"Instead a per view price which is reasonable can be inacted and people will gladly pay if it means good content."
I don't know where you get the idea that this will fly with the general public. I for one will not be paying for even one view if this model is adopted.
I am interested in hearing from anyone making copyleft music though. If you make any, let me know where I can preview it and purchase it if you sell it.
Well, if those college kids can give the corps who are your customers all they want for no money, you are not really doing your job. That, or the people running the corps who are your customers are not doing theirs.
So, talking to this and the post above talking about the dev house being in a worse position than the Johnny Come Latelys, let the college kids do the initial design and development for you for free and you make your money supporting their free apps for your customer.
(Now, in the above, I gave in for a short while to the libre versus gratis ignorance.)
"I'm going to get modded down to -16 for this, but I'm sticking to it. There is no free software. Someone must pay the developers who write it(not necesarily TOO write it)."
And well you should. Think about this to see why:
There are no Free People. Someone has to pay for the mother's food while she is pregnant and then they have to pay for food in order to keep the child alive.
"One of the problems for the industry is that the CD works too well. Other than the MP3 (which also is already out and popular in the wild), they cannot find a medium to make CD's obsolete. How do you get better than perfect sound (well, at least perfect for 99% of the population who can't tell the difference)?"
They would have an easier time replacing the cd if they came at it from a different angle. "How can we give the fan all the rights and conviences he has now while making things for him?" Instead, they think of themselves and don't care about the fans.
I have some ideas on some formats that might be compellingly enough better than a cd to cause me to re-buy a lot of my music if they came with better rights.
"Tommi Kyyrä, of IFPI Finland has said that being able to play music on a Linux or Apple computer is a privilege not a right, and that those that can't because of DRM'd CDs should just go out and buy a CD player."
He is c...., but if it gets to that, fine. I will just play my own music on my own instruments, and if I get good enough, release it under a copyleft license. In any case, people with those attitudes can kiss my money goodbye.
"If you really want to fix the system you would take away some of the rights afforded to corporations."
That would be nice.
"Corporations have only financial interests in mind, nothing social or moral."
A change in the law could possibly change this problem.
"Our representatives are supposed to be just that: ours, not the corporations."
Yes, they are supposed to be yours.
"Even if corporations may have our financial interests in mind (third to their executives first and their stockholders second) they clearly do not represent the people, nor are they people in themselves."
While I agree with you that corporations are not people, we may both be wrong. (Legally in some ways, at least.)
Let me know what you think of this post concerning jail time for corporations:
after all, if they are people legally, shouldn't there be some way to send them to jail. If not, what happens to the "equal protection" idea that gets bandied about.
"Do you really think making it easier for the rich and powerful to give money to politicians it will somehow make politicians less likely to enact laws that favor those donors?"
I think his point is that many of the laws that they want would then not be enactable. Not being enactable, why pay for them. Something like that.
How about this thought:
A taxing authority can only levy taxes against those whom it allows to vote.
I think the people trying for different voting systems might solve some of the problems better, or at least work along with some of his suggestions.
If one day I am out spearing turbots to fry for dinner and I discover the wreak of a spanish galleon loaded with gold, silver, and jewels. That extra money can give me extra power. Same thing if someone is "hunting for some food and up from the ground comes.... "
So, power can follow money. You might want to put words like "normally" in there.
While I don't necessarily agree with all of the attacks on you, this is wishful thinking.
money = power (sort of) time = money (sort of)
So, let's say you limit the power of the politicos. (Not that I am against that a priori) So the rich will do what? Resort to buying judges rather than politicians? And if not, private armies?
"Just because he has used the comment before doesn't make it any less right."
In my comment today, I did not comment on the "rightness" of the comment, I just told you, AC ~;-), that you could do better than looking for opportunities to post the same comment again and again. I did a quick google search and included a link to the first link I followed. I was looking for a link where I responded as I felt that perhaps I should follow boilerplate with boilerplate, but I did not have the time to track that particular post down.
I am only talking about the cost of the software (unix "distros") that would run on x86 boxes.
IIRC, there were a bunch of them. I think the mag I used to buy was "unix world" and the prices of the software were beyond my budget for toys and at the time, my needs were not commercial but rather for exploration and play. (What a poorply constructed sentence... ouch.)
Plus, tools cost extra - a lot extra.
This I think is one of the strengths of Free Software. You can get stuff at little or no cost when you are just exploring and playing around. Then, when you need it, you can get professional level (paid if necessary) support.
