btw that song is a copyright violation on the baseline.
Well, d'oh! That's why I used it. Have you seen the Saturday Night Live bit? If not find a copy of the show Vanilla Ice was on. You'll like it.
KFG
Re:Someone will find a way to complain about this
on
Code Monkey Like Fritos
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Dude, I posted my work for free! Why you dissin' me fo'?
Well, you are spot-on about me being a tortured artiste type. I'm glad you were able to quickly identify my classification and get to the heart of the matter.
I'm afraid that if I said anything about you I missed it. Get over yourself. We're not talking about you behind your back, because you aren't that important to us.
I should have more specifically stated that there will almost always be people ready to complain because the server is Slashdotted, or because the editors even posted the story in the first place, or because of something else.
Ah, yes, well, that would have given me some insight into your outlook on life.
Did you know that there are people who go around complaining constantly about people complaining constantly?
No, probably not.
Something in the nature of threaded discussion like Slashdot brings out adversarial comments.
Believe it or not, I'm not being adversarial right now. I'm being amused.
Re:Someone will find a way to complain about this
on
Code Monkey Like Fritos
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think how you react to a work of art that someone has made available for free is a good litmus test of your outlook on life.
Either that or it really does just plain suck.
I have no idea where people get the idea that displaying a work of art for free is supposed to give it immunity to criticism.
I suspect that most of the people who believe this are themselves the tortured artiste type who cannot seperate criticism of their work from criticism of their soul.
For these type of people I can only say this:
Dude, get a grip and think about this to brighten your day - Maybe your soul really does just plain suck.
it is an arguement to no end though as i feel google is in the right and suspect you do as well. the logo is comemorative and not a theft of intelectual property. it provides to product or advertising. it is simply comemorative.
Even with a bit of cut and paste it is still fair use.
In fact it's even a recognized art form, called "collage."
Ice, Ice, baby! All right stop collaborate and listen.
. ..google did not just happen to make a logo that looked like miro's style and use it.
"Style" is not something that can be copyrighted. Only works can be copyrighted.
See ragtime, blues, jazz, boogie woogie, rock & roll, etc., as opposed to Maple Leaf Rag, Sweet Home Chicago, Take Five, Roll 'em Pete and Purple Haze.
The former are styles, the latter are works. You can copyright Take Five. You cannot copyright 5/4 time.
In fact, the Google logo was their own creative work that they own the copyright on. It was just in emulation of Miro's style, not a copy of one of his works.
The claim of any "moral" rights is so assinine I almost don't know what to say about it. The law does not recognize "moral" rights. It grants a monopoly on copying and may impose monetary recompense against losses incured by such copying. Without the law the artist has absolutely no rights whatsoever, except maybe to be a dickhead.
And I wonder just what sort of monetary losses the Miro heirs feel they have suffered by Google making an original work in tribute to Miro?
KFG
Re:Dink Smallwood
on
Abandoned Games
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
. ..a terrible thing that prolongs copyrights long after nobody cares.
The very reason that copyright used to require renewal. If the holder didn't care enough about his rights to fill out a form and send it in introduction to the public domain was accelerated.
Please note that I used the word "theft" somewhat sardonically, because that was the word used in the post to which I responded; however:
. ..what public good is enhanced by destroying private ownership?
You do not understand the social contract of copyrights and patents. Like, at all.
The are not private property. A temporary right of monopoly is granted insofar as that grant benefits the public good by insuring they reach the public domain; and in a timely manner.
Free speach is the primal law which "Intellectual Property" laws are subserviant to (where such free speach laws exist, which they should in all jurisdictions that are signatory to the Berne Convention, since the assumption of free speach is part of the social contract of the Berne Convention).
While I'm sure the public good can be shown to be "served" by confiscating physical works of art, it still smells like theft to me.
Because that is theft. As is taking a DVD from the store without paying for it.
Copying the work of art is not theft.
Denying the right to copy the work of art is theft from the public domain. It denies the right to possess what is legitimately your property. Back in the day when the American copyright laws were being formulated the parties who were against it and the parties that were for it both understood this explicitly.
Get the hence and read the correspondence between Jefferson and Monroe on the matter (Jefferson was Ambassador to France at the time the Constitution was drafted, which fact leaves us with a fortuitous public record of the their arguments).
As another poster pointed out, how many movies are just so good that you'll watch them multiple times, justifying the expense of buying the disc?
