Public Domain Music

I can be able to make my music in the public domain?
No rights
This is a great attraction for some people

---

Not sure what you mean.
You have the copyright for your own compositions, where ever you show them, automatically. In case someone steals them, you have to prove that you recorded it first, that's all.
I suspect though that many individuals are looking on wikiloops for "inspiration".
As far as I know...

---

Yes Lutz, people come for inspiration but Wikiloops license can not be used without permission.
Some musicians might say ... "take my song and use it as you want out of Wikiloops, totally free"
So Public Domain License, other licenses have many legal drawbacks.

When opening a session Public Domain License musicians participating in the jam should also be under this license and be very clear that assigns all rights to anyone

This is attractive for visitors and committed to the musician ... but when you go for 50-100 years after the author's death, all the songs are Public Domain License

I like
[url=http://choosealicense.com/licenses/unlicense/]http://choosealicense.com/licenses/unlicense/[/url]
[url=http://unlicense.org/]http://unlicense.org/[/url]

---

Perhaps anonymous sessions. In the history of art and music, there has been precious masterpieces anonymous

---

Anonymous sessions!!

---

josepssv wrote:

When opening a session Public Domain License musicians participating in the jam should also be under this license and be very clear that assigns all rights to anyone

This is attractive for visitors and committed to the musician ...


But... that would be be very attractive to visitors seeking 'ideas' - and of course if such music was classed as 'public domain' they could freely copy the material (without signing up) and possibly profit in some way - without even giving any credit to the musicians who created it !

So, I do not think the majority of musicians uploading music to Wikiloops would be happy about this. When a person creates a piece of music, they have the copyright.

---

I sincerely believe that any copyright license that forbids derivative works is contrary to progress - music included. Art in particular should not be "owned"; it severely limits the creative process, in my opinion. So I have no problem with a license where derivatives are welcome but profiting is forbidden. I don't know if such a licensing structure exists..

---

Mmmm, I think you could be describing a notion of Utopia. However, I would say that copyright has not hindered creativity - in fact quite the opposite, since artists (of all kinds) have a degree of protection and therefore have motivation to produce.

Philanthropy is all well and good for those that can afford it :)

---

I couldn't disagree more. The motivation to produce art is intrinsic.

Utopian? That suggests naïveté. A more democratic system should be sought after just like we have with the sciences.

---

@Danny - you should have a look at the licensing system offered under the name of "CreativeCommons" - its a well researched thing that does offer to share works as "open to noncommercial derivation, no commercial use + attribution of the author reqired".
I have been interested and researching these things, and the WL public license is pretty close to their concept.
The problem about public domain / creative commons licensed content is that it is quite hard to tell the monetary value of such works - if any monetarysation is forbidden by license, or the work is labeled as public domain, the ways of earning a dollar with these works are quite limited, so why would anyone care to offer them?
That would be like running a store with only free goods in it - kind of hard to pay the rent there, or sell the business to someone else.
I always felt it would not be too good of an idea to bring oneself into the situation where someone might say: "Well, we would have loved to buy a license to use your music, but since you labeled it as public domain, we can't get together on this".
Since it seems impossible to revoke licenses, I believe a more carefull approach is apropriate here.

I do agree on Dannys point of view tho, Copyrights in general are a questionable concept, and as soon as thngs like pharmacy or crop seeds are involved, it should be forbidden or very limited, so it wont keep good things from helping people.

There are quite a lot of very interesting licensing variations used in software development, where giving stuff away for free is rather common. In many cases, these industries benefit by offering (payed) human support on things that are otherwise free - a kind of "take this car for free, but buy your gas & tires here" concept that seems to work quite well in this niche - I'm not sure the concept is applicable on music tho :)

For those stumbling in and wondering, I'd like to repeat that wikiloops has not monetized one single piece of music since it is around - just because we are not using public domain or CreativeCommons, that does not mean I don't believe in sharing stuff for free :)

---

Exactly the point I was making. Philosophy and reality are often mutually exclusive.

---

One question i have been pondering for some time is how about reusing/redeveloping ideas from wikiloops in a different context. By that i mean playing them live in a band not primarily involved with wikiloops or rearranging them and publishing them elsewhere. Not by "stealing" ideas but reusing my own ideas.

---

We could have 4 separate moneyboxes:
1: to keeping Wikiloops (Wikiloops!!)
2: to promote public domain works (anonymous) (like Dannyk)
3: to attract stars
4: to promote in external events (like Nilton)

---