You do bring up a good point, although I think you're overlooking what actually goes into "cover song" licensing. The royalty is not paid to any performer of the work (specifically), but to the writer of the song. Writers, who can be completely separate from the original or best-known performers (and stay in obscurity in the shadow of a well-known performance), would end up with their trade greatly devalued if they could not receive their due. At least with organizations like ASCAP and BMI, and statuatory licensing rates, performers can immediately know where they stand, without having to track down the original author, if they wish to perform a work.
I see Copyright more as a device to level the playing field. A worker could put hours and experience into creating a physical work, and they would tend to profit, because it would take the same amount of time and effort-- if not more-- for someone to create a "copy". Intellectual works to not have that disincentive, so an artificial system was made, because society realized that content creators deserved as much right to profit or control the output of their labor as someone who spent time on a physical task.
A musician should get to decide, because the musician is the one who put time and energy into creating something, even if it is something that has the unfortunate property of being more easily replicable than producible. Potential profit statistics show that perhaps content creators could make a living without copyrights, but I would argue that copyright goes deeper than profit possibility-- although that's what most use it for-- it's a matter of the right to own what you have produced, to set your own value in the world, and to make good or bad decisions on your own, not at the whim of people who possess little more than the ability than to mindlessly replicate the minor and mostly-irrelevant physical embodiment of the time and work you spent.
Okay, so it'll make the meat better. If it becomes economically more viable to produce better meat in high quantity, than the price of higher-quality meat should go down. Agreed, though, this might not have as much of an effect on increasing overall supply, especially where concern for quality is extremely unimportant in contrast for raw cost concern.
Yeah, but all he's doing is thrashing about wildly and trashing his office. He's really got to remember to turn off the motion sensor when he's out on the course.
One problem with that stance, though, is the idea that (I think this was a major part of the fork from Mozilla, right?) the browser was supposed to be barebones (as far as bells and whistles), with functionality added on a user-preference basis via easily-created extensions. Steps to make extensions easier and more transparent, even for Grandma, mean that FF can stay lightweight while being able to boast a wider range of functionality.
Actually, I'd like to take a look and see what suggestions there are regarding Extension rollbacks. I know I've had the problem where a poorly-formed or incompatible extension will disfigure Firefox's main view until I wipe the Profile completely. A safety-net backup when extensions are installed would be a nice addition.
I haven't followed the guts of the issue, so I'll ask: Is the Debian POV that although someone shouldn't be able to use the trademark (and misrepresent the source of the product), they should be able to create derivative but dissimilar marks? I don't see much other use of a (C)No/(TM)Yes logo.
They rarely, if at all, are anymore. The only terminology you'll hear used by manufacturers is "notebook", for the burning-lap sterility reasons mentioned.
I think you've just got a different perspective and a different set of values. For a collector, respect for (and ownership of) *THE* work, not *A* work, is a large part of the hobby. Replicas can do perfectly well in conveying the meaning and content of a work, and would be perfectly suitable for a person who wishes to study or reflect upon it, but for a collector, there is a value of status, both for the object and the owner, in having something scarce and original. Not everyone, after all, is able to acquire an original of a scarce collectible.
The world we live in (especially that of the high-value-item collectors such as these) is far from starving, and basics such as durability, suitability, and adequate quality are easily available. With these basic attributes being a simply-attained commodity, more esoteric distinctions become attainable. In the same way that you might find value in a higher-quality print (even though a mediocre print may get the point across), someone passionate about originality might find value in an original.
For all its pomp and flying dollar-signs, the value of collectibles is, at its core, driven by hobby-- a passion for things that are not vital, but bring people pleasure nonetheless.
I wouldn't worry. HDTV requirements are in a race with copyright expiration to see who can hold out the longest before actually going into effect. I predict the collapse of human civilization before either of them come about.
The only ones being sued are the kids and their parents (as far as the article says). The expected "sue anyone within 10 feet of anyone who has anything to do with this" reaction is notably absent.
Re:Is it really an infection if...
on
IE7 Toolbar Mayhem
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Take anything with a reasonable amount of usability, and anyone properly incompetent can manage to mess it up.
Two small points: 1.) Copyright, not copywrite. The latter refers to writing journalistic or marketing copy. 2.) Your scenario of Xeroxing an entire book would be a copyright infringement, not fair use (excepting very extraordinary circumstances). There is no benefit to your free speech ability that would overwhelm the burden of buying or loaning out the book. It would be a minor infringement, in the grand scheme of things, but one nonetheless.
