"such are the problems of being over the hill. I.E., over 40."
One of the benefits of being over the hill is that you can still keep going even if you run out of gas.
No wait, it doesn't quite work like that now does it?
Columbo, Kojak, Mike Hammer, Cannon, Spenser, Baretta, McCloud, McMillan & Wife, Banacek, Barnaby Jones, Dragnet, The Equalizer, The Fugitive, The Green Hornet, Hart to Hart, Hawaii Five-O - I watched too much TV with my family growing up.
Re:Was this really illegel?
on
Book 'Em, Dano
·
· Score: 1
"People not returning books sucks for libraries. The reason fines are so high often isn't because they want the fine to act as a detriment- it's to make sure that they can get as close a replacement as possible to the missing item (which is often impossible in out of print books) and to pay for the cost of processing the book. Processing the book is not as easy as slapping on a tag and making the item available for checkout again. There's cataloging and recataloging involved."
Interesting, so do we need a POD compulsary license for libraries which have non-replaceable books that are not returned?
That may help alleviate the problem. In fact, would a POD compulsary license be a good thing for out of print books in general?
all the best,
drew
Re:Ebay is rampant with theves
on
Book 'Em, Dano
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
" "not what people might think of as 'stolen goods' "..."
"ok, IANAL, but surely most people realise that taking something that is not yours, selling it and keeping the money is stealing?"
Perhaps what the poster was referring to was that the person doing the selling did not come into posession of the item in question by a means that would normally be looked at as stealing. Not that selling them doesn't amount to stealing them.
I go to the library and check out a book and take it home and read it. At this point I am in posession of the book and it is not considered stolen.
As opposed to I sneak the book out of the library and take it home and read it. At this point, I am in posession of the book and it is (isn't it?) considered stolen.
Also as opposed to I break into the library at night and take the book home and read it. At this point, I am in posession of the book and it is considered stolen.
In all three cases, when I sell the book, it is certainly "stolen" although the law can be funny and may have a different term for this type of misappropriation of the property of another. (Anyone know? I do not like to use the wrong terms in matters like this, especially by mistake or out of ignorance.)
I took it to be that the poster was talking along these lines.
"'After a brief glance at much open source software development, it becomes readily apparent that a number of open source practices directly conflict with best practices associated with protecting intellectual property.'"
Well hey, I am not so much concerned with the best practices associated with protecting "intellectual property" - I am more concerned with the best practices for creating and using and profiting from "intellectual property" - specifically copyrighted works. I think the GPL and other "copyleft" licenses, serve me quite well in these areas.
If these other three are maximised, what do I care if protection is not?
"It's probably best if terms like "rapist" and "Nazi" not have their definitions diluted, out of respect to their respective victims and what they underwent or will undergo."
Yes, I agree, and it is also best if terms like thief and pirate don't have their definitions diluted either, but that does not seem to be stopping anyone.
I was asking a question about fighting fire with fire, which I don't believe you have addressed directly.
Perhaps you did not catch the thread from the start?
"i really don't think p2p forums are used all that much for distributing indie music, because the average Kazaa user will not really download something they don't recognize"
Which is why I wonder if a napster type experience would work better for indie music.
"Now, read that again. "Contracts the artists sign.""
If word on the net is to be believed, contracts that many artists have signed without reading, or at least without understanding, without having a lawyer on their side, and which end up being significantly different from what was verbally portrayed to them by their "A&R" guy. (Is that the right term?)
Do you deny this?
"And nobody's claiming the record labels are these innocent little businesses who are in it for the music (though there are some)."
Question is, is this a more one sided industry than most?
"It's a double-standard."
Yes, it may be. Perhaps it is simply a different standard being applied?
Question is, can you apply a double-standard without being a hypocrite.
"1.) Artists willingly sign their contracts. There are "entertainment lawyers" who make sure to go through and balance out contracts for both parties. Record labels do a lot of stuff to make an album successful, from manufacturing and advertising to booking appearances."
Yes, and word is that they own the copyrights to the album and make most of the profit that is made on the album. I hear that often, the artists end up in debt to the label even with successful albums.
