Werner Icking wrote:
> David Chan wrote:
[...]
> > I think the license should *explicitly* state that the music may be
> > performed, recorded and distributed in audio format without royalty
> > fees.
[...]
> Imho these are two different sides of the coin: publication rights for
> the sheet music and performance rights and other copyrights for the
> music itsself.
Here is something which I think comes down to personal beliefs :-) I
don't want to criticise anyone else's opinion, but my own belief is that
music is not free (in the sense of "free software") if you must pay
royalties to perform it. Performing is what musicians *do*. If all you
have is the ability to *obtain* the sheet music for nothing, and not the
right *perform* it, then you haven't really got any extra freedoms than if
you just bought the sheet music from a shop (except it's cheaper and more
convenient).
> Because Lilypond has (nearly :-) nothing to do with performance it
> would be good practice to tell nothing about performance rights.
I agree if Mutopia is about creating an archive of Lilypond source. But
if Mutopia is meant to be like Project Gutenburg, I don't think we could
accept music which can't be performed royalty-free. If Project Gutenberg
contained a theatrical play, and you could download the text but you had
to pay royalties to perform it, I don't think you'd consider it to have
more "freedom" than a text which was for sale in a bookshop.
> On my server there is a lot of sheet music free for copying the sheet
> music, but the composers would never give away any of the performance
> rights they have.
I think it's good that such sheet music is available, and that your server
exists as a large central repository where people can find it. I'm not
saying there's no place for music licensed under these terms, and indeed I
think it's a much better deal than the music I buy from the shops. I just
don't think that Mutopia is the right place for it.
> And they need to make the bucks from performances or broadcasts or CDs
> or ... to make their living.
I agree that this is an issue.
<conjecture>
I have some hope that it would be possible for a composer to make a living
from music which is "free" in the terms I am talking about, e.g. from
their reputation. It's certainly true in the pop music world. Artists
sometimes contribute to "charity albums" where they recieve no royalties,
yet they find that the album makes them richer in the long run because it
enhances their fame and their reputation. The band Metallica make more
money from live performances and merchandise than from music sales. This
model won't work unmodified in the classical world, but I think it shows
that the potential may be there.
Also, in the music world there are many extremely talented amateurs.
Music is special in this respect. Composers can start off working
part-time for no pay, then become professionals when they become
famous. If they write good music, they can distribute it via Mutopia and
more people will perform it (especially because it is royalty-free), so
they will become rich and famous quicker.
</conjecture>
However, I'm not suggesting that composers should be forced to use our
licensing. If they choose not to, they can sell their music through
normal channels, or make use of the service which your server provides.
At the moment, I don't know of any site, apart from Mutopia, which is
devoted to "free" (downloadable, modifiable, performable, recordable)
music, and I would hope that we can continue to fill this gap.
David
--
A problem shared is a problem squared.
