Slashdot Mirror
Hilary Rosen Loves Creative Commons
13.7Billion Years writes "Former RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen has written a piece in Wired extolling the virtues of Lawrence Lessig's Creative Commons licensing, providing such juicy tidbits as 'I'm still cynical about its origins, but I've come to love Creative Commons,' and 'the industry ought to embrace Creative Commons as an agile partner providing tools for new ways to do business.' She's not quite ready to pooh-pooh the current all-or-nothing licensing regime just yet but this sounds like good progress."
"She's not quite ready to pooh-pooh the current all-or-nothing licensing regime just yet but this sounds like good progress." I am sorry but never in my life did I encounter the expression pooh-pooh, can someone please enlighten me?
Shame she's not in a position of power anymore. Funny how this happens after she leaves.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I thought she was sending her army of specially trained hypo-allergenic sniper cats to kill Lessig..
oh crap, another "get the facts" ad... gotta refresh!
The issue also includes a 16 track Cd with Chuck D, Beastie Boys, Danger Mouse and others that can be sampled, burned, and used under Creative Commons
"Farmers can leave their property to their children; why shouldn't songwriters be able to leave their songs to their children?"
Uh, perhaps because thats not what the original intent of copyright. Copyright is supposed to be for a limited time, and then to enter the public domain. Property is forever (well, 'til the world ends).
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
And in her next interview, she'll tell us how her newly-sprouted wings and "lighter-than-air defense" helped her team take Old Nick's Cup in Game Four of the Ninth Circle Hockey League playoffs.
Nice that Mrs Rosen things Creative Commons is nice and all. Only problem: Nobody cares about Mrs Rosen anymore since she isn't RIAA chief anymore.
Could the GPL even apply to music? I'm trying to comprehend how it would work; would you have to make available individual pieces of track (probably bad phrasology here, I mean for example just the drums you can hear in the background or just the vocals) in the same way the GPL means you have to make the source freely available and modifiable? Don't get me wrong, I think the GPL is great for programs but I really can't see it working for something like music...
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.
" it's still IP, and thus should be more open."
... damn.
What the hell more do you want? The individual unmixed tracks ready to load up in Pro Tools (or should they use a more OSS-friendly file format)? The instruments they were played on and sheet music to go with it?
Some people will never be satisfied
Who doesn't like free music?
from the FA:
./
'After spending the summer decompressing in Italy with my family'
sorry, she spent the summer running
tar -zxfv
on herself, or her family too?
wtf does 'decompressing' mean if you aren't a deep sea diver or a tar/zip file?
is she aware of the patents on some de-compression work?
http://milkshake.dexy.org
And next week we'll see Saddam Hussein proclaiming that he is in favor of democracy.
I trust Hilary Rosen to really support Creative Commons about as much as I expect Bill Gates to support Linux.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
So she was only doing what she was doing before because she was paid to do it. That's not a big surprise. The only question that comes to mind is who's paying the bitch now?
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
No one finds it really odd that suddenly she writes an article supporting the CC? What's in it for her? What is the underlying motive?
Maybe she is trying to subvert the CC from within?
another slashdot spamming script.
:\
d eo_key=88 92
Goood lord.
Anyway, any step toward sanity is a good one, however embracing a license isn't enough for me to start singing around a campfire with them.
Stop suing your customers, then perhaps we'll talk.
BTW, link 'o the day. CmdrTaco on TechTV!
http://www.g4techtv.com/flashpop.aspx?vi
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
The RIAA is basing its position on the false dichotomy of either greed or theft. They can't seem to understand that it's possible to protect the artist's rights without draconion measures or royalties that would put a robber baron to shame. Isn't it a shame that Hilary Rosen didn't learn this until she'd left the RIAA and had no more influence over their thinking?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Hell freezing over?
how is it incompatible with the GPL?
I've seen it so many times before ... at first you are compelled to hang around with the artists and bohemians, no matter what your parents say. This stage is followed by a sort of dull resentment or sometimes outright hostility towards their loose ways and apparent lack of motivation, culminating in a blow-up attempt to get their money, smash their guitars, whatever (that's the part we all saw in her, and hated). Possibly this stems from an inner feeling that she is plain not good enough to be part of that community.
