You are assuming that democracy is functioning for us. If we have no real choice on th e matter, then an option can be unpopular but still remain. Even them, there it's skewing for demographics with higher turnout.
Unless you have the intelligence to differentiate between breaking a legal monopoly and an invasion of privacy by the government. The former is an issue of statutory law, while the latter is an issue of constitutional law. The issue has nothing to do with copying. It would be an illegal search if a government agent was tapping your phone just to masturbate to your voice.
You also don't allow random assholes at the nuclear power plant to hook up a random computer to the same network. You can have the secretaries and such using their own machines on a different network if you must, but you don't allow them to connect to the same network as the important machines.
There is a lot of money to be made in people watching the Olympics. More people will watch the Olympics (and more money will be made) if you have women's volleyball. If it's merely fair competition, there will be no women in the Olympic volleyball competition.
Then there's people like Dave Grohl who are have NO chops at all but play perfectly. He's better than his band's drummer, ironically, but he won't be filling in on a variety show like American Idol or something like that which requires a well rounded musical background in many musical styles, is all I'm saying.
Claiming he has no musical chops and that he isn't well rounded is quite inaccurate. There are probably many more well rounded drummers than him, but he's got great pop sensibilities, and is a great deal more well rounded than most.
The final litmus for me, as a drummer, is if I can play it as well and in the same style, then it isn't too terribly great, otherwise I'd be a full-time professional musician and not just a live stand in for when random drummer is in rehab in the middle of a summer tour
That's a rather poor test, and likely the test of a poor drummer. The best drummers know when to play something simple that most any drummer has the technical capability of playing, and that could very well be the best thing for a particular song. The same goes for bass players as well. Stewart Copeland is a well respected drummer, and he made a great example of that:
"Copeland is also noted for his heavy emphasis on the groove as a complement to the song, rather than displays of technical prowess. He once drove this point home at a drum clinic: Copeland announced that he would show the audience something "that very few modern drummers can do," and proceeded to play a simple rock beat for two minutes."
Having good chops has very little to do with being a good drummer. Most of what drummers do is play with a band, and Ringo did that very well. And being musical is what makes you a good musician. Awesome chops only makes you an athlete (iirc, the 'drummers with the fastest chops in the world can't actually play a kit competently).
Are you sure it's the tempo changing that they are talking about? There are little variations, but a more common difference would be how they play around the beat. A drummer might place the kick slightly ahead of the beat to make a song more energetic, or slightly behind the beat to make it feel more laid back, and they might vary how even the beats are to change the feel. There are tempo changes as well, but what I'm talking about might be confused for that by those without a lot of experience in music.
I believe the loudness in this regard is the average of the entire song. Since there is a hard limit to how loud a song can be, the only way to increase the average is to make the quiet parts less quiet, which results in dynamics being lost. At least historically, this was in the pursuit of loudness. With AM radio, louder records could be broadcast further, so the louder a record was, the wider an audience it could reach. The exact details escape me, but basically, the way early records were made was that there was a guy sitting with his hand on a volume knob while it was being recorded to get it as loud as possible throughout without the record breaking. That practice established an idea of what a record was 'supposed' to sound like in the minds of the public, and even though the technological reason to do so was gone, producers felt pressured to feed this habit in the minds of the public.
I think it's more that the ear perceives loudness on a logarithmic scale, so an additional 10dB is perceived as the same step regardless of where it occurs, despite the absolute difference in loudness varying by orders of magnitude. The ear does adjust (although I think it's more for perception than protection), but it can only adjust so much. Once it's outside of a certain range, the difference in volume is 'so loud I can't hear clearly' and 'even louder and I hear less clearly.' Such a difference might not be perceived all that strongly as the same dynamic range covering two loudness levels that the ear can clearly hear.
