As much as the Wright Brothers avoided collusion with the law of gravity, I guess.

The problem is that copyright law is basically unavoidable. This sentence I am writing now is under copyright protection. And the mish-mash of international law makes saying something like "I disclaim all ownership and place this forum comment in the Public Domain" not entirely effective.

Hence, the proliferation of Open Source licenses- my preferred one being Creative Commons (there's a lot of them).

I'm a user of Open Source philosophy, though- not a developer. So I'm not the BEST person to explain these things.

Try:
http://freedomdefined.org/
http://opensource.org/

At a certain point of futility, wouldn't it be better to just be cooperative?

Gavin, I'm pretty sure your protest will not have a huge effect on the bazillion-dollar-a-year publishing industry. Clever, but completely ineffective.

Kathy- that's not really the case at all.

The fact that old-style publishers continue to exist doesn't have anything to do with whether or not new publishing models are viable, good, superior, preferable for some reason or other, or anything else.

Apple and Microsoft continue to make tons of money on proprietary operating systems. That doesn't mean that Linux isn't a big, honking, huge deal.

Apache
MySQL
PHP
JQuery
WordPress
Drupal

Wikipedia
Project Gutenberg.
Archive.org
IMSLP
CPDL
CMAA Chant Resources
Simple English Propers

.
.
.

Also- you assume that any of us who promote Open Source have a goal of "bringing down" copyright law or traditional publishing models.

That's a very central-authority interpretation of a non-central-authority view point.

For me- I don't give a damn about toppling existing systems. I'm interested in building something new- whether alongside, underneath, or on top of the existing structures.

had any chance of catching on widely,

Yeah, you're probably right. It'll never last.

The problem with this argument (other than the fact that I like you too much to ignore you) is that it doesn't rest on facts- or even the interpretation of facts. It rests on worldview and philosophy.

While I do, actually, think that reality is such that Open Source Sacred Music can make a dent in the world (which I'm pretty sure is undeniable) and also that it has the potential to make a bigger impact than proprietary publishing (which is certainly debatable and hypothetical)- that isn't the whole issue, or perhaps even the primary issue. My worldview/philosophy is such that I believe Open Source is a good thing in its own right, and is worth pursuing and expanding.

So we're kinda talking about different things.

Besides that- I am definitively NOT against making money, and I think money CAN be made in an Open Source and/or Free License framework. (I know this one guy who runs a business that publishes new work and critical editions of old work, all into the Commons. They seem to be doing well.)

I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. CMAA doesn't impose any distribution model on its members.

Well- "WE" don't have a distribution model.

Some entrepreneurial souls have managed to figure out how to sell things, and some of them have managed to do it well.

If JMO wanted to include my Ascension Hymn in the V2 hymnal, he can do so. That's what my CC license allows. He doesn't even need to ask.

If Noel wants to include my English version of Hail True Body in the next edition of The Catholic Choir Book, he can do so. He doesn't even need to ask.

(They both probably would, though- nice guys and all.)

In fact- if either of them wanted to include anything I wrote, but they felt like it was "not quite right" (like neglecting to mention the Eucharistic Presence in v2) they could simply make the adjustment as they saw fit. Without asking. (I know, I know- as an artist, that's terrifying. I could just as easily use the CC license to specify that no changes can be made, if I was so inclined.)

That's why I talk about this stuff as "Infrastructure."
WE as a group are gonna have a hard time commercializing much of anything.
But some enterprising individual or small cabal might manage to do so (in fact, several have).

What I would like to see is a shared set of Open tools and and a semi-centralized place to keep things so that it is easier for the enterprising people to assemble, remix, package, and distribute.

As long as this is our fight, that will be the CMAA story. Not propers, not resources of any kind, but distribution. We're making enemies on an unwinnable matter of principle, and not making friends, because very few people care about the principle. I do, actually, but not as much as I care about this other principle, which is--(drumroll) Sacred Music.

In the meantime about 350 parishes (out of the thousands in the US) will use the stuff your cabal hosts. That's not nothing but it's not what we could do if we laid down our arms on this other business.

So, Kathy, whaddaya want the CMAA to do? Publish a Seasonal Worship Guide (i.e., a good missalette)?

By the way, if this is the continuation of some Cafe discussion, do not assume that people here read it. I don't.