:-)
But self-loathing cannot stand on its own, and eventually, it is re-directed in a healthy way -- "I LOVE the commons! What POSSIBILITY!" Yes, Hilary has come full circle at last. The healing has begun. The flame of art has travelled on!
Welcome, Hilary! You're on the good side now!
vicious, untreated political sewage...niche entertainment for the spiritually unattractive...worshipless pap
Of course Rosen loves people giving away their creative products. Disney has made a fortune from copyrighting public domain fairy tales. Rosen sees dollars from peddling CC works without paying the authors, once corporate execs find a 21st Century version of the Disney scam. She's cynical about the origins of the CC license, because that community successfully opposed her IP cartel so often.
--
make install -not war
READ THE F*CKING ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!
As much as she has been disagreeable in the past, I think we should be forgiving and help her ever more so to understand our train of thought and where we, like Lessig, are coming from.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
It has nothing to do with protecting anybody, but only encouraging progress. See Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the US constitution:
Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
It's so predictable. Just make a Wired section already. New Scientist is better anyway.
With the cyberthalamus, the singularity will happen.
simple, replace the source code requirement with the ability to use and distribute samples of arbitrary length, thus allowing anyone to release, in whole the work (sample length = song length) or as a short piece for traditional sample, or about half for "mash ups"
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Hilary's outlook has changed but not her underlying assumptions. When she was the public face of the RIAA, she knew on what side her bread was buttered. I'm sure her departure wasn't entirely voluntary. The Pigopolists no doubt wanted to (and as a matter of fact, did) put in her place someone who would get more favorable attention from the new regime in Washington than would an openly gay mother who had previously been one of the principal organizers of Rock the Vote.
She had previously said that she did her best to move the recalcitrant organization she was in to recognize the unstoppable synergy between the advance of technology and human creativity. On the other hand, she was well paid to represent their interests as they saw them, and did so all too well.
It's at least refreshing to see her moving in the direction she is now. By contrast, think of David Boies....euuuuch!!!!!
What the hell more do you want? The individual unmixed tracks ready to load up in Pro Tools (or should they use a more OSS-friendly file format)? The instruments they were played on and sheet music to go with it?
Yes?
Throw Bill Gates' head in too and I'll even say thank you!
We live, as we dream -- alone....
But to be in favor of rightsholders making those decisions also means accepting them when they decide *not* to share.
If we only care when a rightsholder decides to share, and not if they choose otherwise, then we really don't care about them making that decision.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
It's like watching an "ex" politicain make an educated statement so that when his tell-all book comes out supporting all his previous statements unchanged, he can say "but look, I've been on both sides now, and I was right all along."
The Innane Mrs. R. is pulling the classic prodigal son routine. She is now straying from her family, to be reunited later. At which time they will kill the fatted DRM Budget for her homecomming.
I don't buy it for a second. When I see her *SUE* the RIAA for being draconian I *consider* taking her seriously. If she wins big and collects and does something socially responsible with the proceeds she'll be "back to zero" and she can then begin working on making a new name for herself.
Between then and now, she is, IMHO, pandering to the press so that her newly-revised-reformed-true-faith position will sell to the intended "compromisers" in the two houses of congress.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Just RTFA and I loved the title chosen for it: How I Learned to Love Larry (Lessig).
AnimeNEXT anime convention
"Slashdot crowd who think that society would be better off if artists and writers knew their place -- give away your stuff for free"
...then I suggest you choose another profession other than author since the current state of technology, that allows unlimited copying, means the current structure of making gobs of money off keeping the masses ignorant and information deprived are over.
;), anyhow I see no reason why these content makers dont have a legacy. Leaving the world one's ideas that are shared and distributed freely is more of a legacy than having your life's work being sealed away by your children, dispensed out on *their* whim for *their* profit.
It isn't about their place in society. I would mostly be content with these writiers and artists not turning so called 'society' into a police state so they could squeeze that extra last dollar out of someone who likely was not going to, or able to afford, that song / book etc.
"If somebody violates your copyright, don't fight back too hard"
Copyright is artifical, you do know this? People speak as if it comes from on high, but it is a law and one that can be changed or even repealed.
"If you have the same aspirations of being a millionaire..."
"A farmer gets to leave a legacy for his children. You don't."
I thought children were peoples' legacy
dictionary.com says:
pooh-pooh: To express contempt for or impatience about; make light of.
