http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6186259/site/newsweek/The gist of the story is, a group of artists are releasing a CD under the 'creative commons' license, which allows musicians to have control over what restrictions are placed on their music. Some of the songs allow non-commercial sharing and copying, while others allow both commercial and noncommercial use.
I fully support this effort, because I have found that many times artists are just as unhappy with the copyright restrictions on their albums as the listeners of those albums are. By releasing music this way, fans are encouraged to share and copy the contents of the CD.
The creative commons license (homepage for more information:
http://creativecommons.org/) is originally designed for collaboration rather than just sharing. If I publish a book under cc, another author can take portions of my writing and stick it into her own book...without consulting me. I can specify certain restrictions--or not. It's my choice. But it's still stronger than public domain: the cc still says "This is mine," but it also says "you can use it."
This is significant regarding usage of and addition to work: you may not just want to throw it out there (i.e. place it in the public domain), but at the same time you may not want to reserve ALL rights. If I'm an academician, maybe I *want* other people building off a paper I wrote without having to worry about violating my intellectual property rights. If you're a musician, perhaps you think it's cool that people want to remix your work and maybe put it in a music video or add a bass track or whatever. This is what the cc license is for.