Gamestop has some usefulness with used physical games, but I don't think that translates to downloads. Digital files can't be scratched, and they don't have any real storage costs. At the very least, they are going to have to go with MUCH smaller margins
Useful" does in fact mean that it has utility. If the support of our culture through the creative arts improves society, then it has utility and is thus one of the useful fucking arts.
Congratulations, you've just argued that, under 17 USC 101, copyright in it's entirety is invalid. because
Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.
If the arts are all useful, then they are not protectable under copyright law because it specifically excludes things that are useful. I've already clarified that the way you want to say it is that the works have 'worth' or 'value' to society. However, they aren't useful in the relevant sense here. The complete works of Shakespeare might be able to get a table level, but so could any book of equal thickness, even if the pages were blank.
Please stop. You have no idea what you are talking about, and it's embarrassing to see you ramble on about something you don't know and dig your hole even deeper. This particular element wasn't even an issue in regards to the scope of what is copyrighted. It was just an attempt to show you that you are uninformed on this matter. Instead of taking a second, absorbing a bit of knowledge, and improving yourself, you've acted like a raving jackass and removed all doubt that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
There's a fallacy where you just make an assertion and hope people believe you, you know that?
If you want evidence on the matter, I suggest you read Against Intellectual Monopoly. It's written by two economists, and thoroughly debunks the idea of copyright and patents as being beneficial to society.
Thank you. I've put in critical thought now, and I realize that 'art' is not useful. Literature is a waste of time and I have implemented a policy by which school teachers who purport to have students read in class will be executed, and we'll start rounding up and burning all these worthless tomes so as not to corrupt future generations.
Congratulations on demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension. I was saying that your misuse of a term suggests that you are not deeply familiar with the subject. 'Useful arts' in the context of the constitution means arts that have a direct practical usage. 'Arts' is used here in the sense of a skill or trade. For example, 'martial arts' refers to the skills of combat, with 'Martial' being a reference to Mars, the Roman god of war. You also misunderstood the difference between something being 'not useful' and 'worthless.' In fact, if you knew much about copyright law, you'd understand that something that has utility is not eligible for copyright, although it may be patentable sometimes. That's why the fashion and automotive industry have a lot of free culture going on in their designs. The functional elements often cannot be separated from the non-functional elements.
Now, please pay attention. The critical thought is not in understanding the meaning of the words in the copyright clause. You need to actually look at historical and modern evidence, and read about various theories and analysis of those theories. Your misunderstanding of the specific words in the copyright clause have no real effect on the scope of copyright law since 'science' covers what you think is actually 'useful arts', but your misuse is a red flag that you are a novice in serious discussion of this matter. It would be akin to someone debating about philosophy pronouncing 'Socrates' as 'So-crates' in the same manner as Bill and Ted. Such a mistake is very hard to not write off as an idiot who has no idea what they are talking about.
Authors only have the rights over controlling published works that are given to them by the government. Those government granted monopolies are only just to the extent that granting those rights are beneficial to the public. Since they are based on faulty concepts that don't actually work, they cannot not produce a benefit to the public, but incur significant social costs, there is no justified copyright. The only control an author can rightfully have over a work is control over the initial publishing, and only via control of their physical property, like a manuscript or data on their hard drive.
Also, the 'useful arts' in the context of the US Constitution actually refers to technology, not what we commonly call 'art.' A minor point, but it suggests an unfamiliarity on your part with copyright law's history, and that your support for copyright is likely based upon it being familiar to you and you having never put critical thought into it, as opposed to a viewpoint based upon actually studying the history, reading theory on copyright, and independently forming an opinion. Furthermore, it is not possible to end human creative endeavours outside of exterminating humanity. A perfect example is Trinidad and Tobago. The authorities took away their native instruments to control the population, and they created new music with bamboo sticks. The authorities took away the bamboo sticks, and then they created steel pans, a very beautiful new instrument. Even in the face of oppression, human creativity thrives.