Adam, I just think you've been misled by the wide use of open source software into thinking that anything communicable by the interwebs will have similarly positive acceptance. I'm quite sure we're talking about apples and oranges here. I download software and there it is, on my computer, for use by my computer. I the downloader am the self-selecting end-user of the product as-is (unless I want to tweak the code. Is that right, "tweak the code"?) That model has nothing at all to do with producing music to be sung by congregations.

Chonak, it's the continuation of Adam's Hymn for the Ascension thread right here on the Forum--but it relates to a lot else, so I didn't name the source. I should have, sorry about that.

What I'd like to see is, if not a warming to the idea, then at least a willingness to compromise with a business model that works extremely effectively for widespread distribution. There are historical reasons why now is the time to do that for the sake of our real cause, which is Sacred Music In Every Parish.

Kathy

It seems that, no matter how many times I explain my position, you insist on arguing based on a frame of reference that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

For example...

I draw some parallels between Open Source software and Open Source music. So you talk about software as something which you "download... and there it is, on my computer, for use by my computer," and try to draw comparisons between that end-user experience and the end-user (PIPs) experience of church music. Which totally ignores the entire issue of where Open Source software (and, in my opinion, Open Source music) excels: Infrastructure. Resources for people who make other things. Tools for people who build, develop, and sell (yeah, sell) end-user products.

(This is a little like arguing that no one should be digging through monasteries to find and research old manuscripts, because what we really need are more performance editions.)

I talk about the DIFFERENCE between Free pricing and Free licensing, and you argue against Free licensing because you think we should be able to charge money for things.

I specifically remove commercial restrictions from my work, so that anyone else can re-package and sell it however they want, and you argue that, no- what we really need is for people to start packaging up stuff and selling it.

Honestly- I don't really know if you're confused about what I'm talking about or if, as a creator of intellectual property yourself, you just have some kind of constitutional aversion to the entire idea of giving away intellectual property.

I agree with your basic idea that Sacred Music needs to be packaged, commercialized, and marketed. I'm a Libertarian Capitalist, for goodness sakes- not a Hippie. I just don't see any inherent conflict between the idea of Open Source and commercial distribution. More to the point- I think they can benefit each other. More to the point- I think people should do whatever they want or think makes sense. The fact that I think one "business model" is better than another is quite different than attempting to impose one business model on other people. I'm trying to get the word out on my opinions on the mater, and provide tools for people who want to use them. But I'm hardly leading a charge against proprietary information.

Adam,

Feel free to make fine distinctions if you'd like. It's a field you are interested but I am not. The only thing I'm really talking about is a situation in which a certain prudential compromise should be made for the benefit of sacred music, our core concern.

I still don't understand. I'm not trying to be combative or win rhetorical points or anything- I really don't get what you take issue with.

Here's how I read the above...

Me: Everyone should do whatever they want. I want to give my stuff away.
You: You should compromise.
Me: Compromise on what?
You: People shouldn't be required to give their stuff away.
Me: I didn't say they should.
You: But you're a Libertarian Anarchist who doesn't believe in Intellectual Property.
Me: So?
You: So when you promote giving stuff away, you're really promoting the overthrow of the government, and also insulting my right to not give my stuff away.
Me: What? No. That's... wow, ok- So I can't give my stuff away? Or I shouldn't give my stuff away? Or I shouldn't promote other people giving their stuff away? Or point out the existing success of other people who have given stuff away, or the success of the stuff?
You: People should sell their stuff. You don't want me to sell my stuff.
Me: I agree. In fact, I don't just want you to sell your stuff. You can sell my stuff too if you want. And keep all the money.
You: But that doesn't make any sense.
Me: So?
You: So it would be better for Sacred Music if there was more stuff to sell.
Me: Right. And anyone can sell my stuff.
You: But you also want other people to give their stuff away.
Me: I think it'd be nice. Then other people who are better at selling things could sell it.
You: You shouldn't tell people what to do. You should compromise.
Me: I just said people should do whatever they want.
You: But you also try to change what it is they want. You try to make people want to give things away.
Me: umm.... I'm confused...


I'm sorry that this is a little caricatured, but- I figure if you could read through my frame of reference, you'd understand why I'm so confused.