I've purchased exactly ten. One only because it was in a ten buck bin. I recieved an 11th as a gift from my wife (as an "add on" to a VHS tape of movie that wasn't available on DVD).
There are a few others I'm inclined to add (including the VHS movie listed above, now available on DVD), but I'm in no hurry; at current pricing (note to Ted Turner. Release Grand Fucking Prix already with all the "bonus material" that Frankenheimer managed to produced at his own expense until he died. I'll pay whatever the bloody hell you ask for it).
At five bucks or less I'd guess I'd own at least a few dozen.
People who steal are very good at talking people into thinking that what they did is OK
Ya mean like constantly expanding the range of copyright laws so that nothing ever actually goes into the the public domain, so the free money cow never dries up?
At least they can make some money now selling cheap DVDs
Which just goes to show ya exactly how overpriced DVDs are. CDs as well.
Think about stuff from the catalog too, say Chaplin's City Lights ($22) or Badfinger's No Dice ($17), whose costs were paid off decades ago and so aren't relevant in justifying the cost of the disk. In fact, under the copyright laws that were in effect the first time I ever saw/heard most of the stuff in the catalog they should be in the public domain already. As far as I'm concerned Congress has breached their contract with me when it comes to these.
David was a compelling, sympathetic, and very human character.
I Sing the Body Electric - Ray Bradbury, 1950 something or other. Twilight Zone episode 100, 1962, redone as TV movie The Electric Grandmother in 1982.
Certainly nothing against Brian Aldis (the short story is actually rather good. You can find it online by Googling on Supertoys Last All Summer Long), but Ray got there first, and perhaps better.
A better choice for the Robot Hall of Fame, but didn't have the "good fortune" to attract the attention of Kubrick/Spielberg.
What's the point of yelling to the world that the sky is falling unless there's something you or I can do to stop it?
We can't stop it as individuals, but individuals can still learn to live without complete dependence on the sky, and maybe get under the table until the fall is over.
There are any number of practical steps one can take, but they all boil down to getting used to using less energy, not finding new, magical sources.
We were gifted capital. We squandered it. Time to tighten the belt and get on with life without it. That's what happens when you blow the family fortune and the dot.com bubble bursts.
Oh, and I'm not at all predicting doom and gloom, simply a return to "normal." To history the past century will just be a spike on the graph. Life will go on, and there isn't any particular reason it shouldn't be good.
Although a lot of people might have to die first. A lot of people.
Why not just get used to living with less energy? For instance, don't move 20 more miles away from work.
Absolutely nothing, it's a dandy way to farm, if you have the acreage, labor and time to devote to it. It still leaves you a ways from petroleum independence though . . .
And doesn't really do too much to help you commute to work.
The magic of petroleum occurs because it is found energy. Sure, you have to pump and refine it, but you don't really have to "make" it, it's just there.
The corn/hemp/soy you're going to have to grow. It's expensive in land (and land cost money to purchase, interest on financing and the annual tithe) labor, energy and land usage (soil depletion, etc). The cost is high. The yield after extracting the energy you need to produce it is low.
Biodiesel is only at the price it is now because it is produced using large amounts of petroleum. If demand becomes high the price will skyrocket, and burn ever more petroleum in the process, until that's all gone.
Then the skyrocketed price of biodiesel will skyrocket. There is no magic bullet. Move to the city and learn to walk . ..in the dark.
So what's your better idea that's actually going to happen?
You're going to get used to using less fuel, and using it more wisely, like it or not. With gas prices triple what they were only a few years ago it's possible that this process has already begun. You may well joyfully paticipate in the utter rape of the Earth before succumbing to the inevitable though, leaving you with far fewer resources at the end of things than you could have arranged.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Your desire for cheap, pleantiful energy will not be sufficient to make so.
Slashdot Mirror
WarMongering Idiots on one side and Religious Fundamentalist Psychos on the other cause terrorism .
How do you tell them apart?
KFG
Does it matter? He hates arts majors.
Nonsense. I love art majors, literally.
Real women don't major in sociology.
KFG
btw that song is a copyright violation on the baseline.
Well, d'oh! That's why I used it. Have you seen the Saturday Night Live bit? If not find a copy of the show Vanilla Ice was on. You'll like it.
KFG
Dude, I posted my work for free! Why you dissin' me fo'?
Well, you are spot-on about me being a tortured artiste type. I'm glad you were able to quickly identify my classification and get to the heart of the matter.
