-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Irdial-Discs embraces the Free Music Philosophy.

** What is the Free Music Philosophy (FMP)?

It is an anarchistic grass-roots, but high-tech, system of spreading
music: the idea that creating, copying, and distributing music must
be as unrestricted as breathing air, swimming in the sea, or basking
in the rays of the sun.

** What does it mean to use the term "Free Music"?

The idea is similar to the notion of Free Software [1], and like with
freeware, the word "free" refers to freedom, not price. Specifically,
Free Music means that any individual has the freedom of copying,
distributing, and modifying music for personal, noncommercial
purposes. Free Music does not mean that record labels and musicians
cannot charge for records, tapes, CDs, or files.

The above definition of Free implies that any tangible object cannot
be made free. However, something that can be copied arbitrarily many
times, like music, should be set free. When we say music, we mean the
expression of ideas (in the form of a musical composition or a sound
recording) on some medium, and not the medium itself. Thus you have
the freedom to make a copy of a CD we've released, the freedom to
download soundfiles of songs we've released from our servers on the
Internet, the freedom to cover or improve upon a song we've released,
as long as you do not profit from that copy or improvement.

** Why must we Free Music?

Music is a creative process. Today, when a musician publishes music,
i.e., exposes it to the outside world, only a privileged set of
individuals are able to use the music as they please. However, the
artist has drawn from the creativity of many other musicians and
there is an existential responsibility placed upon them to give this
back unconditionally, so creativity is fostered among people. As a
dissenting opinion in the Vanna White vs. Samsung case [2], Judge
Kozinski writes:

All creators draw in part on the work of those who came before,
referring to it, building on it, poking fun at it; we call this
creativity, not piracy.

** Isn't free copying of music infringing copyright law?

The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) [3], states:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an
analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on
the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for
making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

A literal reading of the law indicates that individuals can make
copies of music recordings for personal noncommercial use and cannot
be sued for copyright infringement (at least as far as those devices
listed above are used). The message we get from this law is "Music
listeners, start copying!" Also, this is an American law, and the
whole world does not march to the tune of American jurisprudence. The
laws in your jurisdiction may or may not allow the copying of music
under different circumstances. We, as the owners of the rights to our
catalogue can give you permission to copy our muisic, regardless of
what any law anywhere says, if that is our choice.

** Why is freeing music the ethically right thing to do?

First, limiting your creativity to specific audiences, especially
based on monetary reasons, is shirking existential responsibility and
destructive to society as a whole. Today, when people create, they're
creating by standing on the shoulders of giants. Second, it's fair
that people pay for music only if they like it after listening to it
first; the present system does not allow for this for all forms of
music. Third, in order to prevent "illegal" copies from being made, a
tremendous burden (restricting legitimate expression) must be placed
on all individuals to circumvent what is human nature. This is a
rather impossible task and is probably the reason laws like the AHRA
are passed in the first place. Fourth, clauses like the one
specifying 'derivative works'  prevent the incorporation of your own
ideas to enhance other people's expressions, and this is abridges the
free exchange of ideas and information. Finally, the current
practices of the major recording industry, which exploit both artist
and consumer in the interests of profit, are unethical, and we must
take steps to redress the balance.

** What about the intellectual property rights of the individual?

Intellectual property and other such "rights" have essentially
existed to benefit society rather than the individual. The U.S.
Constitution, for example, states that the purpose of Copyright is
"to promote the progress of science and useful arts." The Free Music
Philosophy ensures that both society and the individual benefit. The
individual's creative freedom is completely unabridged. This freedom
is more important than any "right" society could give. To quote
Stallman [1]:

"Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over
other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more
difficult."

** Won't musicians starve to death if they freed their music?

Musicians currently make money through a variety of sources: sales of
records, merchandise and concert tickets, and royalties from
commercial airplay, (this is of course only applicable to large,
antiquated rock-model musicians). Freeing music will certainly not be
detrimental to the sales of merchandise and concert tickets, nor will
it affect compulsory or performance royalties. If anything, it will
improve sales since people will continue supporting artists they like
by going to their concerts and buying their merchandise. Profits from
record sales will also not be affected because people will be
encouraged to buy directly from the artist or small label for the
added bonuses of Vinyl liner notes, lyrics sheets, and packaging.
Thus Free Music can be used as a marketing tool to ensure that
musicians do not starve. And of course, for those forward looking and
acting musicians, who do not parade around on stages like their
grandfathers, Free Music is very seductive. It is a chance to reach
audiences who do not adhere to the old patterns that generate fan
bases, perhaps more seasoned and musically mature and ready for real
innovation in music. It is these people who will more redily
understand and adopt an approach where people send the label or
artist a "donation", if they found value in the music they copied,
understanding the great difficulty of producing high quality mucic.
This practice of donations could become an ingrained practice in
society, like tipping, where even though there is no enforced
requirement to tip for various services, people do anyway.

