[The question is whether the changes are made with or without the rights holder's permission. People are still free to pervert their own work.]
Right, legally. But artistically and morally, they would be being hypocrites. Yes? No?
"But at least in principle the movies on television have been changed with the permission of those responsible for the film, or a body with which they have contracted."
So, a simple tweak would be to require the sale of both version once the for TV version had been shown. Let the people buy the version they want.
Or require the release or permission to release of versions rated below the higest rated version released. That is, you release an R rated movie, you must also release PG-13, PG, and G rated versions or allow others to make and release the lower rated versions if you do not wish to bother.
(Mind you, I think copyright, as it stands, could benefit from a lot more compulsory licenses. That would not be my first choice of fixes perhaps, but if it was tried, I think it would make things better.)
[Well, first off, I'm describing the law, not what I think is right. Try not to assume I'm saying things are perfect the way they are.]
Yes I did catch that after I hit submit.
"If I do happen to modify my book, do I then not longer have the right to sell or give away that modified copy when I no longer want it?"
Would you care to address that question?
[What's to say you didn't buy 100 copies of the book and reproduce 200 digitally?]
My income tax returns? If I wanted to earn dirty money, there would be better ways. In any case, this is not a business I am contemplating.
[Not me. I'm not arguing for the validity of the law, I'm merely explaining what it says.]
Yes, and that is always important. Are you by chance a lawyer?
[I'd still want to leave in provisions that protect the rights of the author/artist/whoever.]
And yet they already don't have those rights with respect to satire. Right? So, they can't legally control you making fun of them and their work, but they get to control more kind uses. Seems strange.
Personally, I am one who might like sanitized movies. I don't much care for all the blood and guts and sex in modern movies. I prefer to watch old black and white and early colour movies as a result. (Mind you, I have never bought a sanitized movie (to my knowledge.))
That said, becuase of the *IAA attitudes these days, I try not to spend my money on non-Free movies and music. I hope this changes as I am happy to support the artists if they and their reps are not out to take away my rights and do their best to make me into a criminal.
"I don't think they trust themselves enough for this scheme to work."
It can indeed be tough to excercise the self discipline necessary to live one's life how one would like. I don't have problems with alcohol, but I have family who once did and no longer touch it. (afaik.)
I would welcome the EDL approach though.
"Personally though I think it would make a cool FOSS project."
It would, but as someone else pointed out in something I read on this topic, an mplayer edl approach would be illegal in some countries due to other laws.
[I hate the thought of someone censoring a movie, but would be thrilled if there were an option to play a movie on a range of violence or gore settings. If there's a movie thats borderline that I could watch with my kid, but their not mature enough to really deal with the killing parts, why isn't there a way to use the built in tools to do that? ]
[In the end, it's important that it remains that way for OSS, becuase that's what gives the GPL legal force.]
Thank you for this point. It is giving me pause and making me think deeper. (If you check my posting history on this topic, you will see that I have been posting on the other side of the fence. Mostly to what I percieved as poor takes on the situation.)
Can we discuss this matter further. On slashdot or off?
For instance, how would you compare or contrast edit decision lists versus patch files? Should either be distributable or should either be considered derivative works?
[It would be illegal even if you were to buy a book for each copy you sold. It may seem silly to many, but that's how copyright works. You would be creating and distributing a derivitive work]
What if the version you distributed was not changed enough to be considered a derivative work?
[It'd be more like you taking that book, photocopying it, with edits, and selling the altered version. And that is illegal - copying for your own use is fine, editing your own copy is fine, it's when your version is sold or distributed that you run into the law. Fair use essentially only extends as far as your own personal usage.]
Do you really mean this? Think about it for a second. If I do happen to modify my book, do I then not longer have the right to sell or give away that modified copy when I no longer want it? Are you relly OK with copyright operating like that?
[Think about it. If the law says that the MPAA can sue filesharers, who aren't altering the movies they distribute, and aren't charging money for their unauthorized copies, then what is protecting the defendants here who are both altering and charging money?]
Picture this. I buy a thousand hard copies of a book (novel) and I convert the book to digital text. I sell a thousand digital copies of that same book. I do not want to burn the hard copies as I like trees and I want to conserve (think green) so I give those hard copies back to the publisher so they can sell them to me or someone else again.