The individual unmixed tracks ready to load up in Pro Tools
Yes! Tell me where, and I've got my credit card handy. .AIFF will do for me actually. And no need for sheet music, MIDI files will do the trick.
Some people will never be satisfied ... damn.
Now you understand how Progress happens, grasshopper...
Joanie loves Chachi...
SourceHosting.net, LLC
Ready. Set. Code.
http://www.sourcehosting.net/
Ms. Rosen argued: "Farmers can leave their property to their children; why shouldn't songwriters be able to leave their songs to their children?"
There's at least one difference; when I die, my heirs must pay considerable inheritance taxes. Do there exist inheritance taxes on ownership of copyright? If it's to be considered a kind of property, such taxes should exist (or they shouldn't on real property; personally I believe that each person should do their best on their own, i.e. inheritance should be forbidden, but I don't know how to implement this without massive corruption).
I recommend Lessig's book, Free Culture for a great deal of discussion on copyright and related issues. The FSF sent its members a copy recently; you should join --- everybody else is doing it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I really don't know why slashdot would legitimate anything this person has written by carrying this story.
Are you saying it'd be better to hate her silently and ignore her for the rest of time?
"..but each of your defenses are ones that have been repeated many times before around here."
;)
Then perhaps it is possible, since everyone is saying the same thing apparently, that these 'defenses' are correct?
If not, feel free to argue why they aren't.
- and it was! it was!
NT = No text foo!
But dahling, pooh-poohing is so old fahshioned. You simply must consider updating your vocal repertoire.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
I am so glad I wore my old shoes today...closing tab now.
I still haven't heard *your* arguement as to why I should respect the artifical barrier known as copyright, why I should respect the RIAA et al who have been convicted of price fixing's, and why I should bother to support idea monopolists' efforts to keep the masses ignorant.
In the end its all moot, the technology to make copies are here and here to stay. Unless we go back to the old Soviet Union style rules where photocopiers were under armed guard, information will flow. Flow dispite the lawsuits, more laws or police crackdowns.
Kim Jong Ill in a suprise announcement today proclaimed his love of Capitalism and the new direction his country will take towards a market economy. Also he says that all that stuff about turning the 'Citadel of Imperialists' into a sea of fire was said in anger and he hopes the USA can forgive him.
You make a very valuable point, and it begs the question (for Americans at least): How does this compare to political spokespersons? Having worked in DC I can say that most people in Washington really are motivated primarily by ideology and a desire to improve the country. They differ in their belief about how the country should operate.
But I do wonder how much of what (for example) Scott McLellan says is what he truly believes? My guess is that like the representative of any large organization, he believes most of it, but certainly not all of it. He is the mouthpiece, and his job is to speak for the organization as a whole, not as an individual.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Any Slashdotters out there read the Washington Post? I was surprised to see her name atop this op-ed piece on Saturday, Oct. 16. The column ends with this brief description of her:
The writer is former chairman and chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America and a volunteer for gay rights causes.
-- Will quantum computers run imaginary-time operating systems?
The artist leaves the guitar...that's the farm....
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
Get everything you wanted out of life, and get it now. Get on good terms with your deity. End's coming real fast, folks.
I'm cynical about everything and anything that comes out of Hilary Rosen's mouth. In fact, anything that woman "embraces" is something I will need to be more careful about in the future. And that applies equally well to Cary Sherman and Jack Valenti, for that matter.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"Disney is surely benefitting from the change, but so are the hard-working individuals who hold the majority of copyrights."
And then there are the losers, a.k.a. the citizens whose culture is up for sale and will be for the forseeable future.
I am sure microsoft and other companies will also benefit greatly when DRM makes it so every word you read must be paid for, and libraries are closed down as copyright infridgement havens. Who is the loser though, the losers are the information starved citizens in society kept eternally ignorant.
Anyone who thinks creative commons will kill the recording industry is delusional. The recording industry spends all the money promoting bands and takes all the risk. They're sorting through all the crapp so other don't need to. Maybe some hits will come out of creative commons. But then these people will get recording contracts with labels to further their careers afterwards.
I went through that phase of hilary hating a loooong time ago. Then one day I went online and found MP3.com had launched their "digital vault" which (they argued) allowed them to offer ANY music for download to folks. It wasn't just that I thought this to be incredibly stupid and doomed to failure, but more than that it showed this "pioneer" just another ethically clueless money chasing adventure.