** What about copying music at concerts?

Copying music at concerts, at least for personal noncommercial use,
should not be restricted. Chances are, most recordings that people
make at concerts are not going to be of high quality, but some will
be. These recordings can then be collected, assembled, and released
by the artist, much the way the Butthole Surfers have bootlegged
themselves. Here, there is some sort of a selection pressure for the
best songs recorded live and it is a great way to obtain low-cost
material for a future live album. In any case, the rock era, and the
era of 'gigs', 'bootlegs' and 'concerts' is over, so this is not
really a concern. :]

** Won't major record companies exploit musicians who make Free
Music?

No, because the labels and artists will still retain all rights in
order to ensure against monetary exploitation by commercial
interests. Free Music can be used only for noncommercial purposes.
This does not mean you cannot receive payment for commercial uses of
your music. Fortunately, with respect to music, there already exists
some of this freedom (in the form of compulsory mechanical licenses
and the public performance model). No one can take your files
decompress them to WAV and then release them in a compilation for
sale to the public without prior consent; that would be illegal and
immoral. No TV or film producion company can use your material in a
production without your prior writen consent. Synchronization rights
are very valuable, and are not up for grabs. Of course, these
companies can demo your music just like everyone else, but if they
desire to use it, they must pay.

** Won't talented and dedicated musicians give up music because
there's a
** possibility they won't be multi-millionaires?

Consider the fact that except for a few hundred musicians who are on
top of the billboard charts, the chances of making a living by record
sales in the present system are very low. This system cannot be worse
for most musicians. In fact, this is an excellent reason to justify
the statement that most musicians perform and record with creativity
as the primary motivation---any money-minded person can easily use
their talents in other fields to increase the probability of actually
making some. Thus the source of talented music will never dry up.
What we might actually see is more creative and freely expressed
forms of music being released and heard by a wider audience.

** Don't musicians deserve rewards for their creativity?

According to a study reported in the 19, January 1987 issue of the
Boston Globe, Alfie Kohn reports on a psychological study that shows
that creativity diminishes if it's done for gain [5]. He writes: "If
a reward - money, awards, praise, or winning a contest - comes to be
seen as the reason one is engaging in an activity, that activity will
be viewed as less enjoyable in its own right. With the exception of
some behaviorists who doubt the very existence of intrinsic
motivation, these conclusions are now widely accepted among
psychologists." It follows then that the best music I've heard to
date is from artists, who are struggling to make ends meet working
two jobs, who are doing their music with an inherent passion and a
desire to share it with people, and not because they have a contract
to do so.

** Why are We doing this?

Our motivation has always been to provide purely expressed musical
ideas to the public with zero interference from us the record label.
It is pointless waste of effort to endlessly complain about
commercial radio and major labels, and for the past 25 years, people
have been setting up thier own labels to make music available on
thier own terms, bypassing the major label system. Now, compression
and the web together give us an unprecedented opportunity to
distrubute music to everyone everywhere without having to deal with
the useless non-paying excuse making wannabe-A&R distributors. Record
distributors have been the weakest link in the independant music
chain; some of them even dare dictate what records you the label can
and cannot release, and depending on their enthusiasm for a
particular release, your record will sell well or die a death, after
which, come the excuses. Now, thankfully the era of the record
distributor/record shop is over, and the new golden age of
independant record labels is here.

** Why do we still need record labels?

The recording of music to a high technical level requires investment,
and this investment comes from record labels. Old fashioned rock
groups, large scale classical music, and all musics that require the
use of expensive studios need an investment in the recording process
so that musical ideas can be executed at the higest level of quality.
Of course, many of the new and more interesting musics are being made
at home, so these people do not need investment to record thier
music. It is true however, that it is very difficult for individuals
to promote themselvs and generate downloads on the web. Under the
wing of a respected record label, an individual could release her
music at a very well trafficed site in order to tap into a label
fanbase, instead of going it alone in the wild wild wilderness (www).
Also, record labels that have the resources will be able to promote
thier artists in the traditional manner (PR adverts and features in
the printed press) generating more hits and downloads and revenues.