Who says this is illegal? Who says this should be illegal?
OK, so instead of me selling you a version of the book that I have cleaned. (Using a marker, I would need finer grained control than "page ripper outing" would allow!) Which you seem to think should be illegal. How about you hire me as an employee and I clean all the books in your library for you and your family. (Obviously not you, but someone who would want their books cleaned.)
In all honesty, copyright need to be reigned in. Not allowed to run free and cause greater and greater harm which seems to be the trend.
What if they now try to shut down p2p trading of anything of perfect copies as this impacts on t he artistic creativity of t he artists? (Rock, Hard Place, Slashdot.)
How would you take a person selling edit decision lists?
"If they can't buy cleaned up versions of movies, the answer is (to them) to simply enact "decency" laws, and keep them from being produced in the first place."
Bingo. And this is not an isolated case. This same thing applies in many situations. (And not just wrt entertainment / art.)
"Big Brother? Well it is funny that every situation they try to come up with that lets them get around having a big brother dictate what we can see, gets shot in the head."
Indeed. And if you (not you mind you) take away every other way for them to get what they want other than to get the law changed, guess what they will try to do next.
"The companies would trade consumers an off-the-shelf DVD for an edited one."
"The "cleaned" movies are bootlegs, and unauthorised derivative works. You can't just reedit and publish your own version of someone else's books, movies, music, regardless of your motives."
Will this not just drive the development of client side editing technologies?
Here is my cool editomatic dvd player. Pop in your dvd, pop in / point to the supplied or your downloaded EDL cd / file. See only the parts you want to see.
(EDL - edit decision list)
Something like that. Are we really going to stop people from passing around time and duration pairs? I mean, that is all that you would absolutely have to pass around right? (Or am I being completely dense this morning?)
"But this iTunes stuff is just crap, there are plenty of other players out there, and plenty of other serivces not to mention you can rip your own CDs and use the music that way."
Yes, but because of the government granted monopolies, (aka copyrights) not every service can offer the same music. And they would have you believe that some countries have no legal access to any online services at all.
"This is how business is supposed to work, right?"
Uh, no. Considering the device is protected by patents. (Code for government granted monopolies.) And the music is protected by copyrights. (Also code for government granted monopolies.)
So, we are not talking the free market here. We are instead talking a market where the government is already deep in the heart of the matter. Now when the government wants to tweak things for the benefit of the people, business wants to tell it to stay out of the market? Perhaps the government should get out of the market. No more copyright or patent protections. Let the market come up with a solution.
"NO idea what you're talking about. Patents are fully compatible with free trade."
Perhaps I can help. Patents are not fully compatible with the free market. Copyrights aren't either. Both are forms of GOVERNMENT granted MONOPOLIES.
Now if you want to get the government out of the market with their granting of copyrights and patents and let the market find its own solution to the problem, let us know.
As it is, people want these government granted monopolies (government interventions in the free market) and yet they want to also tell the government to stay out of the market and let the market decide. Which is it to be?
"Apple said it hoped the market would be left to decide 'which music players and online music stores are offered to consumers.'"
Pure hogwash. "Let the market decide" is a short form of "Let the free market decide."
We are talking devices protected by patents here for playing music and video protected by copyrights. Both forms of government granted monopolies. Where exactly is the free market in all of this again?
I am more talking about individual lending for profit. As in getting interest on your savings account. Are you against that? What about on certificates of deposit?
I doubt I agree with those ideas on how corporations should operate.
Can you explain your ideas further. What do you think should happen to a person's shares when they die? Can they sell their shares when they are alive?
I am cool with not treating them as humans though.
I seem to recall reading back in the 80s about a business that was set up as a commonwealth. It may have been in England or the Northeastern US. I think the article was in the Harvard Business Review. Can anyone give any further details?
I am not sure I follow the alternative to lending for profit point. Can you elaborate?
As to placing limits on ownership, one idea I would like to kick around with interested parties is the thought of a law that only actual living human beings can own shares in corporations.
You won't get any big arguments from me on your first two paragraphs.
Hey, a branch manager way down the line can create it on their own initiative. (So long as you have fractional reserve banking.)
