John Battelle's blog post over music search.
I would like to join, though a bit late, this conversation ... a conversation about copyright; music copyright in particular.
I follow the approach endeavoured by Richard Stallman (you know, the guy who coined the expressions "GNU's not Unix", and "free as in Freedom, not free beer"). I believe that a single GPL license should be given to the whole of the internet - and I really mean the WHOLE of the internet -; in particular to whatever media file (music or video) you find there.
Why? Well, because I think it's the most natural way to go.
You must remember that systems adjust to technology. Imagine musicians of the 18th century. They could not record their music. Technology was limited back then, so they would just play in bars, circuses, fairs, eventually to nobles and other sponsors. And when they would play, everyone within the range of hearing would be able to listen for free. Ok, so maybe some people would pay to get the best chair, but everybody within audible range could stop and listen. Back on those days, music artists would probably be living on tips and patron's night-stand wages.
On the internet, it's the same: every mp3 file is one single link apart from the human's ear. The internet has become a medium for transporting media, just like air. You cannot tell sound waves to propagate anisotropically (i.e. with loss of symmetry) and to travel to that person's ear and not to the other person's that sits next to it. That just wouldn't be natural.
I believe media companies should focus on selling the packaging and the sound quality , not the content. The analogy with the 18th century musicians would be like selling places in comfortable chairs nearby musicians; I mean they couldn't sell the music itself ... they couldn't control the sound that propagates through air. If the music were outdoors, there's no way they could stop standing people to listen. Then of course, they could build a closed infrastructure, keep the musicians inside, give it a name like "a concert hall", eventually add a fancy qualifier like "royal concert hall", and charge extra at the entrance. In fact, that's exactly what they did!
But my point is: in the internet context, this "royal dome" is not easy to implement; the internet is free; content is only one link apart; like air - and it should remain likeso. You could try to sell content; but then, it would be as absurd as selling bottles of fresh air :)
Otherwise, if we project the idea of selling content in the 18th century, it'd mean they'd have to install a earing device that blocks melodious sound to every earing person in the county, and charge people for unlocking their devices so they could listen to the music they payed for. This is to show how ridiculous it is, selling music with DRM in the internet! This is to show how crippled I feel whenever I get to see music files on the internet but am not allowed to play them.
But still, with a GPL license, content would be legally free. Free to listen AND free to sell as well (remember, "free as in Freedom, not free beer"). Even if it'd be like selling bottles of fresh air in Switzerland.
Nonetheless, if you add in some aroma or subtle fragrance; if you put some design in the bottle; if you call your bottled air, "parfum"; then, you might get a selling product.
So don't sell only music, sell music with the exclusive band's t-shirt!
View comments