** What should you, as a music fan, do?

If the freedom of copying and using music appeals to you and you
would like the idea spread around, then when you copy a album of
anyone, regardless of whether they follow this philosophy or not,
send them a donation to enable them to continue their making of
music. What you contribute should be dependent on what the music was
worth to you. You could also go to the artist's concerts or buy
releases and merchandise directly. Finally, if you have the
resources, you could support artists which have adopted the FMP by
putting their sounds on the Internet. Support the music you like in
some way! (This is independent of the notion of Free Music.)

** Why will the Free Music Philosophy work?

In this digital age, the quality of home recordings have
substantially increased, to a point where "perfect" replicas of audio
recordings are made easily. Recordings can thus be spread around
without the need for major distribution. If the music is good, it
will spread far more rapidly, in an almost exponential fashion,
rivalling the distribution power of a major record label. Further,
the Internet allows for a even greater distribution. If you consider
the approach that asks for donations, listed above, you could, in
theory, make more money than by being on a major label, and still
retain all the creative freedom possible. You will be eliminating all
the middlemen and be able to provide CDs for prices four times
cheaper than what they are sold for, and still make more profit per
CD sold than you would by being on a major label! Of course, you
could forget making physical sound carriers altogether, and survive
only on the revenues generated by downloaded files. This would be
more ethical, since it does not waste the worlds resources.

The freeware idea in terms of computer software, which operates under
similar principles, has worked [6]. Consider the fact that the best
written pieces of computer software are also software that can be
copied without restriction (this includes Linux, and all the GNU
software, and various software related to making music like sound
format converters, sequencers, and multitrack recorders). Further,
there is a thriving commercial sector based on the distribution of
free software. There is no reason why the Free Music should also not
produce equally excellent results.

** How have you freed your music?

We have set up servers on the Internet with our music; you can access
the files here.

We include a notice of this form with all the files that we have
released: Yoiu are greanted permission to copy, and distribute the
musical compositions and sound recordings on this album, provided
this notice is included with every copy that is made. Distribution is
allowed on a noncommercial basis only. If you obtained this by making
a copy, and if you find value in this music and wish to support it,
please send a donation based on whatever you thought the music was
worth to the address given on this notice.

and included a copy of this document, which is an adaptation of this
original. If you do support the Free Music Philosophy idea, and have
a site on the Internet, a link back to our site would be useful. In a
small sense, that statement is copylefting our music [8].

** What will happen to the old music industry in this digital age?

It will die a painful death. It will cease to exist. Can you say 'Pan
Am'? The pimps will have their throats cut. At last we will be able
to disseminate our bold sounds unfettered.

At last we will have revenge.

The major record label's stronghold on what kind of music gets heard
by the people will be finally broken. Music has become an
institutionalised industry that churns out garbage product for the
lowest common denominator. The music industry restricts copying and
other uses of music in order to maximise profit, but this comes at a
great cost, that of abridging the spread of creativity. This will
change. It is now possible for performers to spread their musical
message directly to fans via high-technology, thus enriching the
artist and the music world in all possible ways. Music is about
creative and passionate ideas. Not product.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe,
for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his
condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by
nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space,
without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in
which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of
confinement or exclusive appropriation.---Thomas Jefferson (heh: old
TJ kept slaves, and we are keeping ours: our artists! :] )

** ** ** ** References ** ** ** **

1. http://www.gnu.ai.mit.edu/gnu/manifesto.html
The GNU Manifesto by Richard Stallman.

2. White vs. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395
See dissenting opinion by Judge Kozinski.

3. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html
The section in title 17 (copyrights) chapter 10 about the prohibition
of certain infringement actions.

4. http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/DAT
The Right Way to Tax DAT by Richard Stallman.

5. ftp://prep.ai.mit.edu/pub/gnu/GNUinfo/MOTIVATION
A Boston Globe Article problematizing the notion of rewards.

6. http://www.gnu.ai.mit.edu/
The official GNU/Free Software Foundation www site.

7. http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/fma.html
List of sites where you can free your music (and those that support
it).

8. http://www.gnu.ai.mit.edu/copyleft/copyleft.html
What is Copyleft?

9. http://dsl.org/copyleft/
The original version of this document.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

7J7ObEO8lrgNWjNeeqNr2ZW0
=AvDO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----