Releasing the "source code" of music

[folderol]

I will occasionally release my project files if there is either something special I want to demonstrate, or if it's intended to be a collaboration, but normally I don't.

I don't see any reason why I should. Apart from anything else, it actually takes extra effort to put them in a form that is readily accessible to others.

[Lyberta]

I don't see any reason why I should.

The reason is basic human decency. The reasons not to are greed and ignorance.

Too bad there is no "GPL for music" that demands release of the source code. I release recordings and source code under CC-BY-SA 4.0+ but it doesn't require disclosure of the source code.

[folderol]

I don't see any reason why I should.

The reason is basic human decency. The reasons not to are greed and ignorance.

What an utterly narrow-minded, self-indulgent and arrogant stance!
Anyone can ask me for the project files, and if it's not too much work I'll likely agree, but to demand them will get an instant no.

[Lenny]

Too bad there is no "GPL for music" that demands release of the source code. I release recordings and source code under CC-BY-SA 4.0+ but it doesn't require disclosure of the source code.

But what if my music is generated by a computer program and I license the source as GPL? Now if someone takes that code and uses it to generate music, what happens?

[wolftune]

There's no requirement that GPL software means releasing the source for output from that software. Inkscape illustrations don't need to be released under GPL.

The GPL *can* be applied to music, and there's a one-directional compatibility between CC-BY-SA and GPL https://creativecommons.org/2015/10/08/ ... ith-gplv3/

There's a lot of reasons that GPL music makes sense, but it's problematic in various ways too.

As for the *should* of releasing source, I suggest that we ought to all accept that it would be optimal and the right thing to do, both altruistically and in terms of everyone doing their part to support the commons that we all benefit from. But we should also all acknowledge that it's a more complex undertaking that requires more effort and issues than releasing program source code. And that means we accept that it often doesn't happen for practical reasons, even though it would be ideal. We certainly should work to lower the barriers to make the process as easy as possible. Some cases may be trivial while others are extremely burdensome.

[Lenny]

There's no requirement that GPL software means releasing the source for output from that software. Inkscape illustrations don't need to be released under GPL.

The GPL *can* be applied to music, and there's a one-directional compatibility between CC-BY-SA and GPL https://creativecommons.org/2015/10/08/ ... ith-gplv3/

There's a lot of reasons that GPL music makes sense, but it's problematic in various ways too.

As for the *should* of releasing source, I suggest that we ought to all accept that it would be optimal and the right thing to do, both altruistically and in terms of everyone doing their part to support the commons that we all benefit from. But we should also all acknowledge that it's a more complex undertaking that requires more effort and issues than releasing program source code. And that means we accept that it often doesn't happen for practical reasons, even though it would be ideal. We certainly should work to lower the barriers to make the process as easy as possible. Some cases may be trivial while others are extremely burdensome.

I think is a very sensible statement. One good thing in aiming for releasing source (even if that doesn't happen) is that it gets things in order. Personally for me this is very important, because I'm generally so disorganized. This used to be a huge problem, because I never could reproduce my recordings.

[Lyberta]

But we should also all acknowledge that it's a more complex undertaking that requires more effort and issues than releasing program source code.

Unless you record a lot from analog instruments, releasing source code is extremely simple. Especially if you use a DAW that puts all data in the project file. Look at my source code, most of my compositions are ~50 KiB.

[ssj71]

Unless you record a lot from analog instruments,

Many of us do.

[wolftune]

But we should also all acknowledge that it's a more complex undertaking that requires more effort and issues than releasing program source code.

Unless you record a lot from analog instruments, releasing source code is extremely simple. Especially if you use a DAW that puts all data in the project file. Look at my source code, most of my compositions are ~50 KiB.

In addition to analog instruments, many of us use multiple interacting programs via Jack, so the whole session needs to be saved.

Anyway, indeed, as I emphasized in my original comment, this varies from case-to-case. Clearly the simplest case is one where the music is entirely synthesized using a single piece of software. The source for that is trivial to share. We know that case comes up for some of us sometimes. I'm very thankful that it isn't the dominant case because I'm happy not to live in a world of primarily synthesized music (just as I'm also happy not to live in a world with no synthesized music).

[folderol]

All of this is to a degree a side issue. It's the lack of respect and attitude of entitlement that gets me. Most of the composers I know write songs to say something, so there's a bit of themselves in it.

Lets take a quite common example where a loved one is lost, and their partner writes, performs and sings a highly emotional ballad. Many people will appreciate the song and get something from it. Some won't see it and just pass by, which is fine.

Now say the composer is obliged to release the stems (just those even, not the entire project)

A.N.Other comes along and this it what he writes on his blog.
"Well the first thing that had to go was that drippy vocal, then it was too damn slow so double the BPM and put a 4 to the floor pattern on it. Hey get a load of this cool rap."

The rap in question is a white supremacist hate rant.

What do you think that does to the original composer?
Or do you really, not care at all?

[wolftune]

@folderol

This is like all sorts of other debates. You can find anecdotes and create rhetorical examples to engage people emotionally in your argument. That's not altogether unfair, but we need to keep in mind that it isn't self-justifying. In other words, if you feel emotional about the "lack of respect" and "attitude of entitlement" that you are reading from others' comments, that says very little about whether or not your argument is strong. In this case, nobody has in any sense accepted your interpretation as accurately describing their views, so it might just be all miscommunication and the attitudes you imagine are just that — in your imagination.

