Talk:Free music
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Does anybody think a mention of or link to MP3s / filesharing is warranted in the article for those for whom "free music" primarily has this connotation?
- That might be a very good reason to move this article to free improvisation (which in fact I am about to do). I get the feeling that the relatively high number of hits this article has had is due in large part to people searching for "free music" and landing here - I like the idea that somebody looking to get the latest effort by Eminem for free might instead end up buying (or stealing) a Derek Bailey record (or maybe something on the Emanem label...), but I can't see it happening. --Camembert
Some people also call music 'free' that does not fully meet the standards of free software -- music that is restricted to non-commercial use or which must not be changed. On the other hand, the existing licenses are not fully free and usually do not allow radio broadcasting or similar things. This means that we have in fact three classes of free music. -- Sloyment 01:06, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Agree. The article currently smacks of POV-pushing. As a member of the Debian project, I definitely understand the "free-as-in-beer" vs. "free-as-in-speech" distinction, but free-for-non-commercial-use music is a significant category with many prominent members. The Free Software Foundation refers to "no-commercial-use" as "semi-free", but I think that trying to exclude "semi-free" music from this category definitely constitutes POV-pushing. And unlike "Free Software", there really isn't a widely used alternative term (like freeware) to refer to "free-as-in-beer" music. Strongly agree with Sloyment that there are (at least) three classes of "free music" and all should be covered here. -- Xtifr 01:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Userbox
For anyone who is a supporter of free music, you can add a userbox to your user page, if you like:
| Code | Result | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{User:Ahunt/FreeMusic}} |
|
Transclusions |
