I haven't read the article, but from skimming the comments so far, if correct it would be more like a copyleft without source requirements. Would you agree? (If not, do I really need to read the article?)
"What if they can't afford a decent studio, or don't have the discipline to do enough takes until the sound is right, or the drummer sucks? Good production has turned a lot of bad music into good. An artist can be incredibly gifted musically but that doesn't mean they know the best way to record their music, or the point where a guitar solo stretches from cool to self indulgent wankery."
Release the project file with a copyleft license. Say Creative Commons BY-SA for argument.
If the guitar track is bad, someone else can add a better one. Someone else can add some reverb on the backing vocals. Others can try different mixdowns. Still other can master with something like Jamin.
"What MIT and others are doing here is testing unknown waters, and doing it carefully makes sense."
In reply to this line of thinking I would say that you can test all you want with NC in the mix and you will never get an inkling of what the results would be like with a copyleft license. I think the licenses are different enough that you can't test one using the other.
If it is testing they want, perhaps they should consider using copyleft licenses for one course, department, etc. ???
"Perhaps some unknown "University of Northwestern Boston" or such will take all of MIT's material and claim that, while they don't have the same lecturers, they do have the exact same courses and course material? And if they do so but the results are poor (as probably will be), may that not have a bad influence on MIT's reputation? Perhaps, I don't know."
If you thinking holds, that would mean that no other University can make use of this material or add to it, etc. Do you think that is their intention?
"Fortunately OCW is not simply free, but (at least partly) licensed under a Creative Commons license allowing non commercial sharing and remixing (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 [creativecommons.org])."
And the NonCommercial option makes this gratis but not libre and introduces a large can or worms.
Does anyone know why the institution that has the MIT License named after it felt the need to use a NonCommercial license?
For instance, if I understand what I have read over at the creative commons mailing lists correctly, no for profit company can "deal" in any of these materials for any reason whatsoever.
"Now granted there are some well commented/documented projects. But if you don't make it part of your core values to not only give out free functional software but also EDUCATIONAL SOURCE CODE then we're not much better off are we?"
And the design documents, diagrams, and anything else that would help get potential contributors up to speed.
But perhaps we just aren't up to snuff and the code itself is what is supposed to educate us all on its own.
Mind you, I don't necessarily practice that with the code I have released either so who am I to talk.
"But the Blu-ray camp believes a library of exclusive titles and the power of PlayStation 3 - which has an in-built Blu-ray player - will see the format pull ahead in the next 12 months."
I keep saying that there are no Free markets when it comes to "goods" protected by copyrights and / or patents.
This is a good example of people with monopolies in one area trying to leverage that to win in another market.
"No, the problem has nothing to do with myspace or any other directory of names, the problem is that it's trivially easy to do things (like getting a credit card or a bank loan) pretending that you're someone else."
Bingo, and yet you are liable. My take is that the whole thing comes down to laziness and a desire for convenience on the part of businessmen.
Well, plus, this thread shows how many want to blame the public for the results of an insecure system.
I should be able to put out all my personal details and still no one should be able to do business as me using that info. Now, why is that not possible?
As you respond, I do not have the other wrong end in mind at all.
It is a tough call, but if you care about freedom for artists and about artists being able to amke a living from their art, I would say it is certainly something to consider.
I know of no current license what will give this freedom to the artists and prevent the "leaches" from doing as you suggest. Free software faces the same issues. It seems to be working out anyway though. And my take is that perhaps I should just consider the "leaches" as an unpaid advertising and promotion department...
I want you to be able to make some money should you choose to do something with my works.
"but like most musicians playing on the street, most just walk on by with bowed heads and a shrug"
I went and looked at your links.
Here's the thing. I found a CC license with the NC option. There was a time when I might have supported people using such a license, but that time is passed. If you are using CC and not BY-SA or plain BY, I am not all that interested in supporting you. Good luck though. I may come to see you live if the situation ever arises, but that would be a different form of support in my book.
1. I would like to see the statutory damages done away with in copyright cases.
2. I would like to see punitive damages go to some pool to help all people with similar suffering and not to the person bringing the suit or the lawyers. (You can get actual damages and perhaps even pain an suffering. BUT you don't get the damages the jury awards to punish.)
I am open to discussion on these two points.
And please, do you really think the dems hands are clean on this issue?
So Grandma, I take it you are a brunette democrat? (Cue the assume joke if needed...)
You make a good point and it got me thinking. I actually did an install for my grandfather before he died a few years ago. I think people choose grandma because it gives them old people and women in one fell swoop. It could be that guys only love their moms and not their grandmothers, but I don't think that one will fly.
"Windows' ease of use doesn't come into it, he never even got that far."