...continuing, after reading a bit (a little bit) into it)...
I think that section is in there so an author can avoid defamation from their name being attached to a derivative work. Without that, someone has the right to seriously warp (derive) a work into something unbefitting the original author, and prominently feature their name on the cover, citing the requirement for proper citation.
Still, though, this would be much better covered, I'd think, by a clause clearly outlining a single protocol for clearly noting and explaining primary and derivative creators, with defined practices to prevent misrepresentation.
(From part 4a) If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any credit as required by clause 4(b), as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any credit as required by clause 4(b), as requested.
I don't think it prohibits distribution. It's "to the extent practicable", which, although I don't know the legal jargon, I assume means that you wouldn't have to attack 10,000 copies of an already-printed work with an eraser, or do other such contortions at the whim of the author. And, if someone invokes 4a, that pretty much carves out an exception in 4b.
Still, though, I don't get the reasoning behind that. If you don't want some piece of information included in your attribution... except that piece of information in your requirements. Why allow authors to come back asking for licensing changes after the fact, causing undue inefficiency and possible problems?
You knew what he meant. I know what he meant. I'm pretty sure everyone else knew, as well. The question of semantics really isn't important to the discussion. In the sphere of intellectual property, the word "piracy" is synonymous jargon for "infringement", and it has been for some time. Now, did you have an issue you'd like to discuss, wordplay griping aside?
You'd like to do that, but some very persuasive people have no problems at all with the widening loophole in personal privacy, whereas the people who are up in arms are a band of kooks, pervs, or criminals out to hide something, while the rational, middle-of-the-road people have enough in their own lives to keep up with not to know or care.
The problem is, though, unless they make it only a trivial change, all the existing music would need to be converted, if backwards-compatability was to be abandoned.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's the close buttons on every tab, set browser.tabs.closeButton to 3 in about:config.
I'll drink to that, although I doubt $100-mil would be enough to pry that cash cow away.
Then I'm afraid I don't follow you.
Buggy whips are obsolete. Songs, however, are still being written by songwriters.
You do bring up a good point, although I think you're overlooking what actually goes into "cover song" licensing. The royalty is not paid to any performer of the work (specifically), but to the writer of the song. Writers, who can be completely separate from the original or best-known performers (and stay in obscurity in the shadow of a well-known performance), would end up with their trade greatly devalued if they could not receive their due. At least with organizations like ASCAP and BMI, and statuatory licensing rates, performers can immediately know where they stand, without having to track down the original author, if they wish to perform a work.
I see Copyright more as a device to level the playing field. A worker could put hours and experience into creating a physical work, and they would tend to profit, because it would take the same amount of time and effort-- if not more-- for someone to create a "copy". Intellectual works to not have that disincentive, so an artificial system was made, because society realized that content creators deserved as much right to profit or control the output of their labor as someone who spent time on a physical task.
A musician should get to decide, because the musician is the one who put time and energy into creating something, even if it is something that has the unfortunate property of being more easily replicable than producible. Potential profit statistics show that perhaps content creators could make a living without copyrights, but I would argue that copyright goes deeper than profit possibility-- although that's what most use it for-- it's a matter of the right to own what you have produced, to set your own value in the world, and to make good or bad decisions on your own, not at the whim of people who possess little more than the ability than to mindlessly replicate the minor and mostly-irrelevant physical embodiment of the time and work you spent.
Okay, so it'll make the meat better. If it becomes economically more viable to produce better meat in high quantity, than the price of higher-quality meat should go down. Agreed, though, this might not have as much of an effect on increasing overall supply, especially where concern for quality is extremely unimportant in contrast for raw cost concern.
Yeah, but all he's doing is thrashing about wildly and trashing his office. He's really got to remember to turn off the motion sensor when he's out on the course.
muslims_and_christians_can_get_fucked_too
No, that's pornographic.
One problem with that stance, though, is the idea that (I think this was a major part of the fork from Mozilla, right?) the browser was supposed to be barebones (as far as bells and whistles), with functionality added on a user-preference basis via easily-created extensions. Steps to make extensions easier and more transparent, even for Grandma, mean that FF can stay lightweight while being able to boast a wider range of functionality.
