About the ambiguity of using 'non-copyright' music. It's true that coopyright applies to everything, but a copyright license can be used by its owner in two ways:
1. In the Proprietary
in which the proprietor exercises private ownership, control or use over an item of property, usually to the exclusion of other parties.
or 2. In the 'Free' (as in freedom) way.
So The Forest could say we only use Free (as in freedom) music, or say Free/Libre music or something, or you could say we use non-proprietary music, to avoid the confusion over the term 'copyright.'
I think if you're making a point of using Free music, you should probably make a point of using Free software as well. All Microsoft and Apple software is proprietary of the nastiest type. Both M$ and Apple have huge online music downloading services now, and these are very much not Free/Libre music services, in fact they're developing all kinds of scary new technologies to make sure peope can't share and derive from music and art in a Free/Libre fashion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management
I think The Forest should avoid being seen with these types of people.
Someone in this thread mentioned 'copyleft' in relation to music. Copyleft is a kind of copyright license that can be applied to software, art or music. But instead of using copyright as a way to restrict the right to make and redistribute copies of a particular work, copyleft licenses use copyright law to ensure that every person who receives a copy or derived version of a work can use, modify, and also redistribute both the work, and derived versions of the work.
The "and derived versions" in that last sentence is the specific thing that makes a license a 'copyleft' license rather than just a 'free' (you can do what you want with this music) license. Copyleft says 'you can do what you want with this music (or whatever), but anything you publish that is derived from this music must also be published with a copyleft license.' That's what makes it copyleft.
In a non-legal sense copyleft is considered to be 'the opposite' of copyright, though in a legal sense a copyleft license is just an unusual type of copyright license.
Copyleft is the technique originally used be the free software people hence Linux and all of that.
Specifically copyleft licenses usually grant four freedoms to the user of the software/art/music:
1. the freedom to use and study the work,
2. the freedom to copy and share the work with others,
3. the freedom to change the work,
4. and the freedom to distribute changed and therefore derivative works.
And on and on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
Surprisingly many proprietary copyright licenses actually deny the user all four of these freedoms (Apple and Microsoft's licenses, for example, deny all four).
Another thing The Forest should be interested in is The Creative Commons
and Creative Commons Licenses
The Creative Commons (CC) is a non-profit organization devoted to expanding the range of creative work available for others legally to build upon and share: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons
There are several different kinds of copyright license called Creative Commons Licenses that artists can use to release their work:
* Attribution (by): Permit others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and derivative works based upon it only if they give you credit.
* Noncommercial or NonCommercial (nc): Permit others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and derivative works based upon it only for noncommercial purposes.
* No Derivative Works or NoDerivs (nd): Permit others to copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based upon it.
* ShareAlike (sa): Permit others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work (this is the same as copyleft).
This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons
has a list of 'open source' record labels, though I'm not sure if they offer music free of charge that The Forest could use. This page: http://www.jamendo.com/
has hundreds of albums of free of charge and free as in freedom music that The Forest could download and use.
I'd be interested in helping out The Forest with free software. I think it's a bit funny to play only anti-copyright type music on an Apple computer with apple iTunes. That's very heavily copyrighted software. The Forest should use Free Software: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
which would probably mean using Ubuntu Linux http://www.ubuntu.com/
on the computers and playing music with something like rhythmbox: http://www.gnome.org/projects/rhythmbox/index.html
If people are interested we should think of putting together a plan to free The Forest from proprietary software.
I've had it with you. If I had an image of a laser gun I would absolutely position it right here in my hand...
Ha! I have a real laser absolutely positioned in my hand!