The RIAA sucks ass, and I'm proud to say I've not given them a penny of my money in years. I am a regular shopper at Magnatune and I'm seriously considering giving the gift of CC licensed music this year to a select few.
But as much as I hate the way the old school does business, the law (and consistency if we are serious about GPL) is on their side. No one forces artists to sign with (so called) major labels, and any band today has MANY opportunities to generate hype for themselves without making that sellout (oh, to have been there the day "The White Stripes" made that deal! Such a shame...)
I hate the way so many simply refuse to see the illogic in defending GPL and then insisting "we" should be able to broadcast their material in any way we see fit. Anyone who seriously believes in the GPL, the CC license etc should have no use AT ALL for "artwork" tied to any of those old school sharecropper licenses. Madona and Britney don't need our help, and redistributing their content only helps preserve the power of a system that has shown, at every turn, a strict unwillingness to adapt even while thus ensuring its own increased irrelevance.
This bit about Hillary is nothing new. Even when still with the RIAA we often heard of urgings to the old school publishers to adapt. They didn't listen then (thank goodness) let's hope they won't start now.
What the hell more do you want? The individual unmixed tracks ready to load up in Pro Tools (or should they use a more OSS-friendly file format)?
"Audacity project" or "multichannel Ogg (Vorbis or FLAC) stream" anyone?
The instruments they were played on and sheet music to go with it?
You just described tracked music, which includes machine-readable instrument definitions (as a sample bank) and machine-readable sheet music (as a note sequence) in a file. Common formats for tracked music include .mod, .s3m, .xm, or .it formats. Other machine-readable sheet music formats, which reference (but do not completely define) the instruments, include .ly (Lilypond) and .mid (standard MIDI file format). Compare the concepts of "transparent" and "opaque" used in the GNU Free Documentation License.
Another thing some would want is a license allowing use of the work in a GPL program such as a video game for platforms that can't rely on the interpreter exemption because they don't have a file system per se (unless you count things like GBFS).
Her analogy stopped at leaving a legacy for one's children.
I'd take a wild guess that the mean time for children to outlive their parents is 30 years. So why do American and European copyrights last life plus 70 and not life plus 30?
Governments levy property taxes on real estate. So why can't governments levy property taxes on copyrights?
Oh well, you could release lyrics and music scores for each instrument. But by and large music is already "source code", so all you have to do is allow anyone who heard your derivitive song to distribute it further, as a recording or by singing it themselves.
Creative Commons is a wonderful license...
For me to poop on!
Now, if the creative equivalent of the farm tools is pens, paper, instruments, and recording hardware, but you're missing out on the exclusive right to farm the land -- the tools won't do you any good.
And without a way to pay property tax on the land, the land won't do you any good either. To continue this analogy, we need an intellectual property tax such as that specified by this bill.
The purported rationale of the new extension to lifetime of author + 70 years is just that -- so a copyright holder's children can benefit if the copyright holder has an untimely death.
If you're trying to prevent an HIV positive rapist, a bioterrorist, or any other murderer from causing an early copyright expiration, then why not make the copyright term fixed, based roughly on an author's expected remaining natural lifetime plus one generation gap? Wouldn't a fixed term of 75 years (which incidentally equals the pre-Bono copyright term of pre-1978 works and works made for hire) work to such an end?
I don't think companies should be able to hold copyrights or patents ... patents and copyrights should belong to the person or group who developed them in the first place.
The USPTO already grants each patent directly to the inventor(s), who assign to their employer only those rights specified by the employment contract. As for copyrights, on the other hand, which Microsoft employee(s) would own the copyright in the work entitled Microsoft Windows XP?
sorry, she spent the summer running tar -zxfv ./ on herself, or her family too?
No, she spent her summer decompressing MP3s of member labels' recordings to /dev/audio. I'd bet record industry executives get free MP3s as a perk.
what she thought, don't care now.
I still haven't heard *your* arguement as to why I should respect the artifical barrier known as copyright
Because the government has guns.
why I should respect the RIAA et al who have been convicted of price fixing's
You don't need to; alternatives to major labels exist.
and why I should bother to support idea monopolists' efforts to keep the masses ignorant.
You don't need to; you can educate your friends and family about the issue and about the alternatives.
