Is there really such a thing as right to be compensated for producing creative works?
Good call. I actually don't believe in the concept of a fundamental right to compensation so much as I feel that it's in society's best interest to provide such compensation.
Perhaps it's simply the influence of having lived with the current IP laws, where the laws do specify that those who produce IP have a right to compensation/control of those works.
In fact, the Canadian copyright board ruled on Friday that P2P downloading of copyrighted music is legal in Canada. Uploads, however, are illegal.
CNet is running an article on this right now. The decision (PDF) is here.
Ok, gettings back to the point, P2P downloads of music have exposed me to artists I wouldn't have known of otherwise, and I have bought more music becuase of it. I do claim this is good for artists and the music industry... who it's not good for is the big record labels.
Unfortunately for the big record labels, most of the music I've wanted to buy was from independent bands. Until P2P I had largely listened to signed bands -- mostly because that's what almost everyone was exposed to. With the advent of P2P, a lot of smaller bands got far more exposure... many (most even) of them are pretty rotten, but a few are great, and I do make an effort to support them.
To be fair, I think our IP laws are in need of serious reform, but I do support the right of musicians and other people who produce creative works to receive compensation.
If you want free health care go live in Europe, but don't whine about the 60% income tax.
Hey, bucko! That's 50% to you!!! Well... here in Canada, if you earn enough. But man, when you throw in the decriminalized pot, we're talking about a sweet deal! Just don't buy it from the government...
No doubt. Wonder what the Bush's talk about, for that matter.
Either way, I think I'd be rightfully pissed if I were arrested for something my extremist dad and brother did, that I or my mum's side of the family wasn't involved in.
What I find most amusing in this whole debacle is their quote... that Casey "had to buy a new iPod". No one *has* to buy a new iPod. There are tons of other MP3 players out there.
If they were so angry at Apple over this supposedly crappy product they put out -- a product that apparently had them so pissed off that they went to the effort of spraypainting tons of posters, producing a movie of it, registering a domain name and making a website -- then why would they drop another $400 on the same product from the same company?
Personally, I don't own an iPod because I usually plug my headphones into my PowerBook. But if I did want a portable MP3 player, the iPod is what I'd get. I don't expect a battery to last forever, and from previous experience, Apple products have always been a pleasure to use. Not perfect, of course, but better suited to my way of working than anything else on the market.
In any case, I do appreciate that these guys were pissed off at Apple. I would have been too. I also think the video is well done, and amusing, and I support them posting it to show how they were treated. But at the same time, let's hear the full story -- that Apple has corrected the problem, that there are relatively cheap solutions for anyone else in the same situation.
I guess my original post came off a little wrong. I didn't mean to imply that Apple started the battery replacement programme in response to them, only that they were responsible for bringing a huge amount of publicity to the situation, and that Apple may have chosen to publicise their battery replacement programme a little more in response to them.
From reading the email exchanges, it does seem quite they were certainly acting in bad faith and don't give a crap about showing the whole story, just making Apple look bad.
Yeah, I have read their side of the story. Apple was dumb, made a mistake, and had lousy customer service reps. These guys were rightfully pissed off and posted their video. Personally, I think it's a great piece of work. It probably had a big effect on Apple's decision to drop their battery replacement price and advertise the programme more.
However, Apple did fix the problem, and there were always $50 replacements available elsewhere. Rather than post that information, these guys continue to advertise that the iPod's battery is "unreplaceable", and lasts only 18 months. Just because one of theirs did doesn't mean that that can be generalised to everyone. The video is perfectly legit, but not posting information that the problem has been solved is essentially continuing to propagate the lie that the battery is unreplaceable and costs $250.
In the end, it's their decision, but as film students they should know that that kind of behaviour undermines their credibility and essentially moves the video from the realm of creative consumer-rights advocacy into the realm of half-true propaganda.
Posting a link to Apple's $99 programme or a $50 third-party battery, on the other hand, wouldn't hurt their cause (all their points were still valid at the time the film was made), but would in fact strengthen their position in that they helped to get the word out, and Apple responded. Instead of being just two guys who made a clever video, they can portray themselves as two guys who saw a corporation acting irresponsibly, went out and did something about it, and won. That's a far more compelling story (and resume bullet) for someone in film school.
Not saying Apple has no guilt, but linking to the programme doesn't remove any of that guilt... people deserve to know the whole story, and decide for themselves what they think of Apple's past and present behaviour.
The replacement programme may not have existed at the time it was made (who knows), but it was announced and publicised before the video was ever put on the net.
Turns out these guys are not even remotely interested in solving the problem. They're in it for the publicity.
I'm sorry man, but it's obvious that you care more about "winning" an argument than actually answering the question of whether or not it's legal to copy a CD for your own private use in Canada.