The personal nature of things gets super complex as soon as something is published. If you want a song for your lost loved one to be solely personal, you keep it to yourself and never share it at all. If you share it with others, then, like all personal things, you can ask the others to keep it a secret or not to cover it or remix it or adapt etc. But just like telling someone a secret, you're then placing extra burden on them. You've shared the thing, and now you've given them this extra responsibility to limit how they deal with it personally themselves (which might, in their case, mean reacting to it in various ways publicly).

http://blog.ninapaley.com/2013/12/07/ma ... not-law-2/ is good perspective here.

The idea of someone making a racist rap using your music is indeed troubling, but so is the existence of such a thing even if they only used someone else's rap. Sure, it's understandable to say that you want your work to only be used in ways you like, but that's just unworkable on a social level. It amounts to who has power. The most famous artists have huge cultural influence, even with their personal songs, and censoring others from engaging with that culture around them is hugely problematic. At the very least, anyone advocating for the power to stop racists from remixing their song should admit that they are arguing *for* censorship. Just say, "yeah, I should have the power to censor uses of my art that I don't like" and make it an honest argument.

The other people arguing for cultural freedom, including the resources that make it practically feasible, are taking an anti-censorship position. It's the ACLU and EFF view. The one that says that Nazis have a right to march peacefully even though their views are abhorrent. We protect that right because we value the free exchange of ideas broadly. The same ACLU that protects that right can say, without hypocrisy, that the Nazis are wrong about everything and their views should be rejected.

Do people *care* about what Nazis marching does to the families in the community who have been terrorized or had members killed by Nazis and KKK? Of course they do! Most of those of us who support the ACLU care as much as anyone about these things. We also share the view that we wish the Nazis would go away entirely. But we aren't willing to sabotage all the freedoms and richness of all the rest of our culture just to censor those we dislike.

What is the likelihood of your song being remixed into a racist rap? Near zero. Orders of magnitude less than the possibility that it gets used in someone's video honoring their own lost love one. And permission culture where every use of anything has to get permission breaks down after just a couple levels. Remixing the remix or cover gets easily to needing multiple layers of permissions.

My argument is that you need to first and foremost realize that there's not the tiniest speck of disrespect of sense-of-entitlement in this debate. Secondarily, if you can realize that first point, the argument is that we all ought to let go of our fears and desire for control and instead participate fully in a free and open society, recognizing that the pros far outweigh the cons.

[Lyberta]

In addition to analog instruments, many of us use multiple interacting programs via Jack, so the whole session needs to be saved.

If you looked closely, I too don't use DAW. Therefore, I release JACK patchbay file among other things.

A.N.Other comes along and this it what he writes on his blog.
"Well the first thing that had to go was that drippy vocal, then it was too damn slow so double the BPM and put a 4 to the floor pattern on it. Hey get a load of this cool rap."

The rap in question is a white supremacist hate rant.

What do you think that does to the original composer?
Or do you really, not care at all?

If I come across a good piece of music, my first desire is to open it in a DAW and look how it's made. Like in software, freedom to study the source code is a fundamental freedom. If I don't get that freedom, that means that composer is entitled and selfish and doesn't deserve anything.

[folderol]

With your previous comment and that one you show yourself to be just as much an extremist as the RIAA, just in the opposite direction. it would also seem you have little interest in the music itself, just how it's made.

[wolftune]

If I come across a good piece of music, my first desire is to open it in a DAW and look how it's made. Like in software, freedom to study the source code is a fundamental freedom. If I don't get that freedom, that means that composer is entitled and selfish and doesn't deserve anything.

To make this statement even okay, you need to change "If I don't get that freedom" to "If the composer *intentionally* denies me that freedom". There's lots of other reasons why freedoms don't happen besides people willfully denying them.

Furthermore, if someone willfully denies you these freedoms, there are other reasons possible besides being entitled and selftish. They could just be misguided and misunderstand the issues around the freedom but otherwise be personally generous and humble people who just need to learn about these issues.

With your previous comment and that one you show yourself to be just as much an extremist as the RIAA, just in the opposite direction. it would also seem you have little interest in the music itself, just how it's made.

Try not to just use "you" in a group discussion. This lousy forum isn't threaded, so there's on clarity about replies. At any rate, you add poison to a discussion when you start jumping into personal attacks like "seem you have little interest in the music itself" which really isn't a fair conclusion. Remember to Assume Good Faith when chatting online. Finally, not all issues are correct in the middle. An anti-racist who is equally extreme as a Nazi is not equally bad. We *should* be wary of extremism, but we can't just jump to asserting that all extremes are comparable just because they are extreme. Anyway, it's generally more likely that someone typed out some extreme sounding thoughts carelessly than that they actually are true extremists.

[Michael Willis]

One time I was visiting somebody's home with a group of friends. There was a piano in the room, and I impulsively sat down to play something improvised from the top of my head. Some of them told me they enjoyed it. I was so consumed by my own selfishness; I didn't immediately set about writing it down on notation paper so that they could all have the source code to which they are entitled as a basic human right.

Next time I'm in an art gallery, I'll decide upon my favorite painting along the collection and then demand that the curator provide me with a specification of each combination of color that was in the palette along with a detailed step by step written description of each stroke, including the brush material, size, and shape. If they refuse, I will promptly storm out in indignant wrath about such a flagrant violation of basic human decency.