EFF Releases Public Music License

Robin Gross, one of the very nice people at the EFF ^[?] wrote to us about their new public music license. As the press release states: "...EFF's Open Audio License allows anyone to freely copy, share, perform, and adapt music in exchange for providing credit to the artist for her gift to humanity. EFF's Open Audio License enables musicians and society to build upon and share creative expression, creating a rich public commons. Artists who chose to release a song under the public license can build their reputation by offering unfettered access to their original works in exchange for recognition. Open Audio works are designated as "(O)" by the author and may be lawfully traded on file-sharing systems such as Napster or played by traditional and Web DJs royalty-free. Numerous musicians have traditionally taken advantage of super-distribution of their music, such as the Grateful Dead, a band that attributes much of its success to its encouragement of fans to freely copy and share its music. "EFF's Open Audience License hopes to use the power of copyright to protect copyright's ultimate objectives: a vibrant and accessible public domain, incentivising creativity, and promoting the free exchange of ideas," said EFF Staff Attorney for Intellectual Property Robin Gross. "EFF's public music license strikes a new deal between creators and the public, granting more freedoms to the public to experience music while ensuring the artist is compensated." You can read more details in the FAQ and more about their Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression.

Doesn't the recording industry pre-empt this?

Perhaps someone with actual music contract experience could comment (there's a thought!), but my understanding was that the recording industry works pretty hard to pre-empt this kind of thing. In that, sooner or later every successful musician would like to sign a contract for commercial distribution, but that all such contracts contain clauses turning over complete control of distribution to the recording company, and explicitly prohibiting the artist from using any other form of distribution. And that these contracts have recently been amended to specifically prohibit distribution via Internet, just in case the musicians start having any uppity thoughts about going out on their own.

True, or just another Internet rumour?

sPh

Re:GNUArt !

The GPL is useful because it covers a specific domain: software. It covers the situations involved with software development and addresses those specific issues. The language all refers to programs, source code, running programs, source code distribution, etc. Many of those elements have a parallel in art, literature and music, but they come with their own unique situations. Applying a software license to things other than software puts the status of those items on shaky ground. Why do you think lawyers recommend against just using cookie-cutter legal forms and crossing stuff off and writing in the margins. It's not because they're after legal fees. It's because doing that leaves situational loopholes a mile wide. For example, if I apply the GPL to a photograph, what do I need to provide to comply with the "a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange" clause? Photographs don't have source code. Yes you can deliver prints or digital files, but to a photographer, those are the equivilant of binaries. That leaves that clause a bad fit and leaves both a loophole and a potential problem. What about a painting? sculpture? New licenses that deal with the product domain specifically, but still keep the spirit of free licenses provides a far greater advantage than badly adapting an inappropriate license.

So you like Perl. Would you actually try to build an OS with it? Wrong tool for the job. Sure, in some strange twisted way, it might be possible, but it's not the best tool.

LetterJ
Head Geek

please think a little more specifically

Well...no. If you released your songs under the EFF's Open Audio License and Sony downloaded them and started selling cds, they would have permission to do so. You've given it to them (and anyone else) by licensing your music under the OAL.

And yes, someone could create derived works and sell them without paying anything. But not without your name on it. Sony and random remixers alike must give credit. These two items are the substance of the license we're discussing. There are other ways to "apply the GPL" to music, of course, but I would argue that without freedom to use and derive from a work commercially, you're not talking about the GPL.

If that's not for you, that's fine. You have plenty of other options. But please, say what you mean without fabricating supporting arguments out of thin air.

Re:Doesn't the recording industry pre-empt this?

Upon it's creation, all works are the property of their creator. The only way a studio can get control over a piece of music is for the artist to hand over that control.

That's what the contract you mention is. It's a legal instrument to hand over the distribution rights to the studio. The artist does not need to do this. If they feel that the distribution channels of the studio are worth more than retaining control of their work, they will sign it. Otherwise they won't.

So, when a musician creates a piece of music, he owns it. He may then place it under the "O" license (although much better licenses exist) and release it. He probably won't be able to go through the traditional channels to distribute it, though. That's a choice he has to make.

Re:Doesn't the recording industry pre-empt this?

I think this license will probably apply more to unsigned artists. It's true, the record companies own complete control of an artist's works once they are under a record contract. For an unsigned artist, this might be a way to gain some exposure, but I don't believe it will be any more helpful than playing lots of shows, touring, etc.

Re:please think a little more specifically

ok, by "permission" I meant explicit permission. My mistake ... so why would an artist want to license like this so corporations can steal from him?

I'd like to see a license that would allow fans to listen/trade freely but required those who seek profit also seek a license ...

I don't think thats so far out there.

Working Link for the FAQ

Here. [eff.org]

B. Elgin

Re:Grateful Dead

One of the co-founders of the EFF [eff.org] is John Barlow [eff.org], who was a lyricist for the Greatful Dead. I'm inclined to listen more closely to his views on the Greatful Dead's experiences and policies than to something heard 27th-hand on slashdot.

If you're concerned about a certain scenario resulting in the artist being screwed over if they use this license, send your question to the EFF. I had the opportunity to be present at the expo [newyorkexpo.com] where this license was announced. Many similar questions were asked there, and the EFF deftly answered them all. By sending your questions to the EFF, you'll also help to raise their awareness that certain frequently asked questions are missing from their FAQ.

What if ...

What if someone makes a copyrighted song with part of an OpenAudience song in it? Is it like the GPL where someone cant use open code in their own code unles they make their code open too? What if someone makes an Open song with, say, the bass line to a metallica, and someone else makes an open song with the drum part... Could someone play a metallica song as Open because they got all the parts for it from different Open songs?

GNUArt !

FYI, the GNUArt Project which consists of GPL'ing Art has become reality on http://gnuart.org [gnuart.org] (charter) and http://gnuart.net [gnuart.net] (gallery) on January 1st, 2001.
The advantage of GNUArt is obvious as, instead of having yet another license, we just exploit a valid existing one.
It is still being translated to english at the moment but you have the fish [altavista.com] until then.
The charter was co-written with Richard Stallman.
--

Re:Other movements for the freedom of art

It sounds like you would prefer a proprietary license. You don't want RedHat to make money off of you so the BSD license won't work.