> Let's not forget that free songs are often copyrighted, but that > Libre.fm will never be allowing nonfree materials for download.
Yes, but what is your definition of free? If you are asserting only those pieces that have been assigned CC0 or Public Domain status, then the range is extremely narrow. If you are accepting CC BY/NC/ND/SA, and other similarly compatible deeds / licenses then I would believe there is wide range to work with. (But as I stated elsewhere, IANAL...best to leave that to the real deal at CC, EFF, or Software Freedom Library, or some other such organization that does have a legal staff). IMO - one of the problems we are starting to rathole our way into is the definition of "free". I know the range of opinions on this subject goes to extremes: some believe that only 100 percent public domain items are "free" while others have accepted that CC licenses / deeds are "free". Personally, my measure is whether the artist / company has a relationship to the RIAA, GEMA, ASCAP, BMI, or similar organization, then I would steer clear. If the artist / company doesn't have an immediate tie to such an organization, then I would have to research that company / artist to find out what their feelings, and intentions are. BTW - this is why I would actually stay away from Internet Archive's Live Music Collection -- there have been times when stuff has been pulled from the collection after parties have asserted their ownership over materials in their (perfect example is the Gateful Dead). -- --- Faster moments spent spread tales of change within the sound...
