|WikiProject Open||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Does anybody think a mention of or link to MP3s / filesharing is warranted in the article for those for whom "free music" primarily has this connotation?
- That might be a very good reason to move this article to free improvisation (which in fact I am about to do). I get the feeling that the relatively high number of hits this article has had is due in large part to people searching for "free music" and landing here - I like the idea that somebody looking to get the latest effort by Eminem for free might instead end up buying (or stealing) a Derek Bailey record (or maybe something on the Emanem label...), but I can't see it happening. --Camembert
Some people also call music 'free' that does not fully meet the standards of free software -- music that is restricted to non-commercial use or which must not be changed. On the other hand, the existing licenses are not fully free and usually do not allow radio broadcasting or similar things. This means that we have in fact three classes of free music. -- Sloyment 01:06, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Agree. The article currently smacks of POV-pushing. As a member of the Debian project, I definitely understand the "free-as-in-beer" vs. "free-as-in-speech" distinction, but free-for-non-commercial-use music is a significant category with many prominent members. The Free Software Foundation refers to "no-commercial-use" as "semi-free", but I think that trying to exclude "semi-free" music from this category definitely constitutes POV-pushing. And unlike "Free Software", there really isn't a widely used alternative term (like freeware) to refer to "free-as-in-beer" music. Strongly agree with Sloyment that there are (at least) three classes of "free music" and all should be covered here. -- Xtifr 01:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
For anyone who is a supporter of free music, you can add a userbox to your user page, if you like:
References and citations needed
This article is very specific about exactly what "free music" is and what "free music" is not. Can we get some of these cited si vous plait? I had a quick look but couldn't spot anything straight off to back up the assertions. Cheers! - Toon05 15:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, there are a lot of un-cited claims in this article that bother me. I'll start with the most egregious, regarding the claim, "Before the advent of copyright law in the early 18th century, all music was free." Consider this—the only way to hear music for a long time was by going to a live performance, playing it yourself with a score or by ear, or perhaps with an expensive mechanical device like a singing “bird” or a music box. Some live performances were free but could not be recorded; music scores were expensive to make, fragile to distribute, difficult to copy, and were certainly not free; and the mechanical devices were often gifts to royalty. It wasn’t until the late 19th century that musical recordings became possible with the phonograph, and they were all sold. It wasn’t until recording technology became widely available and within economic reach that free music even became a real possibility. So I'm gonna cry foul on that until someone provides a citation. Shadow Phoenix (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
CC = Non-free?
So apparently, non-commercial CC licenses are considered "non-free"? This is a bit strange to me. Are "attribution" CC licenses also non-free, then? After all, you do not have complete freedom... for that matter, the non-attribution, commercial CC license itself is not free, because the music distributed under it can still not be used for any purpose. Any license short of public domain is not actually free.
Basically my first question is, who sets these definitions?
My second question is, if I wanted to create a list which includes sources which license their music under a non-commercial CC license, such as Newgrounds, what might I call that list? Esn (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- The article Free content is supposed to explain that. Wikimedia uses, and Creative Commons links to this Definition of Free Cultural Works. Also notable are the definitions and views of Free Software Foundation, Open Source Initiative, Debian. Their purpose should always be kept in mind; e.g. FSF does not always require art to be free.
- FSF calls software which is free for non-commercial purposes only “semi-free”, but AFAIK that’s not a popular name for that, although the only one that I know. You probably want List of projects using Creative Commons licenses, although it is not so good (no actual licenses mentioned).
- --AVRS (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Free music is also known as Libre music
- Are you sure we are talking about the same thing here? Your ref says "Libre Music Production is a community-driven online resource, focused on promoting musical creation and composition using free and open source (FLOSS) software." It doesn't indicate that the resulting music is freely licenced. - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Correct. The resulting music need not be libre in the case of the Libre Music Production project, that is not their focus. However, use of libre software tools (which is their focus) is an important part of the process and culture of libre music production - enabling people to exercise their freedoms to listen, copy, modify and share music. I understand Libre.fm allows non-libre music on the site, but only promotes artists who use libre licences. So, you are right, but we are talking about the same thing and I still think including "or libre music" in the first sentence would be appropriate. --K (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)