Do you deny this?
"2.) Music sells now for as cheap as.99 per song and $9 an album. I've seen magazines on my newsstand more expensive than that. I just don't see a valid justification anymore now that iTunes is such a huge success. People should put their money where their mouth is and show the music industry that consumers want to spend their money on digital formats."
iTunes will not sell to people in my country. It is not just the costs to object to. If you are in the US, you face felony charges, (loss of right to vote to correct the situation) jail time, hugh statutory damages... In my country, apparently, jail time and hugh statutory fines. (I don't know about for downloading though, but I just spoke to a lawyer this week and you do for simple posession of a CD or DVD that was made in violation of copyright and purchased by you, even if you understood it to be legit when you were purchasing it.)
I often wonder if it is possible for the little guys to get their stuff downloaded, posessed illegally, informed on (ala the BSA. Perhaps with offers to share the statutory damages collected) and then to file and win suits over the "illegal" posession. (Both as a scam, and honestly.)
As to putting my money where my mouth is, I choose not to follow your advice. I am not getting the big boys stuff anymore - period. Not illegally. Not legally. Instead, I am spending my time (and money) creating works to release with "copyleft" type licneses. I am trying to do my small part to provide a countering force to these abuses.
"2.) People knowing what they do is ethically wrong, so they seek bad guys to shift blame to. "The RIAA made me do it!""
If I were a betting man, I would bet you that many think it is ethically right, just legally wrong, or that the only reason it may be ethically wrong is because it is legally wrong.
Now, I actually do not want to presume to speak for the majority. Right now, just myself and I am not sure I believe all of what I have just written. I do believe it was worth my precious time to write and it may be worth consideration and discussion.
"If you disagree with me, reply and post why. Don't mod me down. Those mod points are better spent elsewhere."
Here we go...
P2P distribution + web advertising = no more incentive to sell anything
I don't know.Aas I posted elsewhere under this topic, I know people who started buying lots of music again when napster got popular and have all but stopped now.
I have basically stopped out of private protest over the crazy copyright situation and how the laws are being used/abused by the big boys.
Instead of buying, I am trying to create and release my works under a "copyleft" type license.
I am even trying to learn a few instruments.
I personally don't want to break the law, but I sure don't want to give the copyright abusers any of my money to carry out attacks designed to put fear and terror into the hearts of the public.
The current copyright laws, and specifically the possible penalties, are crazy in my estimation. The durations too by the way. Until this changes, I am trying to keep my money out of their hands where possible.
"You know, the Beatles stopped touring in their careers so they could put out a lot of classic albums. In that mindset, they wouldn't have been able to make a living recording that music."
Now, the fab four are one of my all time favourite groups, my dad is supposedly in a scene in Help. I certainly am not calling for not paying or supporting artists. Seems the big labels are famous for shafting many (a majority?) of those same artists though.
We do need to find a reliable way to support (monitarily) artists. I would be happy to see many more artists make a comfortable living wage from their music even if it meant less having the chance for hugh fame and fortune though. That is a tradeoff I would be comfortable with, both as a supporter of artists and as an (a potential?) artist.
"is just ensuring that valid legal alternatives like iTunes never succeed."
From what I hear, iTunes still will not sell to people in my country. PayPal will not give us accounts. Although we can receive DirecTV, to my understanding, we cannot legally buy a subscription, etc.
We can buy overpriced CDs and listen to and tape from a few radio stations though.
"that's part of the problem of why so many albums sound like crap."
Sure, but people have to learn to be independant and how to make good music and money together without giving up the copyrights on thier work.
This may or may not work. We will see. Some of us want to try and make a difference though.
One thing we can do is to give all participants in a production copyright credit and thus let them share in any royalties. In music, at least the (P) copyright. Perhaps the (C) copyright too though.
With the right license, I think we can copyleft our work while still leaving room for it to produce income for many years to come.
I don't think the copyright landscape will necessarily look too much like it does now though.
"You need, mics, gear, room ambience, a mixer, a masterer, and so on."
Networking and sharing.
Not necessarily the easiest thing to do, I grant you.
