Subject: Re: open source definition
From: "Brian J. Fox" <bfox@wiwi.hu-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:48:41 +0200


   Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:01:14 -0400
   From: Brian Bartholomew <bb@wv.com>

   > few people think of themselves as being in the "Vinyl record
   > business" or the "free music business"

I am in the "free music business" and it is hard going.  In order to
sell the *making* of music to the world, you must have great
packaging, no matter what type of music it is.  Many extremely
talented musicians do not make it in the music world exactly because
they see themselves solely as talent -- an idea which doesn't even
work for studio musicians.   Having been one I can tell you -- I got
hired to do jobs because 1) I showed up on time, 2) I had
transportation and quality equipment, 3) I had the prerequisite basic
skills, including the ability to read music, 5) I looked and smelled
nice, and 4) I played well.

That is exactly the priority ordering required by people who hire
musicians; I no longer go to auditions for bands with younger people
in them because they invariably can't get past the fact that I'm 38
now (Dude, really?  You don't look any older than 32!  But, we were
looking for someone younger -- I mean, someone who can go on the
road...).

   > I don't see why software is inherently different...

   It isn't.  But as a consumer, if I can figure out a way to buy music
   with more rights delivered to me, fewer middlemen, lower costs, and a
   lower markup, I'm interested.

Hire bands, or see live music, and buy your CD's direct from the
band.  More and more bands are specifically making a living from
self-pressed CD sales.

Brian