From word on the street, people on the windows side solve this problem via "borrowing" or what that side likes to call "piracy."
"The importation of goods first manufactured outside the US under the copyright laws of other countries was specifically excluded from that decision, leaving US copyright holders free to take action against foreign distributors who sell products made in their region into the US market."
This is answering some of my questions.
So, it looks like you cannot just go anywhere in the workd and purchase legal copies of works and then take them somewhere else in the world and later sell them. At least on a certain scale. Right? So it seems like distribution alone, of legal copies, can be an offence? Further explanations anyone?
"This activity is protected under the "first sale" doctrine"
Fine, but when does this "first sale" occur? (Excuse my ignorance of the industry in what follows.)
1. When the publisher/printer sells lots of books to a wholesaler? 2. When the book wholesaler sells the books to the book shop (retailer?) 3. When the bookshop sells the book to a member of the general public?
Is the first sale legally defined as a purchase for end use? What?
I aks this because I see what I think are attempts to control distribution in the sales channel.
What about distributing (legally obtained copies) without copying?
No one seems to be able (or willing) to answer this.
I fell like I am being stupid here, but if distribution is a seperately reserved and protected right, how can bookstores sell books? Do they need special contracts with the authors/publishers? It is not just a matter of them buying books from a wholesaler?
"People on these forums throw around terms like socialist or communist whenever they don't like things, often in response to policies which clearly are meant to grant/protect control over private property-including one's words or ideas, a basic tenet of free-market capitalism."
While I agree that people like to throw around terms without reference to their underlying meanings, I fail to see how the government granted monopolies inherent in copyrights and patents have anything to do with a free market. Capitalism perhaps, free market? no.
'The lawsuit claims that Google's scanning and digitizing of library books as a part of the Google Print Project constitutes "massive copyright infringement"., ----- "It's not up to Google or anyone other than the authors, the rightful owners of these copyrights, to decide whether and how their works will be copied." ----- "Contact: Paul Aiken staff@authorsguild.org
NEW YORK -- The Authors Guild and a Lincoln biographer, a children's book author, and a former Poet Laureate of the United States filed a class action suit today in federal court in Manhattan against Google over its unauthorized scanning and copying of books through its Google Library program." ----- The last quote above from this link:
I am not trying to judge this of to excuse it, just to explore the research exemption that someone else gave. Just like they gave a criticism exemption.
I think we know that you can review books, give some quotes from the books and earn money from your reviews. All legally and all without paying any compensation to the copyright holders of the books you review. Does anyone dispute this? Does this not hold under some copyright regimes?
Slashdot Mirror
"Instead a per view price which is reasonable can be inacted and people will gladly pay if it means good content."
I don't know where you get the idea that this will fly with the general public. I for one will not be paying for even one view if this model is adopted.
I am interested in hearing from anyone making copyleft music though. If you make any, let me know where I can preview it and purchase it if you sell it.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/64732
Well, if those college kids can give the corps who are your customers all they want for no money, you are not really doing your job. That, or the people running the corps who are your customers are not doing theirs.
So, talking to this and the post above talking about the dev house being in a worse position than the Johnny Come Latelys, let the college kids do the initial design and development for you for free and you make your money supporting their free apps for your customer.
(Now, in the above, I gave in for a short while to the libre versus gratis ignorance.)
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/64732
"I'm going to get modded down to -16 for this, but I'm sticking to it. There is no free software. Someone must pay the developers who write it(not necesarily TOO write it)."
And well you should. Think about this to see why:
There are no Free People. Someone has to pay for the mother's food while she is pregnant and then they have to pay for food in order to keep the child alive.
Get the gist?
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/64732
While it is playing the blues, who does it tip off if not antipiracy organizations?
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=JohnConst antakisdrewRobertsRainwaterBlues
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
Rainwater Blues
You can get it for free and you can even sell copies if you want.
Creative Commons BY-SA License.
"One of the problems for the industry is that the CD works too well. Other than the MP3 (which also is already out and popular in the wild), they cannot find a medium to make CD's obsolete. How do you get better than perfect sound (well, at least perfect for 99% of the population who can't tell the difference)?"
They would have an easier time replacing the cd if they came at it from a different angle. "How can we give the fan all the rights and conviences he has now while making things for him?" Instead, they think of themselves and don't care about the fans.