Constructive discussion welcomed, even if it expresses strong disagreement.
So, should all of the P2P programs/networks include in their TOS a prohibition against using statistics gathered for marketing purposes withoug the payment of a fee?
Is there some way to re-implement the napster feature set in P2P for indie music?
I never played with napster enough to know, but I have friends who swear by it when it comes to quality music discovery and discussions. They claim to have bought more music, and more varied, when napster was around than before or since. Some have basically stopped buying all togehter now.
"iii) Is the continual repitition and reworking of myth and fable through the Oral Tradition disrespectful of the content creators who first recorded these stories?"
iv) Why do people of oral traditions get no legal protections for their work? (From those outside their tradition who would fix it and lock them out from their own work?) Why must it be fixed?
I know that is at least halfway to zany, but please try to give a halfway to reasonable answer.
"Wrong... they would make a truckload more money off their monoply than being paid for installation. And they'll fight tooth and nail to protect their monopoly."
Hear! Hear!
So, we need to stop letting monopolies play the free market card. Like they love the free market and are pushing the virtues of the free market. Yeah right!
"Perhaps a compromise of a limited-time monopoly would be best. Cable companies get a 5-year monopoly on new networks, and afterwards must open them up to competition."
Other ideas:
They have the monopoly in cable TV only but must provide Internet Access Service to customers (IAP service) for cost plus and carefully regulate what they get to claim as cost. For instance, do not let them charge any of the acutal cable plant to the IAP side. Then allow others to be the ISPs riding over their IAP services and prevent them from playing in the ISP market.
When giving the monopoly, put in a universal service proviso with time constraints and hefty fines for not meeting the agreed coverage.
Don't give the monopolies in the first place. If they claim they need it, tell them tough.
Whatever you do, do not let monopolies play the free market card.
"However, there's no reason that I can see that Telewest or NTL should be expected to open a network that they put there own private money into. Is this not exactly the same thing? If it is, although one might like the cable company to open it's networks, it doesn't seem to me that there is any obligation or regulation that should expect it."
Do they have a government granted or supported monopoly position? (Even if in another market.) Have they been granted right of way benefits that would be competition cannot obtain? Did they obtain any special considerations from the government when putting in their cable?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, you have the reason why the public is justified if they ask for open access.
Allow the cable company to provide access only (be an IAP) and allow competition by independant service providers (ISPs.)
We need to stop letting entities with monopolies of any kind try to play the free market card. They are not operating in a free market. Therefore it is reasonable for the government to seek to regulate their market to the benefit of the public. I have doubts that the government can do this, but I also have doubts that a company with a monopoly advantage will do better for the public.
"Or, worded differently, did the govt. help pay to put in their system?"
Yes, normally minimally by giving a monopoly which allowed them to charge HIGHER rates to the customers. (Who are the government in the US right. By the people, for the people and all that.)
I also imagine often by giving access/right of way permissions at less than market value.
Often the government/law forces the power company to allow access to the poles. Yes? No?
Slashdot Mirror
"Yes, this is not the "usual" way of stealing, but at the point where he registered the book as returned, yet still kept it, I consider it stealing."
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
Certainly, although like I say, there may actually be another legal term for this.
I my country, I have heard the phrase: "stealing by reason of employment."
Does anyone know what this relates to?
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
"such are the problems of being over the hill. I.E., over 40."
l
One of the benefits of being over the hill is that you can still keep going even if you run out of gas.
No wait, it doesn't quite work like that now does it?
Columbo, Kojak, Mike Hammer, Cannon, Spenser, Baretta, McCloud, McMillan & Wife, Banacek, Barnaby Jones, Dragnet, The Equalizer, The Fugitive, The Green Hornet, Hart to Hart, Hawaii Five-O - I watched too much TV with my family growing up.
all the best,
drew
http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateMystery/tv.htm
"People not returning books sucks for libraries. The reason fines are so high often isn't because they want the fine to act as a detriment- it's to make sure that they can get as close a replacement as possible to the missing item (which is often impossible in out of print books) and to pay for the cost of processing the book. Processing the book is not as easy as slapping on a tag and making the item available for checkout again. There's cataloging and recataloging involved."