However, isn't that seperate from capitalism as defined? Or at least from the private ownership of capital / the means of production? (This is really not my area.)
I am not to original poster, but I took him to be putting the person in the position of the press recording news. (Something like that.) And then there being a law that prevented a newsman from making videos of events. (Something like that.)
Granted, it could be a stretch, but it is not totally an off the wall stretch.
"Second, if you're a free market type, then you're not in favor of government granted monopolies. The two are contradictory. By definition a "free" market is one with minimal government interference."
Bingo. And yet how many who loudly proclaim to love the free market are also in love with copyrights and patents? And how many advise to let the market solve the problem when people point out issues with goods protected by copyrights or patents.
Also, how come so many Free Market capitalist types are so gung ho for government granted monopolies and do not trust the free market to solve the problem better? (This is not addressed to you in particular.)
I think the key phrase in what you just wrote is "harmful interference" as otherwise, if they were to follow the law, anyone could basically shut down all radio transmissions in the area where they owned property. (Where they were?)
In the situation under discussion, there would be no actual interference since the access point is working as designed. Also, unless we are willing to define anything I don't like as harmful to me, it might be hard to show the harm as well. Plus, I would think the harm refers to the proper functioning of the equipment and not to you or I in the first place. (Not sure about that though.) Anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
[The question is whether the changes are made with or without the rights holder's permission. People are still free to pervert their own work.]
Right, legally. But artistically and morally, they would be being hypocrites. Yes? No?
"But at least in principle the movies on television have been changed with the permission of those responsible for the film, or a body with which they have contracted."
So, a simple tweak would be to require the sale of both version once the for TV version had been shown. Let the people buy the version they want.
Or require the release or permission to release of versions rated below the higest rated version released. That is, you release an R rated movie, you must also release PG-13, PG, and G rated versions or allow others to make and release the lower rated versions if you do not wish to bother.
(Mind you, I think copyright, as it stands, could benefit from a lot more compulsory licenses. That would not be my first choice of fixes perhaps, but if it was tried, I think it would make things better.)
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
[Well, first off, I'm describing the law, not what I think is right. Try not to assume I'm saying things are perfect the way they are.]
Yes I did catch that after I hit submit.
"If I do happen to modify my book, do I then not longer have the right to sell or give away that modified copy when I no longer want it?"
Would you care to address that question?
[What's to say you didn't buy 100 copies of the book and reproduce 200 digitally?]
My income tax returns? If I wanted to earn dirty money, there would be better ways. In any case, this is not a business I am contemplating.
[Not me. I'm not arguing for the validity of the law, I'm merely explaining what it says.]
Yes, and that is always important. Are you by chance a lawyer?
[I'd still want to leave in provisions that protect the rights of the author/artist/whoever.]
And yet they already don't have those rights with respect to satire. Right? So, they can't legally control you making fun of them and their work, but they get to control more kind uses. Seems strange.
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
Personally, I am one who might like sanitized movies. I don't much care for all the blood and guts and sex in modern movies. I prefer to watch old black and white and early colour movies as a result. (Mind you, I have never bought a sanitized movie (to my knowledge.))
That said, becuase of the *IAA attitudes these days, I try not to spend my money on non-Free movies and music. I hope this changes as I am happy to support the artists if they and their reps are not out to take away my rights and do their best to make me into a criminal.
"I don't think they trust themselves enough for this scheme to work."
It can indeed be tough to excercise the self discipline necessary to live one's life how one would like. I don't have problems with alcohol, but I have family who once did and no longer touch it. (afaik.)
I would welcome the EDL approach though.
"Personally though I think it would make a cool FOSS project."
It would, but as someone else pointed out in something I read on this topic, an mplayer edl approach would be illegal in some countries due to other laws.
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
[I hate the thought of someone censoring a movie, but would be thrilled if there were an option to play a movie on a range of violence or gore settings. If there's a movie thats borderline that I could watch with my kid, but their not mature enough to really deal with the killing parts, why isn't there a way to use the built in tools to do that? ]
Because only some people deserve freedoms?
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
[In the end, it's important that it remains that way for OSS, becuase that's what gives the GPL legal force.]