I have some ideas on some formats that might be compellingly enough better than a cd to cause me to re-buy a lot of my music if they came with better rights.
all the best,
drew
"Tommi Kyyrä, of IFPI Finland has said that being able to play music on a Linux or Apple computer is a privilege not a right, and that those that can't because of DRM'd CDs should just go out and buy a CD player."
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=JohnConst antakisdrewRobertsRainwaterBlues
He is c...., but if it gets to that, fine. I will just play my own music on my own instruments, and if I get good enough, release it under a copyleft license. In any case, people with those attitudes can kiss my money goodbye.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
This is a song that I had a hand in the creation of that is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-SA license.
Perhaps we like talking with each other on points posted, even if they do not relate to the main article.
Perhaps we should have a pegged top of page story along these lines:
-----
Blah blah yada blah!
Posted by nimrod.
Today, a member of Blag said blah blah. Etc.
-----
and we could then say anything we want and not merit the Offtopic mod. (I get that one once in a while. ~;-) )
all the best,
drew
"Hu Jintao / Wen Jiabao '08 ?"
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
Are they American born? Or are you taking his "any candidate" further than I took him to mean?
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
Some of my stuff at the internet archive.
"If you really want to fix the system you would take away some of the rights afforded to corporations."
That would be nice.
"Corporations have only financial interests in mind, nothing social or moral."
A change in the law could possibly change this problem.
"Our representatives are supposed to be just that: ours, not the corporations."
Yes, they are supposed to be yours.
"Even if corporations may have our financial interests in mind (third to their executives first and their stockholders second) they clearly do not represent the people, nor are they people in themselves."
While I agree with you that corporations are not people, we may both be wrong. (Legally in some ways, at least.)
Let me know what you think of this post concerning jail time for corporations:
http://slashdot.org/~zotz/journal/101428
after all, if they are people legally, shouldn't there be some way to send them to jail. If not, what happens to the "equal protection" idea that gets bandied about.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.lulu.com/zotz
Buy some of my stuff at lulu and help set it Free.
"Here's a hint: people with power will always use that power to quash opposition, no matter where that power comes from."
I agree.
"The solution is not to elect who promise not to use that power - they always do."
Indeed.
"The solution is to restrict the power available to those people in the first place."
Oops, how do you do that without power?
all the best,
drew
--
http://zbcw.sourceforge.net/
"Do you really think making it easier for the rich and powerful to give money to politicians it will somehow make politicians less likely to enact laws that favor those donors?"
I think his point is that many of the laws that they want would then not be enactable. Not being enactable, why pay for them. Something like that.
How about this thought:
A taxing authority can only levy taxes against those whom it allows to vote.
I think the people trying for different voting systems might solve some of the problems better, or at least work along with some of his suggestions.
all the best,
drew
--
http://zbcw.sourceforge.net/
"Money follows power, not vice versa."
If one day I am out spearing turbots to fry for dinner and I discover the wreak of a spanish galleon loaded with gold, silver, and jewels. That extra money can give me extra power. Same thing if someone is "hunting for some food and up from the ground comes....
"
So, power can follow money. You might want to put words like "normally" in there.
all the best,
drew
URL:http://zbcw.sourceforge.net/>
"Money + Power = Tyranny
Money + No_Power = Nothing"
While I don't necessarily agree with all of the attacks on you, this is wishful thinking.
money = power (sort of)
time = money (sort of)
So, let's say you limit the power of the politicos. (Not that I am against that a priori) So the rich will do what? Resort to buying judges rather than politicians? And if not, private armies?
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/58805
The Beat Meet
CC BY-SA for you
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=User%3A+%22Ho w+do+I+get+Quake+3+to+run+in+Linux%3F%22&btnG=Goog le+Search
"Just because he has used the comment before doesn't make it any less right."
In my comment today, I did not comment on the "rightness" of the comment, I just told you, AC ~;-), that you could do better than looking for opportunities to post the same comment again and again. I did a quick google search and included a link to the first link I followed. I was looking for a link where I responded as I felt that perhaps I should follow boilerplate with boilerplate, but I did not have the time to track that particular post down.
all the best,
drew
--
http://zbcw.sourceforge.net/
I am only talking about the cost of the software (unix "distros") that would run on x86 boxes.
IIRC, there were a bunch of them. I think the mag I used to buy was "unix world" and the prices of the software were beyond my budget for toys and at the time, my needs were not commercial but rather for exploration and play. (What a poorply constructed sentence... ouch.)
Plus, tools cost extra - a lot extra.