Come now, of course it did, you can't get out of the question that easily. If windows wants to take credit for being easy as a result of being preinstalled, it needs to take the heat here.
"Seriously though. The Windows guys are saying that any expert knows that you have to pay twice for your license or that you need to use custom or high-end equipment to do these tasks legally in Windows."
In this case that is what they seem to be saying. But normally, the claim is about how windows is so seay that anyone can do it. This present line normally seems to surface only in situations along the lines of this present one.
"Thank goodness it's all so easy with Windows! Seriously, WTF? Is this sort of crap standard with Windows?"
Indeed, remember, windows is so easy, anyone can do it. That's why you see all these articles insisting that Grandma be able to handle everything on the linux side of things.
"I believe the best solution to bridge the gap between 19th century paper votes and the Information Age is simply to have the voting machine print human- and machine-readable ballots when the voter has finished."
Bingo. Check my other comments... I say the same thing. We don't need to verify much if any source code then. (Not that it would hurt to do so.)
Let's say we design a system with two types of machines.
1. Vote taking and printing machines. These take the voter's choices and print out a paper ballot which the voters can verify on their own before putting their ballots ina the box.
2. Vote counting machines which can count these paper ballots.
I leave it for discussion if we need machines of type 1.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't read the article, but from skimming the comments so far, if correct it would be more like a copyleft without source requirements. Would you agree? (If not, do I really need to read the article?)
all the best,
drew
"some of which I like and some (CC-NoDerivs) that I loathe."
How does CC-NoDerivs come to be a copyleft license?
I guess I need to figure out the journal issue.
all the best,
drew
"What if they can't afford a decent studio, or don't have the discipline to do enough takes until the sound is right, or the drummer sucks? Good production has turned a lot of bad music into good. An artist can be incredibly gifted musically but that doesn't mean they know the best way to record their music, or the point where a guitar solo stretches from cool to self indulgent wankery."
Record you music in Ardour:
http://ardour.org/
Release the project file with a copyleft license. Say Creative Commons BY-SA for argument.
If the guitar track is bad, someone else can add a better one. Someone else can add some reverb on the backing vocals. Others can try different mixdowns. Still other can master with something like Jamin.
http://jamin.sourceforge.net/en/about.html
I have a feeling you might get a few gems in with all the junk.
Anyone who wants can burn CDs of such songs and flog them on the street or in their shops. Any band that wants can perform them.
all the best,
drew
Would you be so kind as to take a look at my post here and let me have some feedback?
http://slashdot.org/~zotz/journal/154538
all the best,
drew
"What MIT and others are doing here is testing unknown waters, and doing it carefully makes sense."
In reply to this line of thinking I would say that you can test all you want with NC in the mix and you will never get an inkling of what the results would be like with a copyleft license. I think the licenses are different enough that you can't test one using the other.
If it is testing they want, perhaps they should consider using copyleft licenses for one course, department, etc. ???
"Perhaps some unknown "University of Northwestern Boston" or such will take all of MIT's material and claim that, while they don't have the same lecturers, they do have the exact same courses and course material? And if they do so but the results are poor (as probably will be), may that not have a bad influence on MIT's reputation? Perhaps, I don't know."
If you thinking holds, that would mean that no other University can make use of this material or add to it, etc. Do you think that is their intention?
all the best,
drew
"Fortunately OCW is not simply free, but (at least partly) licensed under a Creative Commons license allowing non commercial sharing and remixing (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 [creativecommons.org])."
And the NonCommercial option makes this gratis but not libre and introduces a large can or worms.
Does anyone know why the institution that has the MIT License named after it felt the need to use a NonCommercial license?
For instance, if I understand what I have read over at the creative commons mailing lists correctly, no for profit company can "deal" in any of these materials for any reason whatsoever.
all the best,
drew
"Now granted there are some well commented/documented projects. But if you don't make it part of your core values to not only give out free functional software but also EDUCATIONAL SOURCE CODE then we're not much better off are we?"
And the design documents, diagrams, and anything else that would help get potential contributors up to speed.
But perhaps we just aren't up to snuff and the code itself is what is supposed to educate us all on its own.
Mind you, I don't necessarily practice that with the code I have released either so who am I to talk.
all the best,
drew
"But the Blu-ray camp believes a library of exclusive titles and the power of PlayStation 3 - which has an in-built Blu-ray player - will see the format pull ahead in the next 12 months."
I keep saying that there are no Free markets when it comes to "goods" protected by copyrights and / or patents.
This is a good example of people with monopolies in one area trying to leverage that to win in another market.
"exclusive titles" = copyright monopolies.
other market = media format / players.
Yes? No?
all the best,
drew
"You know the answer: because some of that information is used to verify that you are you."