I'm afraid that if I said anything about you I missed it. Get over yourself. We're not talking about you behind your back, because you aren't that important to us.
I should have more specifically stated that there will almost always be people ready to complain because the server is Slashdotted, or because the editors even posted the story in the first place, or because of something else.
Ah, yes, well, that would have given me some insight into your outlook on life.
Did you know that there are people who go around complaining constantly about people complaining constantly?
No, probably not.
Something in the nature of threaded discussion like Slashdot brings out adversarial comments.
Believe it or not, I'm not being adversarial right now. I'm being amused.
KFG
Or claim it as a trademark.
KFG
I think how you react to a work of art that someone has made available for free is a good litmus test of your outlook on life.
Either that or it really does just plain suck.
I have no idea where people get the idea that displaying a work of art for free is supposed to give it immunity to criticism.
I suspect that most of the people who believe this are themselves the tortured artiste type who cannot seperate criticism of their work from criticism of their soul.
For these type of people I can only say this:
Dude, get a grip and think about this to brighten your day - Maybe your soul really does just plain suck.
KFG
it is an arguement to no end though as i feel google is in the right and suspect you do as well. the logo is comemorative and not a theft of intelectual property. it provides to product or advertising. it is simply comemorative.
Even with a bit of cut and paste it is still fair use.
In fact it's even a recognized art form, called "collage."
Ice, Ice, baby!
All right stop collaborate and listen.
KFG
. . .google did not just happen to make a logo that looked like miro's style and use it.
"Style" is not something that can be copyrighted. Only works can be copyrighted.
See ragtime, blues, jazz, boogie woogie, rock & roll, etc., as opposed to Maple Leaf Rag, Sweet Home Chicago, Take Five, Roll 'em Pete and Purple Haze.
The former are styles, the latter are works. You can copyright Take Five. You cannot copyright 5/4 time.
In fact, the Google logo was their own creative work that they own the copyright on. It was just in emulation of Miro's style, not a copy of one of his works.
The claim of any "moral" rights is so assinine I almost don't know what to say about it. The law does not recognize "moral" rights. It grants a monopoly on copying and may impose monetary recompense against losses incured by such copying. Without the law the artist has absolutely no rights whatsoever, except maybe to be a dickhead.
And I wonder just what sort of monetary losses the Miro heirs feel they have suffered by Google making an original work in tribute to Miro?
KFG
. . .a terrible thing that prolongs copyrights long after nobody cares.
The very reason that copyright used to require renewal. If the holder didn't care enough about his rights to fill out a form and send it in introduction to the public domain was accelerated.
It was a simple plan; and it worked.
KFG
Congress has breached a lot of such contracts with the public in the past fifty years or so.
Perhaps the difference between me and most Slashdotters is that I have actually been alive through those 50 years.
To me these breaches are not historical breaches of contract with the public, but actual breaches with me.
I was made specific promises that specific works would enter the public domain at a specific time.
They did not.
This is the breach, not merely that copyright law was modified.
KFG
Yes, I know the standard spelling is "speech," but you see, I have free speech.
And I give you speach for free. Do with it as you will.
KFG
Please note that I used the word "theft" somewhat sardonically, because that was the word used in the post to which I responded; however:
.what public good is enhanced by destroying private ownership?
. .
You do not understand the social contract of copyrights and patents. Like, at all.
The are not private property. A temporary right of monopoly is granted insofar as that grant benefits the public good by insuring they reach the public domain; and in a timely manner.
Free speach is the primal law which "Intellectual Property" laws are subserviant to (where such free speach laws exist, which they should in all jurisdictions that are signatory to the Berne Convention, since the assumption of free speach is part of the social contract of the Berne Convention).
While I'm sure the public good can be shown to be "served" by confiscating physical works of art, it still smells like theft to me.
Because that is theft. As is taking a DVD from the store without paying for it.
Copying the work of art is not theft.
Denying the right to copy the work of art is theft from the public domain. It denies the right to possess what is legitimately your property. Back in the day when the American copyright laws were being formulated the parties who were against it and the parties that were for it both understood this explicitly.
Get the hence and read the correspondence between Jefferson and Monroe on the matter (Jefferson was Ambassador to France at the time the Constitution was drafted, which fact leaves us with a fortuitous public record of the their arguments).