Of course. Child porn and terrorism are magic words that make people throw out all sense and logic. If they are brought up, it's almost certainly done as a means to accomplish something else. It'd be a total waste of shock value, otherwise.
Yes, but you completely ignored the part about how it'd be an enormous coincidence if copyright happened to work now. Copyright was designed with the print world in mind, and it was far worse there. Any reasonable enforcement scheme would be completely toothless to stop what you are talking about, and the kind of draconian scheme that might be able to put a dent in that would cost us more in civil liberties than copyright's social value can conceivably be even in the delusional minds of the the RIAA.
Cute, except we don't have new knowledge that suggests that our farming methods are completely outmoded and counterproductive, and what farming practices we have that are have been largely replaced. However, legal monopolies are clearly a bad idea almost all of the time in regards to modern economic knowledge, and it's quite possible that the backwards existing policy could undermine the development of a modern one. It fits fairly well into an agricultural analogy. If your land is overgrown with weeds or covered in shade trees, then the resources to successfully grow most crops will not be there while they remain. You need to get rid of the old infrastructure in order to have a more productive one.
However he can. I can't say I'm familiar enough with him to suggest what model is best for him (and I don't really care about his works anyway), and a lot of opportunities have not yet come up because we've built an infrastructure off of a system of copyright. It's quite possible that the most reliable way or ways to make money will not be apparent until we've completely rid ourselves of copyright. In the days of print, the way things worked without copyright was that money was made by publishers selling manuscripts, and publishers would print a ton of books before competition could bring copies to the market. Authors in areas without copyright like Germany where that happened made more money, wrote more books, and the public read more books because they were widely available. Everybody was clearly better off except for the publishers. Now, the strategies for the digital world are likely different, although it'd be quite the miracle if a system that was designed by people who didn't have the capacity to know how to make a system work during their time managed to develop a system that would be the best way of doing that centuries later. It'd be basically the equivalent of a tobacco lobbyist building a cold fusion reactor.
Copyright really and truly does encourage the furthering of the useful arts. To excess it stifles it, but some folks want copyright gone entirely.
You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. If you take a second to look back from what we've accepted as common sense because it's what we know, copyright is a really bone-headed way of trying to accomplish the goal of furthering the arts.
When has not having a valid case ever stopped a bully? There's at least enough of a case to bring it to court, which is the real threat to a small author.
Slashdot Mirror
You are assuming that democracy is functioning for us. If we have no real choice on th e matter, then an option can be unpopular but still remain. Even them, there it's skewing for demographics with higher turnout.
Unless you have the intelligence to differentiate between breaking a legal monopoly and an invasion of privacy by the government. The former is an issue of statutory law, while the latter is an issue of constitutional law. The issue has nothing to do with copying. It would be an illegal search if a government agent was tapping your phone just to masturbate to your voice.
You also don't allow random assholes at the nuclear power plant to hook up a random computer to the same network. You can have the secretaries and such using their own machines on a different network if you must, but you don't allow them to connect to the same network as the important machines.
you could use PS/2 keyboards and mice only, and fill all of the USB ports with epoxy.
We could also have done that by not having our industrial control systems connected to the internet in the first place.
Or they could just not connect computers running NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS to the fucking internet.
There is a lot of money to be made in people watching the Olympics. More people will watch the Olympics (and more money will be made) if you have women's volleyball. If it's merely fair competition, there will be no women in the Olympic volleyball competition.
Don't forget YYZ
The obvious solution would be to post the derivative work on Craigslist, with the original everywhere else.
I think the eccentric billionaire came out okay.
Claiming he has no musical chops and that he isn't well rounded is quite inaccurate. There are probably many more well rounded drummers than him, but he's got great pop sensibilities, and is a great deal more well rounded than most.
