Correlation doesn't need to imply causation for this to be relevant. It still means the employer is better off picking candidates who use a newer browser, and that job seekers are still better off using new browsers to signal that they're worthwhile, even if neither has causative evidence for why.
If a 10% increase in piracy activity correlates with a 0.2% increase in legal activity then we can estimate that a dollar of stolen media corresponds to $0.02 in lost revenue. If the RIAA came after me for 100 pirated songs, I'd be happy to settle the lawsuit for $2.
The press has already been so grossly compromised by corporate influence that it's "critical watchdog function" isn't currently all that functional anyway
The version as aired on TV is available on YouTube. Interestingly, it adds a bit more backup vocals than the audio version, in particular drowning out any evidence of the duck quack, and has some cuts that, among other things, avoid the "Johnny C" line.
The issue isn't the cover version, but in reality, the use of a sampled recording of Mr. Coulton's, a totally separate issue and a fairly straightforward form of copyright infringement if true.
This is a significant distinction that very few people seem to have understood in the discussions on this topic I've seen over the past week.
However, depending on the use of the recording and who owns the copyright in that recording, it's possible that the show actually did clear the use.
It seems pretty clear from his statements that Coulton did not give anyone permission to use the recordings, and I'm not aware of anyone else who would have copyrights on his recordings for this song. Any legal experts out there who can speak to what would be require to prove infringement of the recordings? The soundcloud mixes et al that are out there are pretty damning, but I'm curious what would hold water in court.
I agree that nothing has yet been proven, but I'd be very interested to hear an example of a cover that matches the tempo and beat of the original as perfectly as the Glee track does of Coulton's version.
Now, IF they sampled his actual audio (the "mechanical copyright" in legal terms) then that would be copyright infringement. It's possible they did that, but will be pretty hard to prove definitively...
Hard to prove, but there's certainly a lot of evidence that they did.
The question is whether Glee crossed the line from "sounds similar to" to "used the same background recordings as". Coulton has a karaoke version available, and at one point it was possible to purchase a usb drive containing source tracks of this song (among others) as part of a creative commons fundraiser, so it's certainly feasible that the Glee version simply stuck new vocals on top of JoCo's existing tracks. There is some strongevidence that that is exactly what happened.
When the news initially broke last week, it wasn't officially confirmed that they were going to use the song. This Slashdot post comes after the relevant episode has aired and the Glee version of the song put up for sale on iTunes.
Slashdot Mirror
Correlation doesn't need to imply causation for this to be relevant. It still means the employer is better off picking candidates who use a newer browser, and that job seekers are still better off using new browsers to signal that they're worthwhile, even if neither has causative evidence for why.
If a 10% increase in piracy activity correlates with a 0.2% increase in legal activity then we can estimate that a dollar of stolen media corresponds to $0.02 in lost revenue. If the RIAA came after me for 100 pirated songs, I'd be happy to settle the lawsuit for $2.
Then what are you doing on slashdot?
I thought we were talking about a new video game.
The press has already been so grossly compromised by corporate influence that it's "critical watchdog function" isn't currently all that functional anyway
Can it jump to page and display page numbers, or does it mimic Chrome in ignoring this frustratingly obvious functionality?
Without looking any deeper into your numbers, do you see nothing difficult about achieving a more than fourfold increase from 20% to 90% efficiency?
Perhaps because Coulton was noted on Slashdot long before he wrote songs for Valve.
The version as aired on TV is available on YouTube. Interestingly, it adds a bit more backup vocals than the audio version, in particular drowning out any evidence of the duck quack, and has some cuts that, among other things, avoid the "Johnny C" line.
Joco has flac versions in his store (see Thing a Week 1 for this track). No clue where to find a lossless recording of the Glee version
The issue isn't the cover version, but in reality, the use of a sampled recording of Mr. Coulton's, a totally separate issue and a fairly straightforward form of copyright infringement if true.
This is a significant distinction that very few people seem to have understood in the discussions on this topic I've seen over the past week.
However, depending on the use of the recording and who owns the copyright in that recording, it's possible that the show actually did clear the use.
It seems pretty clear from his statements that Coulton did not give anyone permission to use the recordings, and I'm not aware of anyone else who would have copyrights on his recordings for this song. Any legal experts out there who can speak to what would be require to prove infringement of the recordings? The soundcloud mixes et al that are out there are pretty damning, but I'm curious what would hold water in court.
Actually, as I noted elsewhere, Coulton explicitly states on his online store that his covers are not CC-licensed.
I agree that nothing has yet been proven, but I'd be very interested to hear an example of a cover that matches the tempo and beat of the original as perfectly as the Glee track does of Coulton's version.
JoCo explicitly notes in his store that his covers are not CC.
Now, IF they sampled his actual audio (the "mechanical copyright" in legal terms) then that would be copyright infringement. It's possible they did that, but will be pretty hard to prove definitively...
Hard to prove, but there's certainly a lot of evidence that they did.
The question is whether Glee crossed the line from "sounds similar to" to "used the same background recordings as". Coulton has a karaoke version available, and at one point it was possible to purchase a usb drive containing source tracks of this song (among others) as part of a creative commons fundraiser, so it's certainly feasible that the Glee version simply stuck new vocals on top of JoCo's existing tracks. There is some strong evidence that that is exactly what happened.
When the news initially broke last week, it wasn't officially confirmed that they were going to use the song. This Slashdot post comes after the relevant episode has aired and the Glee version of the song put up for sale on iTunes.
More important to you, maybe. Some of us were listening long before Portal came along.
There's nothing "cheap" about antimatter
You mean I can take a stomach pump tour of downtown?
Ok, they're both related to skype, but does anyone really think these two items belong in the same story?
Great, so now all we have to do is convince the FCC that everyone in America is a child so that we don't get tracked!
If ereader users are the hardcore traditionalists now, what do you call those of us who still like to read on paper?
Well obviously (to the gun lobby) if those 27 kids all had guns they could have defended themselves.
And their rights.