This is a continuation of the “ My Views…” thread. If you haven’t read through that I recommend you do that now. Lots of good stuff there.

I hesitate to get too over-involved in the every thread of the conversation because I feel it should be something we all participate in as equally as possible I’ll jump in here to (perhaps) help clarify some topics that have arisen:

Quote: RemaximI m sure that people would invest money, work and time in this, because they (we) just love this site.

I am too (really, honest) as I said so in my original post:

Quote: fourstonesWhat’s my prediction? I predict that the site will, somehow, survive essentially just the way it is. What do I base this on? Nothing other than my sense that enough people see its value, both big and small, commercial and otherwise, who don’t want it to go away. Plus I trust the CC Board. I’m not being coy and I don’t have any inside information on CC or potential interested parties so you could say my optimism isn’t supported by the facts ;) It’s just a gut thing.

And now, here’s where I am exposed ;) :

Quote: LoveshadowBut this site is NOT only a remix site, it is a platform to create new works as in Calendar Girls case.There were no originals until CC [Mixter musicians] and those on her site made them.

In fact, this is my not-so-secret agenda all along laid bare by Loveshadow. By featuring a cappellas on this site and thereby giving them special status over and above just ‘samples’ we were hoping to attract producers who would otherwise not think of CC licensing in terms of traditional ‘remixing’ but really, as LS says ‘a platform to create new works.’

It seems all too narrow if all we were setting out to prove is that CC licenses enables great dance remixes. The point of the site was to prove that sharing any previously recorded content for any musical context or genre will lead to better music, period.

To potential bidders: you don’t really understand this site until you understand the previous points.

Quote: LoveshadowLogically [the new owners] will be a body who is able to gain some advantage from owning the site.

I’m not sure if by ‘advantage’ you mean financial but I’ll say this just ftr:

While I believe in my heart and head that the model we have put forward here is viable for commercial purposes because of itself, not despite itself and while I am continually working toward finding a way to financially reward musicians that are willing to work this way and would love to work with new owners to help make that happen - the RFP is specifically designed to encourage non-profits and individuals of all persuasions. It wouldn’t surprise or disappoint me in the least if the new ownership were dedicated to principles aligned around music being proffered and enjoyed without any financial incentive involved. (In other words, an organization like Creative Commons.)

Quote: fourstones the model we have put forward here is viable for commercial purposes because of itself, not despite itself
That to me is an extremely important point. There’s always been enough room here at ccMixter for all types of music; it’s not about some type of clannish subculture that would prefer to stay hidden from view, while sneering at the unenlightened (at least for me, it’s not). Rule #1 about having an opinion on anything, is being aware of it in the first place; and I think ccMixter seems to be on the cusp of a much wider level of public awareness. The nice thing about it for me is that it doesn’t truly seem to have come about through gimmicky promotions or the like, but through the fact that anyone who bothers to stick around for a little while finds a community that’s welcoming and friendly, while remaining honest and passionate about what we do. Better music doesn’t come about necessarily through sticking to a formula, or having the latest and greatest toys (go listen to Don Johnson’s album “Heartbeat” if you think I’m wrong)- it’s about having something to say, and saying it as clearly as possible, whether it happens to be a sugary-sweet pop ballad that echoes memories of a first crush, or a squalling, grinding industrial behemoth of sound-sculpture that depicts a state of anger, loss, and alienation. It would seem to me that great music becomes almost an “emergent property” of ccMixter’s way of doing things, and I can only imagine ever more amazing results as time goes on.

Quote: fourstones[partial quotes]:
By featuring a cappellas on this site and thereby giving them special status over and above just ‘samples’ we were hoping to attract producers who would otherwise not think of CC licensing in terms of traditional ‘remixing’ but really, as LS says ‘a platform to create new works.’

It seems all too narrow if all we were setting out to prove is that CC licenses enables great dance remixes. The point of the site was to prove that sharing any previously recorded content for any musical context or genre will lead to better music, period.

It wouldn’t surprise or disappoint me in the least if the new ownership were dedicated to principles aligned around music being proffered and enjoyed without any financial incentive involved. (In other words, an organization like Creative Commons.)

This post sets out things I believe as well. This is the crux of what has been built here for me.

Although I like a loops-based minimal techno remix as well as (and probably better than, based on my mp3 player) the next fellow, I see ccmixter much more broadly than as a creation site for loop hobbyists. The net environment creates enough places for people to show off their ability to loop and use the pre-sets.

The key is instead to align the principles around the music and its “sharing economy” nature, while not being rigid if people can sort out ways to get artists compensated (and for people to make justified profits in the course of that).

I’ve spent a good deal of time focusing on ideas this week. I am nearly at a more full sharing point, if we define “nearly” as meaning “in a bit”.

My current view is that there are two essential functions to be maintained at ccmixter:
1. maintenance of the “soul” of the mixter, for which the Lessig blog principles are one short-hand about some externals, but the concepts go well beyond those;
2. actual operation of the site.

I am convinced that while 1. and 2. might be served by one entity,
the first function must be served by a non-profit. Rather than the CC board enforcing the Lessig principles, I want to see a mixter community, operating through a non-profit, enforcing the Lessig principles.

Item 2, that is, the operation of the site, could be done by either that non-profit or by a for-profit.
I envision that a bid proposal format could be devised which permits various ways to “interlock” the functions (my mental image is Lego blocks,but the analogy is short-hand). One format would be a non-profit supervising the CC principles, which contracts with a for-profit to run the site. Another format would be a non-profit that runs the whole show, on a fund-raising model.

I think it is now my inclination to try to present an implementable working concept on at least task 1, the Lessig-principles non-profit, to see if there is community interest. I want to get a few more details tied down, and have some further dialogue, but my thought is I will be ready in short order to discuss this further with our community.

I have no real desire to “lead” any effort, or “own” anything. Yet in my experience with RFPs, it’s good to have a “stalking horse”, even if the community feels a different approach in the long run proves superior. I plan to assemble a format for a “stalking horse” bid, to try to facilitate
examination of the issue. My goal is to get a collective set of folks on board with a set of ideas.
But the first step is to be practical and feasible. I’m working on that now.

Qoute fourstones `I’m not sure if by ‘advantage’ you mean financial’

No i choose the word to outline what a new owner would logically need to want to run a site like this.

It may be commercial however it may equally be an educational or artistic body, or perhaps a company or individual wishing to offset their profits for tax advantages.

That’s why it is irrelevant as long as the site continues to grow and improve to the benefit and not detriment of its users.