If I told this worthless shitbag bitch that there was a dime lodged in my ass and the only way to get it out was with her tongue, she'd be a dime richer a few minutes later.
simple, replace the source code requirement with the ability to use and distribute samples of arbitrary length, thus allowing anyone to release, in whole the work (sample length = song length) or as a short piece for traditional sample, or about half for "mash ups"
The creative common license already allows this.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
Do you think the royalties earned by artists on musical works are too high? Are the artists being too -- there's that word again -- greedy?
No. Actually, the groupthink is that most recording artists are underpaid rather than overpaid, largely because the label deducts expenses before paying royalties to the recording artist. Read "The Problem with Music" by Steve Albini for the gory details. On the other hand, the label pays mechanical royalties to the songwriter's publisher before deducting expenses; a singer-songwriter who somehow manages to avoid a Bright Tunes fight may get a check from the music publisher (for the CDs) and from BMI (for radio play) before the album recoups.
In standard recording contracts, the expenses of producing, manufacturing and distributing CDs are all deducted from the Musician's share of the profits, usually leaving ZERO.
Not if the artist writes his own songs. The songwriter gets his share even if the album doesn't recoup, and Hilary knows this. Record labels using songs based on Sampling Plus-licensed works don't need to pay the original song's songwriter in order to clear a sample.
[from tfa] The biggest problem in commercial sampling isn't that artists don't know how to give away pieces of their work; it's that they and their producers want to get paid more - a lot more - for smaller bits of their songs. Think George Clinton, not Gilberto Gil. [/tfa]
e frm34.show Message?topicID=948.topicm c/pfunk.html
Where's she get off saying this?
Pfunk was 10 years ahead of this kind of thinking when he released sample CDs with all the peices of the songs he still owned rights to. Those CDs came with a liscense that starts with nothing owed to sample, but increases royalties as the sampler increases profits. Now you can argue the terms he came up with weren't generous beyond that, but still, a 11 year lead on Hillary's newfound way of thinking puts him WELL above HER criticism, even ignoring her former well-loathed employer.
more info on pfunk samples:
http://p076.ezboard.com/fpoliticalpalac
http://www.duke.edu/~t
Everyone else has already ripped your faulty analogy to shreds. That won't stop me from doing it too, however.
The musical artists already don't leave a legacy behind under the current system, because they don't own their copyrights. If you want the RIAA to make you famous, you have to give all your work to them, so THEY can leave it behind for THEIR children. You, the artist, are currently left empty-handed.
Not that it matters, even if artists these days did keep their copyrights, your logic would still be faulty. I just wanted to point out that even if your logic were solid, it still wouldn't apply, because the current system doesn't work that way either.
Incidentally, They Might Be Giants, the greatest band in the world, has been giving their music away for free since the day they started performing. They retain all their copyrights, because they did not do business with the RIAA. In other words, they played the game the way the slashdot crowd would like to see it played...and they have been making a living at this for 20 years, which is much longer than most RIAA bands can even hope for.
So, everything you said is wrong from every possible perspective.
"I'd take a wild guess that the mean time for children to outlive their parents is 30 years. So why do American and European copyrights last life plus 70 and not life plus 30?"
My guess is to cover the worst-case scenario of the songwriter finally hitting it big with a hit song, at around the time that he and his struggling wife have had their first child, and immediately preceeding being run over by a bus.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
I find your .sig ironic, given your comment.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Farmers can leave their property to their children; why shouldn't songwriters be able to leave their songs to their children?
Ummmmmm, because songs aren't property, maybe, hmmmm?, maybe?
But let's not go too far into dreamland. Yes, the current system of copyright can be antiquated and user unfriendly, and its enforcement can be discriminatory, but it has created a lot of wealth for individual artists, not just corporations. More important, it has created a vast body of art for the public.
That the public doesn't own(yet, and probably never will), so it's not really for the public. I mean, I really don't get that statement. "It has created a vast body of content for the public to purchase" seems more appropriate.
He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?
~~~
People will say anything for money.
Let the writer leave his typewriter and his desk to his children. The farmer doesn't leave his corn and wheat to his children; he sells them and gives up all rights to further control of the sweat of his labor. If the farmer adds a new building or buys a new tractor, so can the writer buy a new typewriter.
Infuriate left and right
I don't expect the music industry to actually embrace the Creative Commons license, but if they did, backing by a large organization like that might help lend credibility to the GPL and other licenses similar in spirit to the CC license... which could come in handy when the GPL is finally tested in court.