This I think is one of the strengths of Free Software. You can get stuff at little or no cost when you are just exploring and playing around. Then, when you need it, you can get professional level (paid if necessary) support.
From word on the street, people on the windows side solve this problem via "borrowing" or what that side likes to call "piracy."
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
CC BY-SA Paper Plance 001 video
You have this comment saved up somewhere waiting for a chance to use it? I recognise it.
/ 1128201&threshold=-1&tid=156&tid=163&tid=8&tid=106
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/19
Come on, you can do better AC.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
Paper Plane 001 video at ourmedia
I always wanted to get my hands on some of that stuff to learn and play on. The cost was way too high iirc.
I got rid of my old unix magazines from back in those days or I could get some pricing for you all.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
Thanks.
From the wikipedia link:
"The importation of goods first manufactured outside the US under the copyright laws of other countries was specifically excluded from that decision, leaving US copyright holders free to take action against foreign distributors who sell products made in their region into the US market."
This is answering some of my questions.
So, it looks like you cannot just go anywhere in the workd and purchase legal copies of works and then take them somewhere else in the world and later sell them. At least on a certain scale. Right? So it seems like distribution alone, of legal copies, can be an offence? Further explanations anyone?
all the best,
drew
"This activity is protected under the "first sale" doctrine"
Fine, but when does this "first sale" occur? (Excuse my ignorance of the industry in what follows.)
1. When the publisher/printer sells lots of books to a wholesaler?
2. When the book wholesaler sells the books to the book shop (retailer?)
3. When the bookshop sells the book to a member of the general public?
Is the first sale legally defined as a purchase for end use? What?
I aks this because I see what I think are attempts to control distribution in the sales channel.
all the best,
drew
What about distributing (legally obtained copies) without copying?
No one seems to be able (or willing) to answer this.
I fell like I am being stupid here, but if distribution is a seperately reserved and protected right, how can bookstores sell books? Do they need special contracts with the authors/publishers? It is not just a matter of them buying books from a wholesaler?
all the best,
drew
"How does said "REAL artist" eat? Or buy art supplies?"
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
Obviously they eat from the royalties on the books they cannot get anyone to publish. Did you not read the choice given?
Burn the book versus let it be read for free.
Your solution only stands a chance of working where other options are before the artist.
Here are some links to some of my work which can be had for free:
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
http://zbcw.sourceforge.net/
and a link where you can buy some of the same stuff:
http://www.lulu.com/zotz
Knock yourself out.
I am still able to eat. Actually, I should probably eat a little less and I most certainly should excercise a lot more.
Then again, perhaps I am not one of those REAL artists either.
all the best,
drew
"People on these forums throw around terms like socialist or communist whenever they don't like things, often in response to policies which clearly are meant to grant/protect control over private property-including one's words or ideas, a basic tenet of free-market capitalism."
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
While I agree that people like to throw around terms without reference to their underlying meanings, I fail to see how the government granted monopolies inherent in copyrights and patents have anything to do with a free market. Capitalism perhaps, free market? no.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
"Ha -- Oxford's history program must not be very good, because I'm pretty sure that 1492 came before 1600."
Ha -- You think that perhaps it's the maths department that is lacking instead?
Besides, you can get all the history you need from a great little book called "1066 and all that" - it goes right up until history ended.
all the best,
drew
'The lawsuit claims that Google's scanning and digitizing of library books as a part of the Google Print Project constitutes "massive copyright infringement".,
n g.htm
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drnippers
-----
"It's not up to Google or anyone other than the authors, the rightful owners of these copyrights, to decide whether and how their works will be copied."
-----
"Contact: Paul Aiken
staff@authorsguild.org
NEW YORK -- The Authors Guild and a Lincoln biographer, a children's book author, and a former Poet Laureate of the United States filed a class action suit today in federal court in Manhattan against Google over its unauthorized scanning and copying of books through its Google Library program."
-----
The last quote above from this link:
http://www.authorsguild.org/news/sues_google_citi
They seem to be claiming that it is the actuallcopying that is infringing.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
Hanging Our At Nippers
Carries a Creative Commons BY-SA License
I am not trying to judge this of to excuse it, just to explore the research exemption that someone else gave. Just like they gave a criticism exemption.
I think we know that you can review books, give some quotes from the books and earn money from your reviews. All legally and all without paying any compensation to the copyright holders of the books you review. Does anyone dispute this? Does this not hold under some copyright regimes?
all the best,
drew