KFG
As another poster pointed out, how many movies are just so good that you'll watch them multiple times, justifying the expense of buying the disc?
I've purchased exactly ten. One only because it was in a ten buck bin. I recieved an 11th as a gift from my wife (as an "add on" to a VHS tape of movie that wasn't available on DVD).
There are a few others I'm inclined to add (including the VHS movie listed above, now available on DVD), but I'm in no hurry; at current pricing (note to Ted Turner. Release Grand Fucking Prix already with all the "bonus material" that Frankenheimer managed to produced at his own expense until he died. I'll pay whatever the bloody hell you ask for it).
At five bucks or less I'd guess I'd own at least a few dozen.
KFG
Perhaps in future they will install a Free Speach Phone in every state.
Just take a, ummm, number.
KFG
People who steal are very good at talking people into thinking that what they did is OK
Ya mean like constantly expanding the range of copyright laws so that nothing ever actually goes into the the public domain, so the free money cow never dries up?
KFG
At least they can make some money now selling cheap DVDs
Which just goes to show ya exactly how overpriced DVDs are. CDs as well.
Think about stuff from the catalog too, say Chaplin's City Lights ($22) or Badfinger's No Dice ($17), whose costs were paid off decades ago and so aren't relevant in justifying the cost of the disk. In fact, under the copyright laws that were in effect the first time I ever saw/heard most of the stuff in the catalog they should be in the public domain already. As far as I'm concerned Congress has breached their contract with me when it comes to these.
KFG
You owe me thirty bucks.
KFG
David was a compelling, sympathetic, and very human character.
I Sing the Body Electric - Ray Bradbury, 1950 something or other. Twilight Zone episode 100, 1962, redone as TV movie The Electric Grandmother in 1982.
Certainly nothing against Brian Aldis (the short story is actually rather good. You can find it online by Googling on Supertoys Last All Summer Long), but Ray got there first, and perhaps better.
A better choice for the Robot Hall of Fame, but didn't have the "good fortune" to attract the attention of Kubrick/Spielberg.
KFG
Rabbit ears. Buck and a half.
KFG
What's the point of yelling to the world that the sky is falling unless there's something you or I can do to stop it?
We can't stop it as individuals, but individuals can still learn to live without complete dependence on the sky, and maybe get under the table until the fall is over.
There are any number of practical steps one can take, but they all boil down to getting used to using less energy, not finding new, magical sources.
We were gifted capital. We squandered it. Time to tighten the belt and get on with life without it. That's what happens when you blow the family fortune and the dot.com bubble bursts.
Oh, and I'm not at all predicting doom and gloom, simply a return to "normal." To history the past century will just be a spike on the graph. Life will go on, and there isn't any particular reason it shouldn't be good.
Although a lot of people might have to die first. A lot of people.
Why not just get used to living with less energy? For instance, don't move 20 more miles away from work.
KFG
Absolutely nothing, it's a dandy way to farm, if you have the acreage, labor and time to devote to it. It still leaves you a ways from petroleum independence though . . .
.in the dark.
And doesn't really do too much to help you commute to work.
The magic of petroleum occurs because it is found energy. Sure, you have to pump and refine it, but you don't really have to "make" it, it's just there.
The corn/hemp/soy you're going to have to grow. It's expensive in land (and land cost money to purchase, interest on financing and the annual tithe) labor, energy and land usage (soil depletion, etc). The cost is high. The yield after extracting the energy you need to produce it is low.
Biodiesel is only at the price it is now because it is produced using large amounts of petroleum. If demand becomes high the price will skyrocket, and burn ever more petroleum in the process, until that's all gone.
Then the skyrocketed price of biodiesel will skyrocket. There is no magic bullet. Move to the city and learn to walk . .
KFG
what's the point of talking about it?
Haven't a clue, so why are you?
KFG
A comforting illusion, until you've actually tried selfsufficient farming for energy yourself.
You'll find that there will only be plenty of cheap corn and soy so long as you have cheap and plentiful petroleum products to run the farm on.
KFG
So what's your better idea that's actually going to happen?
You're going to get used to using less fuel, and using it more wisely, like it or not. With gas prices triple what they were only a few years ago it's possible that this process has already begun. You may well joyfully paticipate in the utter rape of the Earth before succumbing to the inevitable though, leaving you with far fewer resources at the end of things than you could have arranged.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Your desire for cheap, pleantiful energy will not be sufficient to make so.
KFG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor
KFG