Interesting, so do we need a POD compulsary license for libraries which have non-replaceable books that are not returned?
That may help alleviate the problem. In fact, would a POD compulsary license be a good thing for out of print books in general?
all the best,
drew
" "not what people might think of as 'stolen goods' " ..."
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
"ok, IANAL, but surely most people realise that taking something that is not yours, selling it and keeping the money is stealing?"
Perhaps what the poster was referring to was that the person doing the selling did not come into posession of the item in question by a means that would normally be looked at as stealing. Not that selling them doesn't amount to stealing them.
I go to the library and check out a book and take it home and read it. At this point I am in posession of the book and it is not considered stolen.
As opposed to I sneak the book out of the library and take it home and read it. At this point, I am in posession of the book and it is (isn't it?) considered stolen.
Also as opposed to I break into the library at night and take the book home and read it. At this point, I am in posession of the book and it is considered stolen.
In all three cases, when I sell the book, it is certainly "stolen" although the law can be funny and may have a different term for this type of misappropriation of the property of another. (Anyone know? I do not like to use the wrong terms in matters like this, especially by mistake or out of ignorance.)
I took it to be that the poster was talking along these lines.
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
"'After a brief glance at much open source software development, it becomes readily apparent that a number of open source practices directly conflict with best practices associated with protecting intellectual property.'"
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=JohnConst antakisdrewRobertsRainwaterBlues&PHPSESSID=dbb37e7 61c339fb4da8e446132b483b0
Well hey, I am not so much concerned with the best practices associated with protecting "intellectual property" - I am more concerned with the best practices for creating and using and profiting from "intellectual property" - specifically copyrighted works. I think the GPL and other "copyleft" licenses, serve me quite well in these areas.
If these other three are maximised, what do I care if protection is not?
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"It's probably best if terms like "rapist" and "Nazi" not have their definitions diluted, out of respect to their respective victims and what they underwent or will undergo."
Yes, I agree, and it is also best if terms like thief and pirate don't have their definitions diluted either, but that does not seem to be stopping anyone.
I was asking a question about fighting fire with fire, which I don't believe you have addressed directly.
Perhaps you did not catch the thread from the start?
all the best,
drew
"i really don't think p2p forums are used all that much for distributing indie music, because the average Kazaa user will not really download something they don't recognize"
Which is why I wonder if a napster type experience would work better for indie music.
all the best,
drew
"Now, read that again. "Contracts the artists sign.""
.99 per song and $9 an album. I've seen magazines on my newsstand more expensive than that. I just don't see a valid justification anymore now that iTunes is such a huge success. People should put their money where their mouth is and show the music industry that consumers want to spend their money on digital formats."
If word on the net is to be believed, contracts that many artists have signed without reading, or at least without understanding, without having a lawyer on their side, and which end up being significantly different from what was verbally portrayed to them by their "A&R" guy. (Is that the right term?)
Do you deny this?
"And nobody's claiming the record labels are these innocent little businesses who are in it for the music (though there are some)."
Question is, is this a more one sided industry than most?
"It's a double-standard."
Yes, it may be. Perhaps it is simply a different standard being applied?
Question is, can you apply a double-standard without being a hypocrite.
"1.) Artists willingly sign their contracts. There are "entertainment lawyers" who make sure to go through and balance out contracts for both parties. Record labels do a lot of stuff to make an album successful, from manufacturing and advertising to booking appearances."
Yes, and word is that they own the copyrights to the album and make most of the profit that is made on the album. I hear that often, the artists end up in debt to the label even with successful albums.
Do you deny this?
"2.) Music sells now for as cheap as
iTunes will not sell to people in my country. It is not just the costs to object to. If you are in the US, you face felony charges, (loss of right to vote to correct the situation) jail time, hugh statutory damages... In my country, apparently, jail time and hugh statutory fines. (I don't know about for downloading though, but I just spoke to a lawyer this week and you do for simple posession of a CD or DVD that was made in violation of copyright and purchased by you, even if you understood it to be legit when you were purchasing it.)