If Hillary had a change of heart, and changed her tune, she could help turn history. I would love to see a powerful voice like hers become an ally.
Of course she does. The license is good unto perpetuity! Once the megacorps recognize this, we'll see a lot of embracing going on. We'll also see a lot of nonsense as they attempt to manipulate the license to suit their needs.
a real sexy picture of Fat Bastard Chris DiBona
I don't know what sample clearance or Sampling-Plus is.
Google knows what sample clearance and Sampling Plus license are. See also the recent article about Wired's sample CD.
My guess is to cover the worst-case scenario of the songwriter [publishing a work, having a child, and dying in an accident]
Then wouldn't a fixed term, say about 75 years, work just as well in the case of an untimely accidental or criminal death?
Source code in the context of the GPL is defined as the prefered method of editing.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
No, but she is a person. Just like the people at Google who are trying to do the best thing in an imperfect world. After all, China deserves to have Google just like the rest of us.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
All sarcasm aside; while it is a good thing that she seems to have changed her tune (so to speak), it does nothing to change the fact that the extended copyrights which she so recently championed have done a great deal of ill to the creative process. People have always looked to the wealth of created works that came before them to find inspiration. To look at it from a different angle: public domain is Jung's theory of the collective unconscious made manifest. Ideas are usually not original, but the ways in which they can be expressed are nearly limitless.
I am an artist; a great deal of the work that I do as a silversmith is inspired by the works of the past. I am a believer in copyrights; at the same time, I would love for someone to stumble across a piece of jewelry that I made, at some point in the future, and be inspired to create their own interpretaion of it, and not be hampered in this endeavor by restrictive and insanely long copyrights. Public domain is there for a reason, and by putting a chokehold on the process by which things enter the public domain, the work of future - not to mention current - artists, writers, and artisans is strangled.
The RIAA and its sister organizations represent a new - and pernecious - way of thinking about who gets to create what. Think about it: had the RIAA held the sort of power 50 years ago that it does now, Richie Valens could never have released his most famous song. "La Bamba" was a Mexican folk tune, but somebody wrote the words and music long before Mr. Valens gave it a rock-n-roll tempo. He interpreted what he heard, and brought the song to the ears of a far wider audience. Because of copyright extensions, however, nobody will have the opportunity to do the same thing with his interpretion of the same folk song without having to jump through an extensive number of legal hoops first.
To sum it up: fire bad. Tree pretty. Public domain necessary.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
both creative and common, I say fuck off Rosen, you stupid slut! .
So okay, maybe I'm just common.
Of course this was going to happen, it is just one of the many parallels between the information age and the industrial revolution.
In the 1800's there were those who strongly believed that the free states should be able to get along with the slave states by working out some kind of compromize that respected their "right" to own slaves. But like most people who support false rights, they were doomed to be the loosers in history and were exploited by the plantation masters.
Today there are those who see copyrights as some kind of glorious right, as if coercing other peoples copying behavior is a 'property' and not a form of controll. They really want to work out a compromise with the big media industries by keeping the copyright system in tact. In fact they are only setting themselves up to be exploited by the very institutions they are trying to help.
Where do I get the distinct impression that she means that she likes this in much the same way as this?
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
And there's that pesky bit about copyright working to provide incentive to publish new work. Perpetual exclusive power doesn't incentivize publication, it incentivizes leaving copyrighted works on the shelf to rot (only restoring them when there's profit to be made in distributing authorized copies of the restored version). Adding copyright power to already published works can't incentivize those authors to publish more in the past (and it can't incentivize dead authors either).
In Eldred, Justice Breyer did the math and noted in his dissenting opinion that we now have over 99% of the value of an (unconstitutional) unending term of copyright:
Digital Citizen
No, I think it was just that the penny dropped. CC is just like Copyleft: an author/creator asserts their rights under copyright law and uses those rights to specify how their work should be shared. Both those who copyleft or CC and those who assert "all rights reserved" are expecting copyright law to be complied with, even though we don't like many aspects of copyright law, particularly the excessive terms.
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
why should an author/musician's child expect to get income unless he writes/sings/etc?
Your reasoning gives us the horror that is Brian Herbert's writing.
Freedom: "I won't!"