That's a rather poor test, and likely the test of a poor drummer. The best drummers know when to play something simple that most any drummer has the technical capability of playing, and that could very well be the best thing for a particular song. The same goes for bass players as well. Stewart Copeland is a well respected drummer, and he made a great example of that: "Copeland is also noted for his heavy emphasis on the groove as a complement to the song, rather than displays of technical prowess. He once drove this point home at a drum clinic: Copeland announced that he would show the audience something "that very few modern drummers can do," and proceeded to play a simple rock beat for two minutes."
Having good chops has very little to do with being a good drummer. Most of what drummers do is play with a band, and Ringo did that very well. And being musical is what makes you a good musician. Awesome chops only makes you an athlete (iirc, the 'drummers with the fastest chops in the world can't actually play a kit competently).
Are you sure it's the tempo changing that they are talking about? There are little variations, but a more common difference would be how they play around the beat. A drummer might place the kick slightly ahead of the beat to make a song more energetic, or slightly behind the beat to make it feel more laid back, and they might vary how even the beats are to change the feel. There are tempo changes as well, but what I'm talking about might be confused for that by those without a lot of experience in music.
I believe the loudness in this regard is the average of the entire song. Since there is a hard limit to how loud a song can be, the only way to increase the average is to make the quiet parts less quiet, which results in dynamics being lost. At least historically, this was in the pursuit of loudness. With AM radio, louder records could be broadcast further, so the louder a record was, the wider an audience it could reach. The exact details escape me, but basically, the way early records were made was that there was a guy sitting with his hand on a volume knob while it was being recorded to get it as loud as possible throughout without the record breaking. That practice established an idea of what a record was 'supposed' to sound like in the minds of the public, and even though the technological reason to do so was gone, producers felt pressured to feed this habit in the minds of the public.
I think it's more that the ear perceives loudness on a logarithmic scale, so an additional 10dB is perceived as the same step regardless of where it occurs, despite the absolute difference in loudness varying by orders of magnitude. The ear does adjust (although I think it's more for perception than protection), but it can only adjust so much. Once it's outside of a certain range, the difference in volume is 'so loud I can't hear clearly' and 'even louder and I hear less clearly.' Such a difference might not be perceived all that strongly as the same dynamic range covering two loudness levels that the ear can clearly hear.
Gamestop has some usefulness with used physical games, but I don't think that translates to downloads. Digital files can't be scratched, and they don't have any real storage costs. At the very least, they are going to have to go with MUCH smaller margins
Congratulations, you've just argued that, under 17 USC 101, copyright in it's entirety is invalid. because
If the arts are all useful, then they are not protectable under copyright law because it specifically excludes things that are useful. I've already clarified that the way you want to say it is that the works have 'worth' or 'value' to society. However, they aren't useful in the relevant sense here. The complete works of Shakespeare might be able to get a table level, but so could any book of equal thickness, even if the pages were blank.
Please stop. You have no idea what you are talking about, and it's embarrassing to see you ramble on about something you don't know and dig your hole even deeper. This particular element wasn't even an issue in regards to the scope of what is copyrighted. It was just an attempt to show you that you are uninformed on this matter. Instead of taking a second, absorbing a bit of knowledge, and improving yourself, you've acted like a raving jackass and removed all doubt that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
If you want evidence on the matter, I suggest you read Against Intellectual Monopoly. It's written by two economists, and thoroughly debunks the idea of copyright and patents as being beneficial to society.
Congratulations on demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension. I was saying that your misuse of a term suggests that you are not deeply familiar with the subject. 'Useful arts' in the context of the constitution means arts that have a direct practical usage. 'Arts' is used here in the sense of a skill or trade. For example, 'martial arts' refers to the skills of combat, with 'Martial' being a reference to Mars, the Roman god of war. You also misunderstood the difference between something being 'not useful' and 'worthless.' In fact, if you knew much about copyright law, you'd understand that something that has utility is not eligible for copyright, although it may be patentable sometimes. That's why the fashion and automotive industry have a lot of free culture going on in their designs. The functional elements often cannot be separated from the non-functional elements.