But it obviously doesn't verify that I am me as others can use it to pretend to be me. That is a large part of my point.
Let me put it another way, if you use this info to do business with "me" and it turns out not to be me at all, the risk should be entirely yours.
all the best,
drew
"No, the problem has nothing to do with myspace or any other directory of names, the problem is that it's trivially easy to do things (like getting a credit card or a bank loan) pretending that you're someone else."
Bingo, and yet you are liable. My take is that the whole thing comes down to laziness and a desire for convenience on the part of businessmen.
Well, plus, this thread shows how many want to blame the public for the results of an insecure system.
I should be able to put out all my personal details and still no one should be able to do business as me using that info. Now, why is that not possible?
As you respond, I do not have the other wrong end in mind at all.
all the best,
drew
Should the other end be fixed? Why should it be possible to steal someone's identity with the simple personal details people make available online?
all the best,
drew
It is a tough call, but if you care about freedom for artists and about artists being able to amke a living from their art, I would say it is certainly something to consider.
I know of no current license what will give this freedom to the artists and prevent the "leaches" from doing as you suggest. Free software faces the same issues. It seems to be working out anyway though. And my take is that perhaps I should just consider the "leaches" as an unpaid advertising and promotion department...
I want you to be able to make some money should you choose to do something with my works.
all the best,
drew
"but like most musicians playing on the street, most just walk on by with bowed heads and a shrug"
r o&search=Search
I went and looked at your links.
Here's the thing. I found a CC license with the NC option. There was a time when I might have supported people using such a license, but that time is passed. If you are using CC and not BY-SA or plain BY, I am not all that interested in supporting you. Good luck though. I may come to see you live if the situation ever arises, but that would be a different form of support in my book.
Try some BY-SA tracks and see what happens.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zotzb
1. I would like to see the statutory damages done away with in copyright cases.
2. I would like to see punitive damages go to some pool to help all people with similar suffering and not to the person bringing the suit or the lawyers. (You can get actual damages and perhaps even pain an suffering. BUT you don't get the damages the jury awards to punish.)
I am open to discussion on these two points.
And please, do you really think the dems hands are clean on this issue?
all the best,
drew
Good one. I like your style there.
all the best,
drew
So Grandma, I take it you are a brunette democrat? (Cue the assume joke if needed...)
You make a good point and it got me thinking. I actually did an install for my grandfather before he died a few years ago. I think people choose grandma because it gives them old people and women in one fell swoop. It could be that guys only love their moms and not their grandmothers, but I don't think that one will fly.
all the best,
drew
"What? I'd install Linux for Grandma, just like I'd setup her hardware."
Bingo! But no one wants to let this little fact come to light.
all the best,
drew
"Windows' ease of use doesn't come into it, he never even got that far."
Come now, of course it did, you can't get out of the question that easily. If windows wants to take credit for being easy as a result of being preinstalled, it needs to take the heat here.
all the best,
drew
"Seriously though. The Windows guys are saying that any expert knows that you have to pay twice for your license or that you need to use custom or high-end equipment to do these tasks legally in Windows."
In this case that is what they seem to be saying. But normally, the claim is about how windows is so seay that anyone can do it. This present line normally seems to surface only in situations along the lines of this present one.
all the best,
drew
"Actually the guy in the article is nowhere close to being an expert. He seems more like grandma."
So, did you miss my point or what?
all the best,
drew
"Thank goodness it's all so easy with Windows! Seriously, WTF? Is this sort of crap standard with Windows?"
Indeed, remember, windows is so easy, anyone can do it. That's why you see all these articles insisting that Grandma be able to handle everything on the linux side of things.
all the best,
drew
"Clearly a 'professional' would not have made these mistakes."
This is one of the things I always find so funny.
Which is it everyone? Is windows easy enough for anyone to set up and administer, or does it take a windows expert to do these things properly?
If it takes an expert to do it right, why does everyone seem to insist that it has to be done by Grandma when it comes to Linux?
all the best,
drew
"I believe the best solution to bridge the gap between 19th century paper votes and the Information Age is simply to have the voting machine print human- and machine-readable ballots when the voter has finished."
Bingo. Check my other comments... I say the same thing. We don't need to verify much if any source code then. (Not that it would hurt to do so.)
all the best,
drew
"this will lead to people selling their votes."
Or being "pressured" to vote for a certain person.
all the best,
drew
I am not so sure.
Let me be stupid for a bit...
Let's say we design a system with two types of machines.
1. Vote taking and printing machines. These take the voter's choices and print out a paper ballot which the voters can verify on their own before putting their ballots ina the box.
2. Vote counting machines which can count these paper ballots.
I leave it for discussion if we need machines of type 1.
Hand recounts are always possible.
Problems?
all the best,
drew