Thank you for this point. It is giving me pause and making me think deeper. (If you check my posting history on this topic, you will see that I have been posting on the other side of the fence. Mostly to what I percieved as poor takes on the situation.)
Can we discuss this matter further. On slashdot or off?
For instance, how would you compare or contrast edit decision lists versus patch files? Should either be distributable or should either be considered derivative works?
[It would be illegal even if you were to buy a book for each copy you sold. It may seem silly to many, but that's how copyright works. You would be creating and distributing a derivitive work]
What if the version you distributed was not changed enough to be considered a derivative work?
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
[I guarantee you can find at least a hand full of authors and artists who are passionately of the opinion that such censorship perverts their work.]
And given that, we should then never see their movies on network television. After all, that would pervert their work.
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
[It'd be more like you taking that book, photocopying it, with edits, and selling the altered version. And that is illegal - copying for your own use is fine, editing your own copy is fine, it's when your version is sold or distributed that you run into the law. Fair use essentially only extends as far as your own personal usage.]
Do you really mean this? Think about it for a second. If I do happen to modify my book, do I then not longer have the right to sell or give away that modified copy when I no longer want it? Are you relly OK with copyright operating like that?
[Think about it. If the law says that the MPAA can sue filesharers, who aren't altering the movies they distribute, and aren't charging money for their unauthorized copies, then what is protecting the defendants here who are both altering and charging money?]
Picture this. I buy a thousand hard copies of a book (novel) and I convert the book to digital text. I sell a thousand digital copies of that same book. I do not want to burn the hard copies as I like trees and I want to conserve (think green) so I give those hard copies back to the publisher so they can sell them to me or someone else again.
Who says this is illegal? Who says this should be illegal?
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
OK, so instead of me selling you a version of the book that I have cleaned. (Using a marker, I would need finer grained control than "page ripper outing" would allow!) Which you seem to think should be illegal. How about you hire me as an employee and I clean all the books in your library for you and your family. (Obviously not you, but someone who would want their books cleaned.)
In all honesty, copyright need to be reigned in. Not allowed to run free and cause greater and greater harm which seems to be the trend.
What if they now try to shut down p2p trading of anything of perfect copies as this impacts on t he artistic creativity of t he artists? (Rock, Hard Place, Slashdot.)
How would you take a person selling edit decision lists?
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
"If they can't buy cleaned up versions of movies, the answer is (to them) to simply enact "decency" laws, and keep them from being produced in the first place."
Bingo. And this is not an isolated case. This same thing applies in many situations. (And not just wrt entertainment / art.)
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
"Big Brother? Well it is funny that every situation they try to come up with that lets them get around having a big brother dictate what we can see, gets shot in the head."
Indeed. And if you (not you mind you) take away every other way for them to get what they want other than to get the law changed, guess what they will try to do next.
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
"The companies would trade consumers an off-the-shelf DVD for an edited one."
"The "cleaned" movies are bootlegs, and unauthorised derivative works. You can't just reedit and publish your own version of someone else's books, movies, music, regardless of your motives."
Will this not just drive the development of client side editing technologies?
Here is my cool editomatic dvd player. Pop in your dvd, pop in / point to the supplied or your downloaded EDL cd / file. See only the parts you want to see.
(EDL - edit decision list)
Something like that. Are we really going to stop people from passing around time and duration pairs? I mean, that is all that you would absolutely have to pass around right? (Or am I being completely dense this morning?)
all the best,
drew
What about watching the drive in movie from the roof of your nearby house? No sneaking into anything in the equation at all.
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
"But this iTunes stuff is just crap, there are plenty of other players out there, and plenty of other serivces not to mention you can rip your own CDs and use the music that way."
Yes, but because of the government granted monopolies, (aka copyrights) not every service can offer the same music. And they would have you believe that some countries have no legal access to any online services at all.
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
"This is how business is supposed to work, right?"
Uh, no. Considering the device is protected by patents. (Code for government granted monopolies.) And the music is protected by copyrights. (Also code for government granted monopolies.)
So, we are not talking the free market here. We are instead talking a market where the government is already deep in the heart of the matter. Now when the government wants to tweak things for the benefit of the people, business wants to tell it to stay out of the market? Perhaps the government should get out of the market. No more copyright or patent protections. Let the market come up with a solution.
