<nettime> Re: [rumori] Public Enemy Goes Open Source

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

     [also To: rumori@detritus.net, plunderphonia@yahoogroups.co;
      Cc: ltvnet@musicdish.com, chuckd@publicenemy.com]

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.

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net