Thus, the Opensource community SHOULD back the rights of the artists to restrict the distribution of their data.
why? the open source community not only allows others to use and distribute their software, but it allows others to bundle it up and sell it without them getting a cent for their time. the only restriction is the gpl which says you can do the above things, but you have to let me see and use your changes, ie. the information must continue to be free. i don't see that as doubletalk i see that as enforced honesty.
Then why aren't you advocating the release of all code undr a true public domain system? If you discussing the futility of the artists protection, where is the movement to discuss the futility of the GPL?
personally i do advocate the release of all code (and i kinda thought i had in the above article), if all code (or information in general) were forced to be released into the public domain it would make the bsd/artistic licenses obsolete, and since the gpl was basically created as a backlash *against* copyright law, it too would be mostly irrelevant. as for the gpl being futile, in my opinion it hasn't prooved futile and in fact has done a lot to free old, and force more new, software to be free.
This inconsistency goes a long way to "proving" that the OSS movement is really jsut a banner for people who don't want to pay for anything claiming the protection of laws they are happy to ignore.
i don' tthink that's true. it probably is for some people but there are plenty of open source advocates that are more then happy to pay for what they use. as for the developers themselves? the vast majority of them have never been paid, or certainly weren't paid when the started. they did the work out of love, peer admiration and curiosity. saying that they are motivated by greed seems silly.
now to bring this back to music. honestly i have very mixed feelings on the whole thing. i have a very strong, mostly gut, feeling that information should, and needs to, be free. however i also empathise with the people who pour their lives into their art, and can see how this would be enourmously threatening. i also think that the worst case senario is that a lot of artists would stop making art (cause they couldn't support themselves) and while that would be very sad, the death of the modern corperate music scene doesn't feel like a tragedy to me. i admit that it would hurt a lot of people that currently make their living that way (which would suck), but if music went back to being something people did out of love rather then money (and we never had to put up with another n'sync or backstreet boys) i'm not convinced i'd really be that sad. artists have produced art for thousands of years, it will still continue on without the corporations backing them.... certainly the art i produce is done for the enjoyment of the creation and the performance... though i also am a very well paid sysadmin who doesn't have wife and kids depending on me.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. - Pablo Picasso
[ Parent ]