I often wonder if it is possible for the little guys to get their stuff downloaded, posessed illegally, informed on (ala the BSA. Perhaps with offers to share the statutory damages collected) and then to file and win suits over the "illegal" posession. (Both as a scam, and honestly.)
As to putting my money where my mouth is, I choose not to follow your advice. I am not getting the big boys stuff anymore - period. Not illegally. Not legally. Instead, I am spending my time (and money) creating works to release with "copyleft" type licneses. I am trying to do my small part to provide a countering force to these abuses.
"2.) People knowing what they do is ethically wrong, so they seek bad guys to shift blame to. "The RIAA made me do it!""
If I were a betting man, I would bet you that many think it is ethically right, just legally wrong, or that the only reason it may be ethically wrong is because it is legally wrong.
Now, I actually do not want to presume to speak for the majority. Right now, just myself and I am not sure I believe all of what I have just written. I do believe it was worth my precious time to write and it may be worth consideration and discussion.
all the best,
drew
"If you disagree with me, reply and post why. Don't mod me down. Those mod points are better spent elsewhere."
Here we go...
P2P distribution + web advertising = no more incentive to sell anything
I don't know.Aas I posted elsewhere under this topic, I know people who started buying lots of music again when napster got popular and have all but stopped now.
I have basically stopped out of private protest over the crazy copyright situation and how the laws are being used/abused by the big boys.
Instead of buying, I am trying to create and release my works under a "copyleft" type license.
I am even trying to learn a few instruments.
I personally don't want to break the law, but I sure don't want to give the copyright abusers any of my money to carry out attacks designed to put fear and terror into the hearts of the public.
The current copyright laws, and specifically the possible penalties, are crazy in my estimation. The durations too by the way. Until this changes, I am trying to keep my money out of their hands where possible.
"You know, the Beatles stopped touring in their careers so they could put out a lot of classic albums. In that mindset, they wouldn't have been able to make a living recording that music."
Now, the fab four are one of my all time favourite groups, my dad is supposedly in a scene in Help. I certainly am not calling for not paying or supporting artists. Seems the big labels are famous for shafting many (a majority?) of those same artists though.
We do need to find a reliable way to support (monitarily) artists. I would be happy to see many more artists make a comfortable living wage from their music even if it meant less having the chance for hugh fame and fortune though. That is a tradeoff I would be comfortable with, both as a supporter of artists and as an (a potential?) artist.
"is just ensuring that valid legal alternatives like iTunes never succeed."
From what I hear, iTunes still will not sell to people in my country. PayPal will not give us accounts. Although we can receive DirecTV, to my understanding, we cannot legally buy a subscription, etc.
We can buy overpriced CDs and listen to and tape from a few radio stations though.
"that's part of the problem of why so many albums sound like crap."
Sure, but people have to learn to be independant and how to make good music and money together without giving up the copyrights on thier work.
This may or may not work. We will see. Some of us want to try and make a difference though.
One thing we can do is to give all participants in a production copyright credit and thus let them share in any royalties. In music, at least the (P) copyright. Perhaps the (C) copyright too though.
With the right license, I think we can copyleft our work while still leaving room for it to produce income for many years to come.
I don't think the copyright landscape will necessarily look too much like it does now though.
"You need, mics, gear, room ambience, a mixer, a masterer, and so on."
Networking and sharing.
Not necessarily the easiest thing to do, I grant you.
Constructive discussion welcomed, even if it expresses strong disagreement.
all the best,
drew
So, should all of the P2P programs/networks include in their TOS a prohibition against using statistics gathered for marketing purposes withoug the payment of a fee?
Possible?
all the best,
drew
Unless there is something "infringing" in the movie. Or that can be claimed to be infringing.
all the best,
drew
Is there some way to re-implement the napster feature set in P2P for indie music?
I never played with napster enough to know, but I have friends who swear by it when it comes to quality music discovery and discussions. They claim to have bought more music, and more varied, when napster was around than before or since. Some have basically stopped buying all togehter now.
all the best,
drew
There you have it. Potentially great economically for the artists, potentially lousy for the record companies.
all the best,
drew
Think of the rights of the artists... (that we force/trick into signing away to us.)
