track helps, giving you a feel of when to switch channels; though mapping out each and every bit of all of them was more ambitious than I was willing to be. :) Now, for an example of the kind of thing you can do if you either a) edit the RMF files directly, or b) have six hands and a six-mouse computer, you might check out this "spastic" mix by Sal Orlando at Headspace (who put together the Science 1999 site with Thomas.) http://www.beatnik.com/cgi-bin/mix_retriever.cgi?mix_id=u4m4d19991015052033 BC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 01:15:16 EDT From: RThurF@aol.com Subject: Alloy: names to faces Look look look! more Alloy member photos can be seen @ the Names to Faces gallery construction site: http://members.aol.com/RThurF/AlloyNamestoFaces.htm Come & see Erik H, Kate, and Dabbit :) With more to follow soon... Robin T ------------------------------ End of alloy-digest V4 #281 ***************************