The Creative Commons future

[JGriffin]

The industry is eroding in productivity in part because it's putting out shitty product and insists on adhering to business models that have been annihilated by changes in technology.

Yep, amateur music attempting to be sold or, in lieu of that, being given away because it is likely so bad floods the market with mediocrity.

As bickle pointed out, this is a complete misinterpretation of what I said. I draw a distinction--as it is obvious that you do-- between major-label product and indie-label/no-label product. The distinction you seem to draw is qualitative, mine is simply one of classification. In my point above, "the industry" refers only to major-label product.

My point, which I will restate more clearly, is that major label product over the last few years has been of increasingly poor quality.

[JGriffin]

Your point about rarity...is actually MY point about rarity. The Guitar Hero experience is the rare moment where music is front and center rather than being wallpaper, which is what it is in most of its other incarnations these days.

Nope. Not according to this book.

Since you're the one who is casting aspersions on this book, can I then assume you agree with me on the rarity issue?

Good.

[JGriffin]

We have less musicians and more people 'pretending' for free. This has reduced the industry to a level that is continuously eroding in productivity. This does not serve to make music more of a 'commodity'- that would happen through rarity.

It does nothing more than cheapen what music there is and this can be seen by the direction the industry is heading. The last 10-15 years have bourn this out.

Per capita, do we actually have less musicians and more pretenders than in a previous time? I know this isn't the type of comment easily backed up by a statistic,

I asked for a statistic to back up this claim at the top of page 2. Let's see if one actually ever emerges.

[bickle]

Per capita, do we actually have less musicians and more pretenders than in a previous time? I know this isn't the type of comment easily backed up by a statistic,

I asked for a statistic to back up this claim at the top of page 2. Let's see if one actually ever emerges.

This is an interesting question, but I just don't think there's going to be any such statistic, or not a direct one, anyway. I do know I've read stats about sheet music sales in the time before recorded music was available, and it's certainly true that people very widely bought sheet music, possibly on par with the way they bought recorded music through the last half of the twentieth century. That might be one way to get at the question.

[cgarges]

Sheet music sales have DRASTICALLY declined in the past 15 years, while the sale of inexpensive "starter" instruments has risen.

I wonder of the IRS has public records available about the number of people participating in a given profession over the last few years?

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[@?,*???&?]

Per capita, do we actually have less musicians and more pretenders than in a previous time? I know this isn't the type of comment easily backed up by a statistic,

I asked for a statistic to back up this claim at the top of page 2. Let's see if one actually ever emerges.

This is an interesting question, but I just don't think there's going to be any such statistic, or not a direct one, anyway. I do know I've read stats about sheet music sales in the time before recorded music was available, and it's certainly true that people very widely bought sheet music, possibly on par with the way they bought recorded music through the last half of the twentieth century. That might be one way to get at the question.

Lessig attempts to use Sousa's point of less amateurs are bad for music and culture- which directly contradicts the claim he is trying to make with regard to the proliferation of musical samples creating more amateurs. Releasing samples on the general public is no different than releasing previously recorded music that has to be played on a mechanical device. Releasing samples does not create more amateur musicians- which was Sousa's goal.

[Young Winston]

Releasing samples on the general public is no different than releasing previously recorded music that has to be played on a mechanical device. Releasing samples does not create more amateur musicians- which was Sousa's goal.

*Buys a copy of "Paul's Boutique," sends it to Jeff*

[mjau]

Is an increase in the number of people creating and recording music a good thing, overall?

[JGriffin]

Is an increase in the number of people creating and recording music a good thing, overall?

Only in "real" studios, and only if the music they record is released "legitimately," with a barcode.

[mjau]

Let's open that question up as a new thread.

[cgarges]

For anyone who's interested, Lessig will be appearing on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross on Monday (Dec. 22nd).

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[@?,*???&?]

For anyone who's interested, Lessig will be appearing on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross on Monday (Dec. 22nd).

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

Thank you Herr Garges.

Another bit on the book.

Lessig begins to describe this person who is able to hack to bits former legal cases and assemble them all brilliantly in a brief to be presented in court. Says he feels that this is exactly what sampling music is and what good it can be. He says that without the borrowed material, the brief would not have any meaning. He says currently, that author is not responsible to pay for his borrowed bits- which is true. However, that person is also not gaining anything financial from the brief- unless you consider winning the case in court.

