[pp.int.general] Protest certain musicians?

[Brian McNeil]

On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 12:22 +0100, Christian Hufgard wrote:
> >> I meant the case, that you modify gpl code and release the new code as
> >> yours.

[This beats the hell out of car analogies. There is also a creative
process in both software and music.]

> > Software is different from other copyrighted works like songs: software
> > has the executable and the code, music has just the song
> 
> Music has the score and the final song. Give the same score to different
> groups and you will get to different songs.

A musical score is in a lot of ways equivalent to a detailed design
document for a piece of software. Give two different musicians the same
score and you will get different songs. Give two teams of programmers
the detail design, you'll get two different pieces of software.

How you compare the two different songs, well I'll let someone else
suggest a good way to describe that.

For the software, you have two different programs that should serve the
same purpose, but can have that dramatic difference you see between two
versions of the same song. [Bob Dylan is a brilliant writer, but Jimi
Hendrix was a hell of a lot better at implementing Dylan's work.]

> > every musician  gets the "code" just by listening to the song.
> 
> That's as if you'd say, that every programme gets the "code" just be
> executing the program...

I think my above comparison shows part of this; then you have to
consider that - like with software - the musician has to
reverse-engineer the score from the final piece of music. He will pick
out key details (the equivalent of algorithms) and do a lot of
fill-in-the blanks.

Dig into the history of sheet music and how fiercely that is protected,
and the screaming about mechanical pianos killing off the business. This
'big media' crap has been going on since around most people's great
grandfather's time. 

> > I don't know why you compare the executable/code thing to the music
> > /money thing. It makes no sense: the executable/code problem deals with
> > freedom, the music/money thing deals just with money. Money and freedom
> > are not the same thing at all.
> 
> Oh, at the moment I am just talking about freedom. The freedom to take GPL
> code, modify it and sell the result without releasing it under GPL.

That is a direct violation of the license under which you were permitted
to get the code in the first place (Unless you give a copy of the code,
and no additional restrictions on distributing that free). I worked for
years in proprietary and bespoke software development; I find the GPL a
particularly clever and ingenious tool in how it prevents - for want of
a better way of putting it - someone ripping off your work and passing
it off as their own. Yet, there are thousands of websites and businesses
that rely a great deal on GPL code. Many of them have it customised to a
near-unrecognisable state. If they don't want anyone else to have their
modifications, it has to stay completely in-house - and as far as I know
that is perfectly allowable with the GPL.

If they want to sell their modifications, and not give the whole product
as GPL, they need the OK from all who put in stuff under GPL to
dual-license.

- OR - reverse-engineer full specification from a working product,
without access to the source code - AND - develop from scratch using the
new specification.

RMS could probably elaborate on that in far more accurate terms.

Again, it comes back to why the GPL is such a clever software license.
You can give away for free, you're not creating "addicts" by keeping the
source code, and you're taking reasonable steps to stop someone with the
resources to widely distribute your work with no recognition or reward
to you.

Now, how does that apply in music?

I can see one way it doesn't; Who can say - without looking it up - the
original author of your average flash-in-the-pan pop sensation? Even
artists like Elton John perform a large number of songs someone else
wrote.


-- 
Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org>
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20091030/82345b58/attachment-0001.pgp>