▼What do you think is the most important advantage of being a Creative Commons artist?
1 to 23 of 23
-
Can you please give us your opinion about that??
Thanks!!!
-
-
CommentAuthorphonicboom
- CommentTimeApr 14th 2008
are you good at giving stuff away for free?
have you failed to make money from your venture, but still wish to inflict it on others?
would you be impressed if someone took what you had done and made something of it?
do you want exposure?
do you want to legally steal stuff?
= CC
you may freely build upon this list so long as you credit the inventor of the typewriter -
-
-
CommentAuthorofficernarc
- CommentTimeApr 14th 2008
hm, i guess exposure is the number one thing that artists get out of the whole creative commons thing. it allows people to basically take your work and use it or build on it without needing to go through mountains of paperwork. i guess in that respect, it rather streamlines the whole process of exchange. it can even be extremely lucrative. just look at nine inch nails, radiohead, and to a lesser extent, the pax cecilia. -
-
-1-
I'm not getting out of this life with any money that I earn.
I don't have any kids.
All that I know, all that I've learned, will be lost on the day I die.
My music is all I have to leave behind -- all I have to give to the future.
-2-
I don't feel like something has to earn money in order to be good.
They have a term for when someone does something that's normally about love, but instead demands money for it.
-3-
Learning to play jazz, I struggled against the fact that the standards -- the common language of jazz -- are locked up by copyright.
Does anyone here really believe that if you pay BMI every time you play "Blues for Alice", Charlie Parker somehow benefits?
-4-
And finally, the record label model of business is as doomed as Carthage. -
do you want to legally steal stuff?
That's the best part.
Plus, I'd never get to know such crappy artists as Kokkaljos and Phon if not for CC.
Thank you, CC.
Oh. And thank you, Mr. Inventor of the typewriter. -
- If (hopefuly) everybody is anyway going to copy your music, at least you have previuosly given permission...
- It's free spread of the word -
-
CommentAuthorbong rouge
- CommentTimeApr 17th 2008
I want my music to be free. The time when you could release an album and expect people not to share it with the world is over. And why would you want that anyway? I make music because I want people to listen to it, and the best way to do that is to encourage people to spread it. I believe that if you're good enough an artist, then you will be able to earn money even if people are getting the music for free. -
-
The life is more beautiful when shared, but I would like that the grocer and the baker also share ...
-
if you're good enough you will be able to earn money even if people are getting the music for free.
And how's that? -
-
Yeah that what I thought.... -
Well, I'm kind of hoping that someone uses my music in theirs some day.
Oddly, adaption is a focal point of Creative Commons, yet almost no one cares about it and only sees the 0.00 price tag that comes with it. That's important too, but... I feel it's not the only point.
Same with open-source software - many use it, barely anyone helps developing it, or at least tinkers with the code.
...So, yeah. Adaption. -
u control your own destiny or demise not the one with the suit coat an tie so much philosophy. peace
-
Same with open-source software - many use it, barely anyone helps developing it, or at least tinkers with the code.
I open up a lot of open source software to see how it works, especially music software. I may not copy the code, but I try to figure out the elements of the design.
Same for Creative Commons music: I listen to a lot of it. I like variety, and true variety is the enemy of marketing, which revolves around genres and brands. I study other people's music the way I study code. What worked? How was this done? What does this do that's different?
I guess my question about Creative Commons is -- if I were to 'cover' a tune by another Jamendo artist, how to properly credit them when I'm submitting my album for moderation? And where does 'covering' fit into the 'build upon' rule in by-nc-nd?