If you're unwilling to believe a word anyone tells you here (unless it agrees with your argument) then why even bother? Some feeling of self-worth? If you really care, go read the act itself. Here's a Government of Canada website that should make it abundantly clear to you that it is OK to copy for private use. Personally, I feel I've done enough research for you already, and I won't waste anymore time on you. If you have something concrete to offer other than "I don't believe you", please feel free to post it, otherwise, shut the fuck up.
How much clearer can I be? I consulted with a judge. To expand on that, I mean I sat down with a judge and discussed the act with him at the dinner table, just to be sure that it said what it looked like it said. I have 3 lawyers and one judge in my immediate family, and all of them agreed that yes, you can make copies of a CD that you do not own, so long as it's for your own private use. We went over the act as published, point by point. I don't know how many other ways there are to put it.
It may not seem logical to you, but who ever said that the law made sense? Honestly, if this bothers you so much, go out and pay a lawyer for an hour of his time to go over it with you and explain it to you.
Perhaps you should read the act again. And maybe the rest of this story for other explanations. I hope you realize we are talking about Canada, not the US?
I have read the act itself, consulted with a judge, and read various interpretations. It is not a myth, you can copy a CD someone has lent to you for your own use.
Indeed. That's the idea. When the copyright levy was introduced for blank CDs, we got the right to legally make copies of a friend's CD for our private use in exchange. I suspect that is an attempt to pull something similar for music downloads off the internet.
It then leads you to another page which _you're supposed to read_ before posting comments. Well, that's normally what regular Slashdotters do [...]
*snicker snicker* You must be new here... When you're done with the sermon, please pass the paper towels... I'm not sure when the last time I blew that much chocolate milk out my nose was.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there really such a thing as right to be compensated for producing creative works?
Good call. I actually don't believe in the concept of a fundamental right to compensation so much as I feel that it's in society's best interest to provide such compensation.
Perhaps it's simply the influence of having lived with the current IP laws, where the laws do specify that those who produce IP have a right to compensation/control of those works.
In fact, the Canadian copyright board ruled on Friday that P2P downloading of copyrighted music is legal in Canada. Uploads, however, are illegal.
CNet is running an article on this right now. The decision (PDF) is here.
Ok, gettings back to the point, P2P downloads of music have exposed me to artists I wouldn't have known of otherwise, and I have bought more music becuase of it. I do claim this is good for artists and the music industry... who it's not good for is the big record labels.
Unfortunately for the big record labels, most of the music I've wanted to buy was from independent bands. Until P2P I had largely listened to signed bands -- mostly because that's what almost everyone was exposed to. With the advent of P2P, a lot of smaller bands got far more exposure... many (most even) of them are pretty rotten, but a few are great, and I do make an effort to support them.
To be fair, I think our IP laws are in need of serious reform, but I do support the right of musicians and other people who produce creative works to receive compensation.
And Americans wonder why they have such a rotten reputation worldwide...
Goodbye karma!
they have the first ten seconds of the song play normally, then a high pitched sound screeches designed to destroy speakers.
Stop downloading Michael Jackson MP3s, and your problem should go away.
If you want free health care go live in Europe, but don't whine about the 60% income tax.
Hey, bucko! That's 50% to you!!! Well... here in Canada, if you earn enough. But man, when you throw in the decriminalized pot, we're talking about a sweet deal! Just don't buy it from the government...
Erm. Read the article. He's saying Linux will replace UNIX. By UNIX, he doesn't mean UNIX-like, he means derived from the original UNIX codebase.
if ($COMPANY eq "Apple") s/dead/beleaguered/
Such as MkLinux for example... which was based on Mach.
No doubt. Wonder what the Bush's talk about, for that matter.
Either way, I think I'd be rightfully pissed if I were arrested for something my extremist dad and brother did, that I or my mum's side of the family wasn't involved in.
Another political prisoner, held without charges, access to lawyers, or consular staff was recently released by his captors too.
What I find most amusing in this whole debacle is their quote... that Casey "had to buy a new iPod". No one *has* to buy a new iPod. There are tons of other MP3 players out there.
If they were so angry at Apple over this supposedly crappy product they put out -- a product that apparently had them so pissed off that they went to the effort of spraypainting tons of posters, producing a movie of it, registering a domain name and making a website -- then why would they drop another $400 on the same product from the same company?
Personally, I don't own an iPod because I usually plug my headphones into my PowerBook. But if I did want a portable MP3 player, the iPod is what I'd get. I don't expect a battery to last forever, and from previous experience, Apple products have always been a pleasure to use. Not perfect, of course, but better suited to my way of working than anything else on the market.
In any case, I do appreciate that these guys were pissed off at Apple. I would have been too. I also think the video is well done, and amusing, and I support them posting it to show how they were treated. But at the same time, let's hear the full story -- that Apple has corrected the problem, that there are relatively cheap solutions for anyone else in the same situation.
I guess my original post came off a little wrong. I didn't mean to imply that Apple started the battery replacement programme in response to them, only that they were responsible for bringing a huge amount of publicity to the situation, and that Apple may have chosen to publicise their battery replacement programme a little more in response to them.