Actually, I'd like to take a look and see what suggestions there are regarding Extension rollbacks. I know I've had the problem where a poorly-formed or incompatible extension will disfigure Firefox's main view until I wipe the Profile completely. A safety-net backup when extensions are installed would be a nice addition.
I haven't followed the guts of the issue, so I'll ask: Is the Debian POV that although someone shouldn't be able to use the trademark (and misrepresent the source of the product), they should be able to create derivative but dissimilar marks? I don't see much other use of a (C)No/(TM)Yes logo.
They rarely, if at all, are anymore. The only terminology you'll hear used by manufacturers is "notebook", for the burning-lap sterility reasons mentioned.
I think you've just got a different perspective and a different set of values. For a collector, respect for (and ownership of) *THE* work, not *A* work, is a large part of the hobby. Replicas can do perfectly well in conveying the meaning and content of a work, and would be perfectly suitable for a person who wishes to study or reflect upon it, but for a collector, there is a value of status, both for the object and the owner, in having something scarce and original. Not everyone, after all, is able to acquire an original of a scarce collectible.
The world we live in (especially that of the high-value-item collectors such as these) is far from starving, and basics such as durability, suitability, and adequate quality are easily available. With these basic attributes being a simply-attained commodity, more esoteric distinctions become attainable. In the same way that you might find value in a higher-quality print (even though a mediocre print may get the point across), someone passionate about originality might find value in an original.
For all its pomp and flying dollar-signs, the value of collectibles is, at its core, driven by hobby-- a passion for things that are not vital, but bring people pleasure nonetheless.
I wouldn't worry. HDTV requirements are in a race with copyright expiration to see who can hold out the longest before actually going into effect. I predict the collapse of human civilization before either of them come about.
You post. It clears all mods from that story.
The only ones being sued are the kids and their parents (as far as the article says). The expected "sue anyone within 10 feet of anyone who has anything to do with this" reaction is notably absent.
Take anything with a reasonable amount of usability, and anyone properly incompetent can manage to mess it up.
Two small points:
1.) Copyright, not copywrite. The latter refers to writing journalistic or marketing copy.
2.) Your scenario of Xeroxing an entire book would be a copyright infringement, not fair use (excepting very extraordinary circumstances). There is no benefit to your free speech ability that would overwhelm the burden of buying or loaning out the book. It would be a minor infringement, in the grand scheme of things, but one nonetheless.
...continuing, after reading a bit (a little bit) into it)...
I think that section is in there so an author can avoid defamation from their name being attached to a derivative work. Without that, someone has the right to seriously warp (derive) a work into something unbefitting the original author, and prominently feature their name on the cover, citing the requirement for proper citation.
Still, though, this would be much better covered, I'd think, by a clause clearly outlining a single protocol for clearly noting and explaining primary and derivative creators, with defined practices to prevent misrepresentation.
That is an odd passage (from the license)--
(From part 4a) If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any credit as required by clause 4(b), as requested. If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any credit as required by clause 4(b), as requested.
I don't think it prohibits distribution. It's "to the extent practicable", which, although I don't know the legal jargon, I assume means that you wouldn't have to attack 10,000 copies of an already-printed work with an eraser, or do other such contortions at the whim of the author. And, if someone invokes 4a, that pretty much carves out an exception in 4b.
Still, though, I don't get the reasoning behind that. If you don't want some piece of information included in your attribution... except that piece of information in your requirements. Why allow authors to come back asking for licensing changes after the fact, causing undue inefficiency and possible problems?
Or, perhaps I'm just reading it wrong.
It's copyright infringement, not "piracy".
You knew what he meant. I know what he meant. I'm pretty sure everyone else knew, as well. The question of semantics really isn't important to the discussion. In the sphere of intellectual property, the word "piracy" is synonymous jargon for "infringement", and it has been for some time. Now, did you have an issue you'd like to discuss, wordplay griping aside?
Yes, but what do you think?
-- Me.
You'd like to do that, but some very persuasive people have no problems at all with the widening loophole in personal privacy, whereas the people who are up in arms are a band of kooks, pervs, or criminals out to hide something, while the rational, middle-of-the-road people have enough in their own lives to keep up with not to know or care.
The problem is, though, unless they make it only a trivial change, all the existing music would need to be converted, if backwards-compatability was to be abandoned.
My question: since these aren't "money", can you mint (or more likely, acquire from the catalog) this type of tokens and cash them in?