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
"NO idea what you're talking about. Patents are fully compatible with free trade."
Perhaps I can help. Patents are not fully compatible with the free market. Copyrights aren't either. Both are forms of GOVERNMENT granted MONOPOLIES.
Now if you want to get the government out of the market with their granting of copyrights and patents and let the market find its own solution to the problem, let us know.
As it is, people want these government granted monopolies (government interventions in the free market) and yet they want to also tell the government to stay out of the market and let the market decide. Which is it to be?
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
"Apple said it hoped the market would be left to decide 'which music players and online music stores are offered to consumers.'"
Pure hogwash. "Let the market decide" is a short form of "Let the free market decide."
We are talking devices protected by patents here for playing music and video protected by copyrights. Both forms of government granted monopolies. Where exactly is the free market in all of this again?
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
I got that about the credit unions.
I am more talking about individual lending for profit. As in getting interest on your savings account. Are you against that? What about on certificates of deposit?
I doubt I agree with those ideas on how corporations should operate.
Can you explain your ideas further. What do you think should happen to a person's shares when they die? Can they sell their shares when they are alive?
I am cool with not treating them as humans though.
I seem to recall reading back in the 80s about a business that was set up as a commonwealth. It may have been in England or the Northeastern US. I think the article was in the Harvard Business Review. Can anyone give any further details?
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
I read the article.
I am not sure I follow the alternative to lending for profit point. Can you elaborate?
As to placing limits on ownership, one idea I would like to kick around with interested parties is the thought of a law that only actual living human beings can own shares in corporations.
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
You won't get any big arguments from me on your first two paragraphs.
Hey, a branch manager way down the line can create it on their own initiative. (So long as you have fractional reserve banking.)
However, isn't that seperate from capitalism as defined? Or at least from the private ownership of capital / the means of production? (This is really not my area.)
I will not currently comment on the second two.
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
I am not to original poster, but I took him to be putting the person in the position of the press recording news. (Something like that.) And then there being a law that prevented a newsman from making videos of events. (Something like that.)
Granted, it could be a stretch, but it is not totally an off the wall stretch.
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
"Second, if you're a free market type, then you're not in favor of government granted monopolies. The two are contradictory. By definition a "free" market is one with minimal government interference."
Bingo. And yet how many who loudly proclaim to love the free market are also in love with copyrights and patents? And how many advise to let the market solve the problem when people point out issues with goods protected by copyrights or patents.
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
1. Private ownership of capital.
You seem to be not against this entirely. Do you have any ideas as to how to properly place limits on it?
2. Lending for profit.
Do you see a workable alternative?
As to free market types, see my reply to another post in this thread.
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
What part of capitalism (as defined, not as practiced) do you disagree with?
1. Free market? (You already indicated no.)
2. Private ownership of capital?
3. Other?
Now, instead of as defined, as practiced?
Also, how come so many Free Market capitalist types are so gung ho for government granted monopolies and do not trust the free market to solve the problem better? (This is not addressed to you in particular.)
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
"What the heck is the BSA?"
_ Tridentr y.htmle -history.htmls _Companyt ory&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=
BSA? They used to make motorcycles. Didn't they?
http://www.baxtercycle.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSA_Rocket_3/Triumph
http://www.bsa-regal.co.uk/GROUP/bsa.html
http://www.ianchadwick.com/motorcycles/w650/histo
http://www.bsaoc.demon.co.uk/
http://www.best-motorcycle-gear.com/bsa-motorcycl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Small_Arm
http://www.google.com/search?q=bsa+motorcycle+his
Well, google results show I was right but incomplete, they did a lot more than that.
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)
I think the key phrase in what you just wrote is "harmful interference" as otherwise, if they were to follow the law, anyone could basically shut down all radio transmissions in the area where they owned property. (Where they were?)
In the situation under discussion, there would be no actual interference since the access point is working as designed. Also, unless we are willing to define anything I don't like as harmful to me, it might be hard to show the harm as well. Plus, I would think the harm refers to the proper functioning of the equipment and not to you or I in the first place. (Not sure about that though.) Anyone?
all the best,
drew
(da idea man)