I just don't know what it is you're suggesting I do differently. Not give my own stuff away? Not suggest that other people who are already giving stuff away find better and more efficient ways of doing so? Not celebrate awesome things that people are giving away for free? Not promote the use of text-based music editing software?

I mean- I get that you think someone should be more entrepreneurial and everything. I totally agree with you. I love commerce.

But I'm not very good at it. So I'm not the guy to do it. Several other people (JMO, Bartlett, Noel Jones, Matthew Meloche) are figuring out how to make a viable business model. It's exciting to me to be near that activity. I wish I was as industrious as they are (heck, I got stymied trying to figure out how to get Moleskine-style four-line-staff journals printed so I could sell them online).

So- my contribution to that activity is to try to help create resources and tools that those people (and others, like budget-minded choir directors and researchers) can use. Is my predilection and (wished-for) skill in these matters influenced by my own personal philosophy or political opinion? Probably- I'm a whole person, so everything is related to everything else. But I've said over and over that you don't have to buy the propaganda in order to use the tools. Heck- you don't even have to release your own work for free in order to use the tools.

I really just do not understand statements like:

"We're making enemies on an unwinnable matter of principle"

Unwinnable suggests I'm fighting, which I'm decidedly not.
And enemies... well- I have a hard time thinking that giving my stuff away for free is going to hurt anyone's feelings.

And then there's:

"What I'd like to see is, if not a warming to the idea, then at least a willingness to compromise with a business model that works extremely effectively for widespread distribution."

Compromise? Anyone with any sort of business model is free to use my stuff however they see fit. I've more than compromised, I'm working towards giving them everything I have to give.

If you think someone should do a better job selling things- then start a company and sell things. Create products for CMAA to sell. Sell my stuff. (Please- I would LOVE IT if you sold my stuff.)

The way this has unraveled, I (not the brightest bulb in the box) have no idea what was being argued halfway up the elevator.
I'm starting to wonder if the forum is starting to suffer what most listserve forums eventually wrestle with, factionalism and polemics replacing good content and good help. This would be very bad for CMAA, as not all of us here pay CMAA dues but we are more than happy and willing to share the wealth. But if it appears that we can't get along reasonably with each other that will damage our mission and credibility. It already seems that many voices, not just the contradictory voices, but many former valuable contributors, never appear in print here nowadays. As my Fall 11 issue of Sacred Music still has yet to arrive and I won't be able to colloquia this June, this forum is my CMAA touchstone. But, perhaps what I contribute here is partly responsible for an underlying sense of disunity. And I'll fall on the sword if someone says, "Yes, you need to take a hiatus." But seriously, I am very confused about what's going on herein.

Which is....?
(Remember, I'm not the brightest...)

Okay, fair enough. I'm many times on the record advocating "collusion" with the LitIndustrial Complex should CMAA or any other inflluential voice(es) get their attention and provide a business model that benefits all. That would be my so-called "Boutique Hymnal/Missal" that AW's open sourcing model would enable.
Do you have another model, Kathy, that also colludes or that CMAA (and...?) could eventuate, in your words, with widespread distribution? Honest question, no agenda, no kidding. What can you foresee based upon a reconciliation of copyright and CC issues you raised in the first post?

If it had not been for Adam Bartlett, Wood and others I never would have seen music for the propers. I am very grateful. and it has inspired and help me be able to fit it to my needs of our parish using OCP as the spoken propers are the ones listed.
and Kathy what type of widespread distribution could you see happening, etc.

But do we have an anti-copyright plank in the platform?

I've only heard CMAA's policy described once, by JT speaking at a Colloquium business meeting some years ago, and it sounded like simply the generous choice to issue CMAA publications with a CC license whenever possible.

That does not need to imply an intellectual position against copyright or against intellectual property.

I hope CMAA hasn't taken an intellectual position against copyright because:
(a) such a position would be unnecessary to CMAA's mission [as Kathy rightly argues];
(b) such a position would seem to conflict with the Church's explicit claim of a "right of ownership" -- at least a moral right -- to control the publication of her own liturgical books, e.g., in Liturgiam authenticam, para. 111.

The CMAA doesn't have an anti-copyright policy? Ok, I'm good then.

Ben Yanke also likes writing in 3rd person.