Now that you mentioned it, I believe that the idea of a user being able to remix/remaster the song to be very interesting. And I'm not only thinking about the creative side. For example, if a certain song was presented in a format where the varius tracks were unmixed and the mixing was made in real time, the listener could specify certain surround properties which he liked best. He could shut up the vocalist to get an instrumental/karaoke track, listen to an individual instrument or even reorganize an entire orchestra. That sounds pretty cool to me. There aren't any technical limitations to achieve this. DVDs are more than capable of holding the data needed. Real time mixing isn't a problem either.
Some people will never be satisfied ... damn.
There was mono... Some people weren't satisfied. Then stereo... Some weren't satisfied. Then surround... Some people weren't satisfied. Then... Then... You follow the pattern.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
"Physical property, unlike creative works is limited. That's why we afford it special protection (and why governments choose to levy taxes on certain forms of it)."
Hmmmm. This raises an interesting idea.
Since people are pusing so hard for "intellectual property" and are trying to equate it to physical property, how about we push governments to levy an "intellectual property" tax and to have "intellectual property" tax assessors to set the tax value of the same.
A Nony Mouse
I completely agree with Rosen! You know, I really think it is unfair that farmers can leave the farm to their children, but I cannot leave my students to my kids! I think it is time to change the law, so that my students would be required to pay royalties to me or my descendants every time they use anything they learned in my classes!
AccountKiller
...which says:
"Dear Sir;
20 years ago, our father installed a lightswitch in your house. It came to our attention that you are still using that switch. However, our records indicate that we have never received proper royalty payments from you. With the royalty fee of 10 cents per click, with the national average of 6 clicks per day, you now owe us an excess of $4380 in royalties. Please send us the check written to the above mentioned sum by November 15, 2004. Your failure to do so will result in legal proceedings against you. "
AccountKiller
Your .sig says all that is necessary, in this case.
"Freedom: I won't!" buy or read Brian Herbert's books. Incidentally, have you ever read the science fiction story that introduced "Freedom: I won't!" or did you pick the phrase up somewhere else?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Former RIAA CEO still a stupid cunt, film at 11.
Unfortunately your understanding of the term LIMITED has no correlation with that of our corporation and lawmakers, and equally unfortunately the framers of the Constitution inserted no guidance.
Perhaps LIMITED means...
From the creation of a work, for the rest of eternity. Your are free to make use of that work, prior to its creation.
From the creation of a work to the end of the Human Race.
Either case means copyright is LIMITED in a way that suits corporations just fine, but does nothing meaningful for society. IMHO both cases are in direct contradiction with the Constitution, as well. Obviously what we think doesn't matter... for the moment. In the long run, the only thing US tightening/extending of copyright will do is push innovation overseas. Given that the EU is following in the US footsteps in this regard, that means that the Next Wave will probably come from the Far East for technology and South America for music. (If I were guessing, right now)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Have I read it? It's great! I'm not sure if a society like the Gands would really work (at more than a basic agrarian level) but it sure was entertaining to read about.
Freedom: "I won't!"
Your Rights Online: Bill Gates Loves Linux and the GPL
Posted by CowboyNeal on Tuesday October 26, @08:04PM
Bill Gates, formerly of Microsoft, has written a piece in Wired extolling the virtues of Linus Torvalds's Linux and the GPL system, providing such juicy tidbits as 'I'm still cynical about its origins, but I've come to love the GPL and, most of all, Linux,' and 'the industry ought to embrace the GPL as an agile partner providing tools for new ways to do business.' He's not quite ready to pooh-pooh the current all-or-nothing licensing regime just yet but this sounds like good progress."
MP3.com built its business around the concept of being one of those "revolutionaries" that rejects the system. Record your garage band, post it here, foster "community" as best you can and build on it - reject the system?
But when it became clear this wasn't working for them what did Mr. Mike do to "bring in new ears?" He decided to co-opt that very same system. The CEO said openly, again and again, this was an attempt to bring in more "madonna fans" to expose them to "the community."
In other words it wasn't 'revolutionary" at all and this "controversial" ploy was simply one more attempt at the new trying to co-opt the old rather than define itself on its own terms. he didn't really believe in any of those people who believed in him, he was just looking for a way to build a collection of music he could "license" to others but wouldn't have to pay for. He sold out the site, and sold out the thousands of people who believed in him enough to contribute their works to his "community."