From reading the email exchanges, it does seem quite they were certainly acting in bad faith and don't give a crap about showing the whole story, just making Apple look bad.
Yeah, I have read their side of the story. Apple was dumb, made a mistake, and had lousy customer service reps. These guys were rightfully pissed off and posted their video. Personally, I think it's a great piece of work. It probably had a big effect on Apple's decision to drop their battery replacement price and advertise the programme more.
However, Apple did fix the problem, and there were always $50 replacements available elsewhere. Rather than post that information, these guys continue to advertise that the iPod's battery is "unreplaceable", and lasts only 18 months. Just because one of theirs did doesn't mean that that can be generalised to everyone. The video is perfectly legit, but not posting information that the problem has been solved is essentially continuing to propagate the lie that the battery is unreplaceable and costs $250.
In the end, it's their decision, but as film students they should know that that kind of behaviour undermines their credibility and essentially moves the video from the realm of creative consumer-rights advocacy into the realm of half-true propaganda.
Posting a link to Apple's $99 programme or a $50 third-party battery, on the other hand, wouldn't hurt their cause (all their points were still valid at the time the film was made), but would in fact strengthen their position in that they helped to get the word out, and Apple responded. Instead of being just two guys who made a clever video, they can portray themselves as two guys who saw a corporation acting irresponsibly, went out and did something about it, and won. That's a far more compelling story (and resume bullet) for someone in film school.
Not saying Apple has no guilt, but linking to the programme doesn't remove any of that guilt... people deserve to know the whole story, and decide for themselves what they think of Apple's past and present behaviour.
The replacement programme may not have existed at the time it was made (who knows), but it was announced and publicised before the video was ever put on the net.
Turns out these guys are not even remotely interested in solving the problem. They're in it for the publicity.
Here's the email exchanges that show what these guys really care about
Turns out these guys are not even remotely interested in solving the problem. They're in it for the publicity.
The inciminating email exchanges that prove it.
Also...
http://depot.info.apple.com/ipod/
(Official Apple iPod battery replacement for $99)
http://www.ipodbattery.com/ ($49)
http://pdasmart.com/ipodpartscenter.htm ($69)
Yeah, that's what the parent poster was saying, I think...
"viva" is the subjunctive form of "vivir" in Spanish - eg. "Viva Mexico!"
"vive" is the subjunctive form of "vivre" in French - eg. "Vive le Canada!"
I'm a bilingual Canadian, who's also lived in Mexico.
I'm sorry man, but it's obvious that you care more about "winning" an argument than actually answering the question of whether or not it's legal to copy a CD for your own private use in Canada.
If you're unwilling to believe a word anyone tells you here (unless it agrees with your argument) then why even bother? Some feeling of self-worth? If you really care, go read the act itself. Here's a Government of Canada website that should make it abundantly clear to you that it is OK to copy for private use. Personally, I feel I've done enough research for you already, and I won't waste anymore time on you. If you have something concrete to offer other than "I don't believe you", please feel free to post it, otherwise, shut the fuck up.
What do you mean by "consulted with a judge"?
How much clearer can I be? I consulted with a judge. To expand on that, I mean I sat down with a judge and discussed the act with him at the dinner table, just to be sure that it said what it looked like it said. I have 3 lawyers and one judge in my immediate family, and all of them agreed that yes, you can make copies of a CD that you do not own, so long as it's for your own private use. We went over the act as published, point by point. I don't know how many other ways there are to put it.
It may not seem logical to you, but who ever said that the law made sense? Honestly, if this bothers you so much, go out and pay a lawyer for an hour of his time to go over it with you and explain it to you.
Perhaps you should read the act again. And maybe the rest of this story for other explanations. I hope you realize we are talking about Canada, not the US?
I have read the act itself, consulted with a judge, and read various interpretations. It is not a myth, you can copy a CD someone has lent to you for your own use.
In Soviet Canada, the act debunks you.
And of course:
radius radiii
Indeed. That's the idea. When the copyright levy was introduced for blank CDs, we got the right to legally make copies of a friend's CD for our private use in exchange. I suspect that is an attempt to pull something similar for music downloads off the internet.
Perhaps this is actually phase two of this programme. Original story was from The Onion, but couldn't find it on their site.
It then leads you to another page which _you're supposed to read_ before posting comments.
Well, that's normally what regular Slashdotters do [...]
*snicker snicker* You must be new here... When you're done with the sermon, please pass the paper towels... I'm not sure when the last time I blew that much chocolate milk out my nose was.
Just a thought but what prevents this from happening in your own country when companies are contracted for development?
>>I mean, there hasn't been a rock that large hitting us in, like, 599,000 years...
>That still gives you 100 yrs, right?
Glad to see the future of science and engineering is in good hands!
IIS isn't the only thing from Microsoft that should be in jail.