Ideally though, I'd like to see musicians be able to earn generation shares for creating free and remixable music. There already is a lot of free (as in beer) music out there, but there is _not_ a lot of free (as in open source) music out there.
A big problem with both graphic artists and musicians if the part about open SOURCE.
Both artists and musicians often either fail to grasp the concept of SOURCE or refuse to release SOURCE once they do understand it.
In music for example, a lot of digital music composers actually use proprietary programs and even proprietary "samples", and they not only cannot release those actual "sources" but also refuse to release their own layers of source that take those proprietary components and put them together.
So I suspect for instrumental music we first need free open source instruments, so that when someone composes a score that says "have the violin play this while the cello plays that, meanwhile this drum that drum and that drum play this that and the other drumbeats" kind of thing the SOURCE CODE can INCLUDE the (or at least a) violin, a cello, and the specific types of drums along with the specific impacts upon them that are called for by the piece.
With graphics you often get a similar problem. Someone takes a 3D model they do not want to release or that they cannot (because it is proprietary) release, and use it to create several "layers" of a multi-layer image, then they compile those layers irreversibly into a single layer that is all they are willing or able to release. The "source layers" are not provided, let along any "source model" that was used to compile the "source layers". They end up giving you the resulting compiled gif or jpg or whatever type of image file, the compiled result of using all those various sources.
They can get very irate about all this too, as making you have to go back to them to get any adjustments of the compiled image or compiled track(s) of music is probably how they plan to make their money. They give out a compiled track or image-file, holding back the actual samples and instrument-models in the case of sound or the actual multi-layer image files and actual models used to create them in the case of images.
In short, they refuse to release the "source". All you get is a compiled end-result, not the sources used to build it and the algorithm/procedure/script that does the building of it from those sources.
So a good place to start maybe would be sample libraries and instruments for musicians / sound-effects artists, and 3D models and other stock art that can be released freely with whatever an artist ends up building with it.
Then they won't be able to claim anymore "oh but there is no free open source version of the instruments I used, they are part of a proprietary package I use" because we will retort "then your product is not free open SOURCE, it is proprietary source, and thus is not eligible".
Eventually we can extend this beyond digital. Is a Stradivarius open source, as in all patents and copyrights etc on each individual one are expired so it can be freely replicated once we have replicators? Same with all physical instruments used by a band, etc: if we cannot run the sintruments through a replicator in principle, that is clone them freely, then they do not qualify...
...Remember that replicators, starting at our primitive technology level with so called "3D printers" are on our roadmap. Thus of course by free open source we mean we can freely replicate...
If your Gibson or whatever guitar is so great and makes such great music, lets get its specs down pat so we can churn them out so everyone who wants to compile/execute/perform/replicate the piece of music can do so ... by replicating that special instrument that is the source of that great sound...
-MarkM-