Subject: Re: open source definition
From: Brian J Fox <bfox@wiwi.hu-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 18:46:13 +0200 (MET DST)


   Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:05:24 -0400
   From: Brian Bartholomew <bb@wv.com>

   > That would mean that after a time, you release your digitally-
   > encoded music bits to the world for use, copying, and distribution
   > without charge.  Is that the case?

   | No, I don't think that is what it means.  That would be the "free
   | music distribution business."
   |
   | What I said means that I don't stop people from copying my music.

   I recognize that copying and distribution isn't free, it's only cheap,
   and that you don't give away distribution services.  But I think we're
   in agreement about the important part, which are the lack of strings
   attached to a copy of your music to fund your work.

   So in practice your fans could host a web site with freely-
   redistributable downloadable MP3's of your music, and you would never,
   ever, ever sell another copy of anything you've recorded ever
   again?

I will continue to sell CD's at my shows, because people like to have a
physical CD from the author.  It is highly unlikely that I would sell
a million CD's, but that doesn't bother me.  And, if I did, there
would be a million people listening to my music.  I would be so in
demand, that the money from the CD's wouldn't matter (to me).

The Grateful Dead didn't have the problem that you are referring to,
and yet they were in the "free music business" themselves (as I
recall, one was allowed to make "bootleg" recordings of their
concerts).

Brian