Can There Be Open Source Music?

Lemeowski writes "Cygnus Solutions co-founder Michael Tiemann takes an in-depth look at whether music can truly ever be open source. Leaning on his personal experiences of trying to convince the market that a company that provided commercial support for free software could be successful, Tiemann argues that similar to how 'the future of software was actually waiting for the fuller participation of users ... so, too, is the future of the art of music.' In his essay, Tiemann makes a case for open source music, from licensing for quality recordings to sheet music with notes from the original composer in an easy-to-reuse format, and he offers ways to get involved in making music open source." Apropos open source music, reader rDouglass adds a link to the Open Goldberg Variations project, last mentioned on Slashdot in 2012.

Of course there can.

[Sique]

It's called "Traditional" or "folk music".

It should be free, unless I did it

[Sir or Madman]

People in fine arts on average earn far less than the average techie, so you know what? Stop trying to foist your "free" philosophy on everyone. It's disingenuous to suggest that art should be free (or even cheap) when you're pulling in $100k securing networks against people who would use them for free.

Re:isn't music already open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's not Free Open Source Music doesn't mean it's not Open Source.

Isn't This How It's Always Been?

[coaxial]

Open source isn't just free copying. That's just permissive licensing. The real power of open source is the ability to modify and share those modifications. That's always been the case in music.

See jazz.
See folk.
See hip-hop.
See country.
See blues.
See...

Re:Free as in speech, not free as in beer

[Anonymous Coward]

Then stop complaining that your jobs are going overseas or to H1B visas because "[n]obody is entitled to make a living from" IT "just because they think they should".

Re:Free as in speech, not free as in beer

[Sir or Madman]

They knew (or should have known) that when then they took up fine arts as a profession. Nobody is entitled to make a living from art just because they think they should. They have to earn it the same as anyone else.

Yes, I agree. But why is it that OS supporters, who are invariably geeks and other variety of sysadmin, feel they need to constantly opine on arts-related copyright issues? Just because you listen to music and store it digitally does not make you an expert in the industry. Listening to geeks yammer on about alternate copyright for music is like listening to Lady Gaga talk about coding.

What I DO have a problem with is the artist and their descendants have a perpetual income from those works. Copyright is supposed to be for a LIMITED time and there certainly is no justifiable reason why the copyright should extend beyond the time required to settle the estate of the artist.

Yes, that's nice. Pro-tip: It is limited and is not perpetual.

Now I'm going to listen to Bob Dylan mumble on about how developers should be forced to release their source code after a limited time that he deems long enough for them to have made a reasonable return.

Question:

[doginthewoods]

So how is a musician going to make a living in music? Would you ask your doctor to be open source? Would you ask him to operate "for the door? Would you ask you mechanic to work on your car "for exposure"? Do you expect people to give money to musicians out of sheer appreciation? Let me tell you from experience - this does not happen. I have yet to compose and record a sound track that I was paid for out of the goodness of the client' hearts. My wife has several CDs out, performances done on camera, and she needs the royalties from singing, composing, publishing, recording, rights to the master, re- use, etc., to live off of. Let me ask this question, then - why are musicians held to a different standards than doctors, teachers, workers, etc., who expect to get paid for what they do? Would you guys code / IT for free? Of course not.