[advocacy] Question on Personal License

[Bacchus Thirteen]

I think that, compared with GPL, a new thing about the
idea of personal license is that it should be
personal.  It is against media contents-organization
nexus and for media contents-artist nexus.  On the
other hand, General Public License is, as you can see
it from the recent interesting discussion in the
user's list, it almost gives up to belong to a
particular individual.  In fact, I can't list the
names of all the developers working on Ogg Vorbis. 
The word 'open-source community' seems to be very
native to GPL:  'If you are interested in working on
one of the programs, why don't you join us?'  GPL is
free from the control by any organization or
individual while personal license is only free from
the control by organizations.  Therefore, compared
with GPL, there is a problem with personal license:
how can personal license claim the right of artists'
control on their music while denying that of
organizations'?

There are two considerable problems:  monetary issue
and abuses of the contents such as impersonations and
plagiarisms.

About impersonations and plagiarisms, impersonation is
almost meaningless since it is only possible as a bad
practical joke.  In plagiarisms' case, even the record
industry doesn't seem to care…  How many innovative
artists are in the pop world?

So, probably, the core problem is only the monetary
issue:  How can artists get money while they are
releasing their music using a format without any copy
protection?

You mentioned:  1. The special versions of CDs…well,
if you are an enthusiastic fan of a certain musician,
it is quite possible to buy it.  I think this is a
reasonable answer.  2.Touring, media appearance,
merchandising…  This is a tough one, isn't it?  For
the record industry has very strong influence on the
media.  Compared with the record industry, the obvious
downside is promotion.  How do they advertise their
tours without the power of media?  The economy of the
software industry and that of the music industry are
different.  Indeed, the former is less dependent on
the media.  Furthermore, artists should merchandise by
themselves.  Is Personal License for people are good
at both music and merchandising?  

MP3.com (www.mp3.com) recommends musicians to use
their software to put copyright and Music License to
their music. How about their attitude to Ogg and
Personal License respectively?

An obvious problem is that Music License and Personal
License do not seem to be compatible. (Can TV, film or
game industry use Personal Licensed music by paying to
the artist in question?  Daniel did not mention this. 
GNU format's case, they do not need to pay to the
programmers.  Then, how comes to the Personal
License's case?)  I feel the way of MP3.com is also
interesting...  They use Music License as a connection
between artists and third companies.  Artists can
concentrate on music in this way while they can get
money through the media.  

Then, why should artists take Personal License over
the combination of copyright and Music License?

Bacchus 13

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'advocacy-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.