He tries to compare this scenario to music and musicians borrowing samples from other performers.

It is a very different concept and it all comes down to viewpoint. A musical piece is a running commentary but viewpoint is essential and extremely subjective. The brief of which he speaks is a mechanical process. Music is not mechanical.

I would propose that if you were a student and wrote a paper and had to use quotes in the paper to support your ideas as well as footnote them, your paper would have an exceptionally subjective viewpoint. The legal brief described above- at least as he describes it in the book- is devoid of such subjectivity. Likely, you could even write the paper without the quotes. Would it be stronger with or without them? Actually, unless it's a research paper, it may be pretentious to use quotes in lieu of being 'original'.

Music can certainly direct, engaging, immediate, precise, emotional and a whole host of things without having a single, solitary, borrowed phrase or sample. So why let go so quickly of them and turn them loose into a 'free' domain?

[bickle]

Once again, you know not of what you speak. I'll take it bit by bit...

However, that person is also not gaining anything financial from the brief- unless you consider winning the case in court.

I'm quite certain most attorneys are paid rather well, in fact, win or lose. Especially lawyers of the caliber to write and argue briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court. Like, for example, Lawrence Lessig.

I would propose that if you were a student and wrote a paper and had to use quotes in the paper to support your ideas as well as footnote them, your paper would have an exceptionally subjective viewpoint. The legal brief described above- at least as he describes it in the book- is devoid of such subjectivity.

How does using quotes lead to a subjective viewpoint? I don't follow; in fact, I tend to think something with fewer references to outside work would be more subjective. As to whether a legal brief has a subjective viewpoint, it most assuredly does. This should be immediately obvious from the fact that both sides in a civil suit will argue that the same law necessarily implies two opposing outcomes. What one does and how one does it in a legal brief may seem inane to an untrained observer, but it certainly involves a high level of creativity, along with skill, strategy, and concision.

Music can certainly direct, engaging, immediate, precise, emotional and a whole host of things without having a single, solitary, borrowed phrase or sample. So why let go so quickly of them and turn them loose into a 'free' domain?

Of course, music, like a legal brief, is nothing without what came before it. I doubt that any musicologist, or for that matter any serious musician or music listener, would be able to listen to any piece of music without easily identifying all sorts of source material, some direct, some less so. Like anyone, I admire originality in music, but I certainly do not think pure originality is even possible. In all creative endeavors, as in any human endeavor, the background from which you start is a huge part of the story. That's why people like Lessig want people like us to have unfettered access to the elements composing that background.

[bickle]

The brief of which he speaks is a mechanical process. Music is not mechanical.

Oh, forgot about this part. If the brief is mechanical, why don't they just have a machine write it? I'm wondering if you've ever seen a legal brief. Or thought about why people consider some lawyers to be better than others. Is it because brief-writing and the like are creative endeavors that involve all sorts of skill and talent? Impossible!

[@?,*???&?]

I would propose that if you were a student and wrote a paper and had to use quotes in the paper to support your ideas as well as footnote them, your paper would have an exceptionally subjective viewpoint. The legal brief described above- at least as he describes it in the book- is devoid of such subjectivity.

How does using quotes lead to a subjective viewpoint? I don't follow; in fact, I tend to think something with fewer references to outside work would be more subjective. As to whether a legal brief has a subjective viewpoint, it most assuredly does. This should be immediately obvious from the fact that both sides in a civil suit will argue that the same law necessarily implies two opposing outcomes. What one does and how one does it in a legal brief may seem inane to an untrained observer, but it certainly involves a high level of creativity, along with skill, strategy, and concision.

You are absolutely correct and that is exactly why he is wrong. He says in his writing that without the quotes, the legal brief is useless. That is his viewpoint- which tells me he has not though this through. He thinks the quotes make the brief- not the need for a brief (first) or the viewpoint (second) contained therein.

Let's face it, if music were all samples of other peoples music, who would care to listen? Constant regurgitation with no ability to perform or play would get obnxious very, very quick. One could argue the art is merely in the sampling in the first place. If one person does it, that's their style, if another person does it, it's derivative because the first person has already done it. If everyone did it, music would lose what little vibrancy it has left.