[Nettime-bold] Re: [rumori] Public Enemy Goes Open Source

["R. John Heck" <heck@volny.cz>]

Title: Re: [rumori] Public Enemy Goes Open Source

Thank you for invitation, I had to click in agreement to their terms to hear.

The writer of the article got it wrong. To call a song contest promotion 'open source' is to stretch an overused phrase out of proportion of its established meaning. The free use of an open source work is granted provided any works based upon it are also open source. Public Enemy's project is simply the making of another Public Enemy album, with PE apparently taking ownership of the derived works. To call this project 'Open Source' belies both a complete misunderstanding of the practice, as well as lazy journalism signalled by an overeagerness to pepper the text with trendy buzzwords. The one responsible for the misleading invitation is the writer of the article: ltvnet@musicdish.com.

In PE's defence, neither they nor their site SlamJamz.com use the phrase 'open source' in their texts concerning the project. Mr. ltvnet  should know better, as he's close to the business, that the kind of contracts provided to music entities, entertainers, and media personnel don't allow the freedom to give away the goods.

Open source is like a truly public library filled with public domain materials, where you are granted the key to the stacks for the simple fact that you live in the community. The result of so many young persons having access to such a powerful institution through their formative years forms the hope that someday one of them may make a mature contribution to those stacks, to the benefit of all.

Public Enemy has made significant contributions to music, and we mean them no disrespect, but their output has been locked up by and shelved behind a cash register down the street. Their current project exploits their fanbase, many of whom are no doubt eager to appear on a PE release, regardless of the legal requirements. The Tape-beatles see the offering of $1000 as a kind of insult; why not simply ask the public to collaborate without the collusion of lucre?

The Tape-beatles and Public Works Productions

http://pwp.detritus.net

> http://www.musicdish.com/mag/?id=4175
>
> Public Enemy Goes 'Open
> Source'?
> By: LTVNET (Associate Writer)
> 2001-07-16
> Now THIS could be an answer to the so-called file-sharing dilemma. Put
> the file-sharing public to WORK!
> Public Enemy of "Fight the Power" fame is producing their
> next CD with an "open source" twist. If you wanna get
> involved, you better get hoppin'. After September 14, 2001, your
> "big opportunity" is gone.
> Each week, download a newly recorded a cappella vocal track from
> Public Enemy. Produce some music tracks around the vocals and upload
> your unique version back to them. Winners get $1,000 per song plus an
> album credit. How 'bout that?
> They're stressing innovation and quality. Go Techno or even Country if
> it works.
> This collection will fall under Public Enemy's own
> record label SlamJamz.com, as they move aggressively to retain more
> creative and marketing control of their products. PE is also
> partnering with House of Blues Digital for a DVD of Public Enemy live
> in concert. Both products are scheduled for release this
> year.
> Chuck D of Public Enemy is notorious for his
> "pro-Napster/anti-major label" views. In 1999, they released
> an MP3 version of their CD "There's A Poison Goin' On,"
> before the release of the actual CD. This ruffled the fathers of many
> traditional retail outlets who initially responded by refusing to
> carry PE's CD in their stores.
> For details on the contest, go to
> SlamJamz.com.