• http://blogs.sun.com/MortazaviBlog M. Mortazavi

    Many have emphasized “open-source,” i.e. widely available information but have failed to extend the emphasis to open dialogue. Mixing, on the importance of which to innovation you’ve built a whole case, seems to me to be an an instance of open-dialogue. Ultimately, of course, what matters most is not the cyber dialogue but committed, emboddied dialogue and responsible action, as Hubert Dreyfus has noted in his analysis of the Internet.

  • three blind mice

    first professor, kudos to you for making this alternative licensing program available to artists and for having the uncommon decency to put your theories to practice.

    the WSJ’s take on this is interesting:

    If Creative Commons were to catch on more widely, artists might decide to let some of their music be traded free on the Web to promote concerts and related merchandise, as well as to drive sales of CDs and digital tracks protected by standard copyright notices.

    the WJM’s conclusion: CC should catch on “more” widely, but not too widely.

    not quite the endorsement you might have hoped for, but it does seem to us rather spot on. busking for the commons is a hard way to make a living.

    we wish you luck with the release! hopefully, the empirical evidence will help enlighten the copyright debate.

  • three blind mice

    oops, that’s “WSJ’s conclusion” not “WJM’s conclusion.”

  • http://www.xanga.com/publicdomain WJM

    “but it does seem to us “

    WHO THE HELL ARE “US”???

    How many of you are typing?

    Gotta love the multiple-personality net.kooks.

  • http://www.tnl.net Tristan Louis

    Great Job last night. I just wanted to thank you for the great job you did last night at the concert. I think you did an awesome job and I agree with you that the movie should have been played during the intermission :)

  • Curious

    How much faith do you put in US Treasury notes? When they are backed by 3 Trillion in debt? Knowing that fact would it even be worth it to copy them?

  • http://earreverends.com Jay Fienberg

    In the article, Hillary Rosen is quoted as saying:

    I’ve teased Larry that I don’t think the major problem in the music business is that thousands of artists are looking for a legal and simplified method to give away their music.

    Actually, I think this is the major problem in the music business–just not the major problem in the record business. Different businesses: one has been around for thousands of years; the other for less than one hundred.

  • Anonymous

    very interesting.

  • Tim

    One could make money as a CC only music creator (band, or individual). Here’s one model: The creator(s) place sample track(s) on a web site of a “21st century music company”. They also have an account on that site. People download the samples. If they like them, they contribute via Paypal or other means to the account. When the creator(s) feel there’s enough compensation for an “album” they put up 10 or 12 songs for download. Over time, a reputation system builds up as people will pay to encourage an album from good musicians and won’t pay for bad ones. People who take the money and do not produce would be in violation of a contract they sign when they sign up and liable for the money (if anyone has a better idea, let me know – I considered just letting them get away with it as a small cost of doing business, but then realized they could do it over and over with different band names). The artist(s) are compensated right away (a small cut to the company?). Promotion, touring, CD sales, etc., instead of trying to sell records, exist to satisfy fans that want more or the “live experience” and are managed by different people with a different agenda than “drive up sales”. This may not make any independent musicians filthy rich – but it might make a living for some.