Now, please pay attention. The critical thought is not in understanding the meaning of the words in the copyright clause. You need to actually look at historical and modern evidence, and read about various theories and analysis of those theories. Your misunderstanding of the specific words in the copyright clause have no real effect on the scope of copyright law since 'science' covers what you think is actually 'useful arts', but your misuse is a red flag that you are a novice in serious discussion of this matter. It would be akin to someone debating about philosophy pronouncing 'Socrates' as 'So-crates' in the same manner as Bill and Ted. Such a mistake is very hard to not write off as an idiot who has no idea what they are talking about.
Authors only have the rights over controlling published works that are given to them by the government. Those government granted monopolies are only just to the extent that granting those rights are beneficial to the public. Since they are based on faulty concepts that don't actually work, they cannot not produce a benefit to the public, but incur significant social costs, there is no justified copyright. The only control an author can rightfully have over a work is control over the initial publishing, and only via control of their physical property, like a manuscript or data on their hard drive.
Also, the 'useful arts' in the context of the US Constitution actually refers to technology, not what we commonly call 'art.' A minor point, but it suggests an unfamiliarity on your part with copyright law's history, and that your support for copyright is likely based upon it being familiar to you and you having never put critical thought into it, as opposed to a viewpoint based upon actually studying the history, reading theory on copyright, and independently forming an opinion. Furthermore, it is not possible to end human creative endeavours outside of exterminating humanity. A perfect example is Trinidad and Tobago. The authorities took away their native instruments to control the population, and they created new music with bamboo sticks. The authorities took away the bamboo sticks, and then they created steel pans, a very beautiful new instrument. Even in the face of oppression, human creativity thrives.
Of course. Child porn and terrorism are magic words that make people throw out all sense and logic. If they are brought up, it's almost certainly done as a means to accomplish something else. It'd be a total waste of shock value, otherwise.
Yes, but you completely ignored the part about how it'd be an enormous coincidence if copyright happened to work now. Copyright was designed with the print world in mind, and it was far worse there. Any reasonable enforcement scheme would be completely toothless to stop what you are talking about, and the kind of draconian scheme that might be able to put a dent in that would cost us more in civil liberties than copyright's social value can conceivably be even in the delusional minds of the the RIAA.
Cute, except we don't have new knowledge that suggests that our farming methods are completely outmoded and counterproductive, and what farming practices we have that are have been largely replaced. However, legal monopolies are clearly a bad idea almost all of the time in regards to modern economic knowledge, and it's quite possible that the backwards existing policy could undermine the development of a modern one. It fits fairly well into an agricultural analogy. If your land is overgrown with weeds or covered in shade trees, then the resources to successfully grow most crops will not be there while they remain. You need to get rid of the old infrastructure in order to have a more productive one.
However he can. I can't say I'm familiar enough with him to suggest what model is best for him (and I don't really care about his works anyway), and a lot of opportunities have not yet come up because we've built an infrastructure off of a system of copyright. It's quite possible that the most reliable way or ways to make money will not be apparent until we've completely rid ourselves of copyright. In the days of print, the way things worked without copyright was that money was made by publishers selling manuscripts, and publishers would print a ton of books before competition could bring copies to the market. Authors in areas without copyright like Germany where that happened made more money, wrote more books, and the public read more books because they were widely available. Everybody was clearly better off except for the publishers. Now, the strategies for the digital world are likely different, although it'd be quite the miracle if a system that was designed by people who didn't have the capacity to know how to make a system work during their time managed to develop a system that would be the best way of doing that centuries later. It'd be basically the equivalent of a tobacco lobbyist building a cold fusion reactor.
You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. If you take a second to look back from what we've accepted as common sense because it's what we know, copyright is a really bone-headed way of trying to accomplish the goal of furthering the arts.
When has not having a valid case ever stopped a bully? There's at least enough of a case to bring it to court, which is the real threat to a small author.