Almost there needs to be a guide for this sort of thing. For me, it's easier just to worry about making music and leave all the legal wrangling to the lawyers. -
-
CommentAuthorofficernarc
- CommentTimeApr 18th 2008 edited
And how's that?
well, first of all, there's the donations. unlike what the music industry wants you to believe, people actually don't mind paying artists. as i said before, nine inch nails and radiohead have made a LOT of money by offering a pay what you want scheme. of course, that's because those artists have huge fanbases, but that doesn't mean that there aren't independent artists who can't also benefit from the same business philosophy. i think people are tired of being "forced" to pay for music. music is kind of an anomalous commodity in that it's not like buying a chair or meal at a restaurant. the whole concept of putting a price on an idea just seems rather arbitrary.
for most artists in the business though, record/digital music sales account for such a minor amount of income that you need to turn to other avenues to make money. of course there is always merchandising and licensing, but artists have always made most of their money from live performances. of course, no one is going to come to your shows if they don't know who you are. file sharing just expedites this process. -
-
I agree with Narc. Free music is nice, so is free software, and I like the idea of "donating what you want", and also when you give money to an artist directly you know it is going to them and not being absorbed by a long line of middle-men.
And allowing your music to be freely distributed helps it spread faster, the only reason commercial music is more widely listened to at the moment is because a lot of radio stations only play music from the big record companies and a lot of people don't know that free music EXISTS. You could argue that commercial music is usually better, but I've listened to tons of commercial music that is complete crap, same goes for free music . . . you aren't going to like or dislike every commercial or every non-commercial artist. -
- CommentAuthorStuffyMattresses
- CommentTimeApr 18th 2008
People critique your music based on whether or not they like your music not based on how much it costs when it's free. -
-
CommentAuthorofficernarc
- CommentTimeApr 18th 2008
hm, i'm going to have to disagree on that one. i think people are just tired of paying for shitty music. i know i am. thanks to the internet, i really only buy cd's when i know i'm going to be listening to it 20 years from now. -
-
-
CommentAuthorphonicboom
- CommentTimeApr 18th 2008
i agree with narc, we used to all happily copy music to tapes and the music industry had no idea how much we did it. (though they still profiteered by selling blank tapes). Now its more open and they bawk.
the way you discovered music was to go to your friends and copy their good stuff, copy of the radio, that kind of thing, if something was excellent you'd buy it
now we don't have to go to our friends house as we are, collectively, electronic hermits connected by the interweb. and we have more friends, though virtual, and we don't necessarily like them, but thats ok because you can delete friends these days) -
-
I guess my question about Creative Commons is -- if I were to 'cover' a tune by another Jamendo artist, how to properly credit them when I'm submitting my album for moderation? And where does 'covering' fit into the 'build upon' rule in by-nc-nd?
Hey Bruce,
The following text is from the FAQ at Creative Commons, http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ
This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
(and with the two lines above, I believe that I've properly atrributed a Creative Commons licensed work... read on)
How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?
If you are using a work licensed under one of our core licenses, then the proper way of accrediting your use of a work when you're making a verbatim use is: (1) to keep intact any copyright notices for the Work; (2) credit the author, licensor and/or other parties (such as a wiki or journal) in the manner they specify; (3) the title of the Work; and (4) the URL for the work if applicable.
You also need to provide the URL for the Creative Commons license selected with each copy of the work that you make available.
If you are making a derivative use of a work licensed under one of our core licenses, in addition to the above, you need to identify that your work is a derivative work, ie. “This is a Finnish translation of the [original work] by [author]” or “Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].”
Further recommendations and guidelines for marking works can be found at the CC Marking project. -
-
CommentAuthorthenumbertoo
- CommentTimeJun 22nd 2008
There are so many different ideas and collaborations that can take place.
different findings of new talent. so many possibilities
myspace.com/liquidiq2 -
-
It helps keep the greedy, stingy capitalists off our great planet and it's accomplishments.
-
The most important advantage of being a Creative Commons artist is that your music is available to all humanity for all eternity, and not subject to the vagaries of limited CD pressings and label disinterest.
Well, that's the theory. In practice of course, if you use Jamendo then your music is subject to re-encoding bit rot, since Jamendo treats the lossless originals as its own property and only releases lossy versions. Across the generations of remixing and re-encoding, eventually your music becomes mush, and of course your originals will disappear from the Commons because Jamendo will not exist forever.
The theory is good though. Maybe Jamendo will see the light (before it loses everything in a crash) and improve the practice too.
1 to 23 of 23
Forum powered by Vanilla