Slashdot Mirror
Grokster Case Aftermath: Busy times Ahead for EFF
Tractorjector writes "Mad Penguin has published part two of their MGM vs Grokster interview series (the first part was featured on Slashdot on 2005-06-27). This time the focus is on EFF Director Shari Steele. A very compelling (and somewhat concerning) interview."
Concerning:
(1) that causes anxiety or uneasyness (this EFF article is concerning)
(2) to engage the attention of (this EFF article is still concerning)
(2) to be interesting (this EFF article keeps on being concerning)
On the other hand:
Disconcerting:
(1) Upsetting, embarassing (this EFF article isn't disconcerting, apart to Microsoft perhaps)
(2) Frustrating (this EFF article isn't disconcerting, even for Microsoft)
So, no, no typo there...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
http://management.silicon.com/government/0,3902467 7,39145066,00.htm e d_for_newsnight/ 0 588,00.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/04/brit_sack
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,152
But here it is being used as an adjective, and concerning is not an adjective...
/end of pedatic discussion
After a quick google search:
The Oxford English Dictionary has a limited amount of evidence for concerning as an adjective meaning 'causing concern; worrying; important; weighty'. Their first example is from 1649, and the most recent is from 1834; it's marked "archaic."
reduce the phrase to "a very concerning interview", and is just sounds wrong...
Wouldn't this also apply to Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn." campaign?
Copying music for your own personal use is explicitly legal. Apple is very clear that the goal is to give you control of your own playlist, not to aid piracy. Their packaging and advertising is full of statements like "iTunes is licensed for reproduction of non-copyrighted materials or materials the user is legally permitted to reproduce. The music tracks shown are for demonstration purposes only."
I don't understand what you need the EFF for in this case. You've always been free to give away your songs. The rule remains that as soon as you write something original, you have the copyright. While there are chargeable services around to help you establish said copyright, this is only to provide proof of copyright should it ever become a legal necessity to do so.
As for what the BBC did, those works aren't copyright! Copyright on old Beethoven's symphonies ended a long time ago. The BBC Symphony Orchestra's performance is copyrighted, but seeing as I'm a Brit paying the BBC's license fee, I think it's perfectly correct they should be publically available.
None of this addresses how an artist makes a living out by pursuing their art. You mention posting "little songs" - presumably you are not trying to make a full time living out of this? I respect the dedication of the pure artist (my login is testament to the fact that I've sold out to business get by, the obligatio part being that I had to give up partying and earn a living - ain't life a bitch?) and in particular the struggle it is to earn enough money to live on. For the EFF or anyone else to support businesses whose actual intent was to benefit from people breaking the law is ridiculous. So I don't have a problem with the recent ruling.
You want to give your songs away for free? Fine. You want to earn a living out of music? Great - and you deserve all the help and respect that can be given. You want to write some P2P software so that people can communicate, share free songs and Linux distros etc? Fantastic.
You want to benefit (get money/ friends/ contacts/ misguided respect/ whatever) from advertising a system with the intent and knowledge of infringing on other people's rights - well, you're basically being a selfish bastard at this point, aren't you? It's not as if Grokster has made any effort to support musicians, like providing a forum to sell music with a way to track what you've downloaded in order to pay the relevant artist. Anyone who's played in a band or watched someone try to set up an indie record label knows just how fucking hard it is to bring in the money to do so. If Grokster had some real decency, they'd have made a real effort to find out how to help all these kinds of people. Now as well as major labels always looking to keep the money for themselves, there's other bastards looking to make it impossible to get people to pay money in the first place.
If you don't want to or can't afford to buy music - don't. Go see a local artist. Download material deliberately released for free by the artist or even record label. The fact that this is legal isn't particularly relevent. There's more good and free music available via the internet than you could ever get hold of before. Rip CD's from your friends - not legal, but a nice little grey area that acts as an effective self throttle against using the power of the internet to dodge your obligations. Just show some respect to artists, and with any luck it would also contribute to the financial starvation of the commercial shit clogging up the charts and atmosphere...
"Copying music for your own personal use is explicitly legal"
I've heard repeatedly that this is not the case, as in there is no law that makes copying for personal use legal. It's only the Betamax ruling that makes it legal.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.