The above only applies to you if the shoe fits. All others are exempted.
" 1.)Steal LOC Carmen Sandiego style 2.)???? 3.)Profit 4.)???? 5.)???? 6.)Jail time 7.)???? 8.)President of US"
Dude, that is some business plan/method! Did you try to patent it yet?
all the best,
drew
I would have given you +1 Funny
"iii) Is the continual repitition and reworking of myth and fable through the Oral Tradition disrespectful of the content creators who first recorded these stories?"
iv) Why do people of oral traditions get no legal protections for their work? (From those outside their tradition who would fix it and lock them out from their own work?) Why must it be fixed?
I know that is at least halfway to zany, but please try to give a halfway to reasonable answer.
all the best,
drew
Not if the only people with the rights to make readers stop doing so.
The government would then have to get into some emminent (SP?) domain type takings. Right?
all the best,
drew
OGG - theora and vorbis perhaps. Yes, I agree.
A %22drew%20Roberts%22
"I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate."
Dude, I bremembah you now. Why didn't ya say so sooner?
all the best,
drew
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3
I will second that request. If you are really trying to benefit the public, try a format that is Free please.
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=JohnConst antakisdrewRobertsRainwaterBlues
all the best,
drew
I was indeed taught that "beggers can't be choosers," but I am not begging, just giving "a word to the wise."
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
"How 'bout if we just dust off the old term "Robber Barons"?"
That may work. Do you agree that rapist is a much more loaded and emotionally charged term thhough?
all the best,
drew
"Wrong ... they would make a truckload more money off their monoply than being paid for installation. And they'll fight tooth and nail to protect their monopoly."
Hear! Hear!
So, we need to stop letting monopolies play the free market card. Like they love the free market and are pushing the virtues of the free market. Yeah right!
all the best,
drew
"Perhaps a compromise of a limited-time monopoly would be best. Cable companies get a 5-year monopoly on new networks, and afterwards must open them up to competition."
Other ideas:
They have the monopoly in cable TV only but must provide Internet Access Service to customers (IAP service) for cost plus and carefully regulate what they get to claim as cost. For instance, do not let them charge any of the acutal cable plant to the IAP side. Then allow others to be the ISPs riding over their IAP services and prevent them from playing in the ISP market.
When giving the monopoly, put in a universal service proviso with time constraints and hefty fines for not meeting the agreed coverage.
Don't give the monopolies in the first place. If they claim they need it, tell them tough.
Whatever you do, do not let monopolies play the free market card.
all the best,
drew
"However, there's no reason that I can see that Telewest or NTL should be expected to open a network that they put there own private money into. Is this not exactly the same thing? If it is, although one might like the cable company to open it's networks, it doesn't seem to me that there is any obligation or regulation that should expect it."
Do they have a government granted or supported monopoly position? (Even if in another market.) Have they been granted right of way benefits that would be competition cannot obtain? Did they obtain any special considerations from the government when putting in their cable?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, you have the reason why the public is justified if they ask for open access.
all the best,
drew
Allow the cable company to provide access only (be an IAP) and allow competition by independant service providers (ISPs.)
We need to stop letting entities with monopolies of any kind try to play the free market card. They are not operating in a free market. Therefore it is reasonable for the government to seek to regulate their market to the benefit of the public. I have doubts that the government can do this, but I also have doubts that a company with a monopoly advantage will do better for the public.
all the best,
drew
My cable company also bundles. I have to get TV which I don't want in order to get internet which I do.
all the best,
drew
"Or, worded differently, did the govt. help pay to put in their system?"
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=druncerta inty
Yes, normally minimally by giving a monopoly which allowed them to charge HIGHER rates to the customers. (Who are the government in the US right. By the people, for the people and all that.)
I also imagine often by giving access/right of way permissions at less than market value.
Often the government/law forces the power company to allow access to the poles. Yes? No?
all the best,
drew
Money where my mouth is link:
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php