is for both of us to harden our positions, and start screaming epithets at each other
for demonstrating a rare openmindedness and therefore a genuine attempt at honest exchange, i hereby declare that if those 1% of unreasonable men who result in progress exists, it exists in you
thank you for reinstating my faith in humanity, and well met
the sonny bono argument that copyrights must be extended to geological time is defeated by your observation over the logic of the patent system on drugs
out of the moral recognition that people's lives should not be held ransom to corporate cashflow, the patent on wonderdrugs is very brief, a few years. is the pharmaceutical industry then swimming in poverty? of course not, its quite profitable. meaning what? meaning very short copyrights are not the gateway to the destruction of wealth and the media industry
the reason why the same moral argument as that over drug patents is not held to the argument on copyrights is because the damage done is not plain and apparent. if you can't afford a drug, you die. pretty clear and straightforward. but with copyrights, the damage done is more vague: the loss of culture, the limiting of its richness, the impoverishment of our cultural lives
and so you're right: intellectual property is not a flawed concept, and i would support it if it were limited like drug patents. the problem being, the legalistic trip back to a less insane intellectual property reality is almost impossible, what with corporate interests and their legions of lawyers pulling in the opposite direction. such that, pessimistically, i believe only revolt on the part of the general populace will result in meaningful change (purposefully ignoring and outright destroying copyright laws via technological superiority)
copyright laws are acceptable when it is just corporations suing each other. which is the way it was in the day of the VHS, when the means of distribution was a small gentleman's club. but now every teenager has as much distribution reach on the internet as the major publishing houses. so when it is corporations suing citizens for obscene amounts of cash willy nilly, based on laws which should really apply only to corporations, then philosophical absurdity has been reached, and the laws obviously need a sea change
but if you say the strategy of banning firearms is allegorical to the banning of digital rights... then i have to say sorry, but your analogy is not logically coherent
meanwhile, banning cameras at burning man would be a logically coherent analogy to banning firearms
and (so as not to be a hypocrite, which is what you seem to be suggesting i am) at the point you agree to this tweak on your analogy, i would heartily support you and agree cameras should be banned at burning man
in short:
cameras == guns == tools that can be abused
digital rights != guns != legalistic restrictions on expression
as if i am advocating for some socialist hippie commune
that paying a programmer a salary is the same as giving an artist's grandchildren a cashflow. i say an artist should instead only get cash for you know, actually working a job: touring concerthalls. and that this is akin to working for a salary like a programmer or an accountant. but nah... let's completely screw up our analogies and play battle hymn of the republic and amp up the high holy moral outrage and act like a programmer working for a salary is the same as paying the grandchildren of the guy who wrote the "happy birthday" song. but thanks for bringing up examples that, in reality, actually support my understanding of the world;-)
all you have to do is describe the old defunct ways of doing things, call me a secret communist muslim, and **poof**, i disappear as a threat to your worldview
if only it were that easy
i'm not ADVOCATING for any alternative reality, i am DESCRIBING reality that is already here
thousands of corporate lawyers versus millions technologically astute, culturally hungry, and most importantly, POOR teenagers: place your bets
i don't have to react to a word of your venom, because i don't have to exert an iota of effort to see what i am talking about come into existence: IT ALREADY IS HERE. i see the writing on the wall, and i incorporate it into my worldview. meanwhile, your reaction against me really isn't a reaction against my particular attitude, but a reaction against reality
hate me and what i am saying all you want. its called shooting the messenger. you'll get just as much mileage out of hating the rising and setting of the sun or the rising and falling of the tides: it won't change a thing
or, rather, understand that things are changing, and deal with that
but right now, you're just living in denial...something about 3 monkeys covering various orifices in the head...
"No. What happens is the musical artists (the fact you focus on this proves you don't understand art in general) will simply do small performances (restricting recording devices, by the way), because there would be absolutely no incentive to spend the time and money producing even the first permanent recording when some ass will burst it around the world the next day, eliminating profits."
right, because massive internet fame from free content doesn't exist
"You also obviously fail to recognize that the stage fame and panties! are restricted to a minuscule percentage or musical artists. Yo Yo Ma probably doesn't generate that form of adoration. It's quite fifteenish in nature."
oh, you mean in the 1980s every single act that existed had fame and fortune? that in the world i am describing no one will ever become famous? you are representing a logical fallacy: that fame in the age of cassettes and vinyl will be any different than in the age of free music, aka radio play over the internet, or was any different in the age of mozart or lord byron. so that's your argument?: the quality and nature of fame is going to undergo some sort of unquantifiable vague change... therefore, we should continue supporting bertelsmann with reams of cash. pfffffffft
"Another by the way, blooded fights between technologies work well for the higher technology. This is a level playing field, with both sides having all technology available."
BWAHAHAHAHA. are you trying to say that the technological playing field isn't level? what do i need to record today? A LAPTOP, moron, with FREELY AVAILABLE SOFTWARE. with that, i have more technological acumen than the age of the wall of sound in the 1960s and the massive amounts of cash needed to make that work
the lesson is: technological advancement leads to cheaper means of production. hell, your average teenager with a cheap HD camera and some cheap editing software has more power today than all of the filming and editing power of all of the movie houses in the 1950s!
but thanks for bringing up an argument that only supports the reality i am describing... not advocating for, but describing, the world i am describing is the future, regardless of anything i say or do, or anything you say or do. i'm just telling you facts of life, you're the one playing rearguard for a defunct era
and his grey album (jay zs black album plus beatles white album)
what he did was totally illegal. of course, he worked things out to serve the current legal status quo after he got fame for his work, but imagine a world where such legal concerns were zero, and anyone could mix a grey album. any mashup of any audio content was free and clear. the result?: more, better culture for us
the counter argument is that jay z and the beatles aren't served. but even if they weren't paid one cent by danger mouse, their fame grows because of his remix. which serves them. fame leads to ancillary sources of revenue. now imagine a world where all of these free remixes wind up serving you in fame, rather than in legalistic flows of coinage: if your output is remixed a lot, your fame is huge, you get lots of people at your concerts, you get to plug merchandise on tv, etc
this is the future of the intersection of art and commerce
in the ozarks, it leans one way, in oakland, it leans the other way
all freedoms exist in tension with other freedoms, i'm glad you understand that
currently, the legal status quo favors the ozarks, at the detriment of the deaths of hundreds of urbanites. the legal status quo will inevitably give way as demographics continue to evolve more and more urban, like it is already in europe, where the legal reality is severely limited firearms because of the demographic reality there
in the future, there will be dozens of deaths of rural people because of firearms restrictions. maybe there will be away to make firearms legal rural, illegal urban in the future, and some effective way to actually enforce that, so deaths in both places are at a minimum. but if given the choice between dozens of rural deaths (in the future), versus hundreds of urban deaths (the reality now because of american gun laws), i choose in favor of laws that serve urbanites, out of the desire to limit needless deaths the most
if technological change is fair. they are sitting around, enjoying their priveledged status, and along come a few hundred assholes in these things called saling ships with horses and iron armor and something called a firearm
and centuries old social and legal structures of millions of the people crumble practically overnight
"Second, it must be proven safely, i.e. that we can't subvert the current system (except, of course, in legitimate competition) while we prove it"
the point is, there is no way to bloodlessly transition from the old technological reality to the new technological reality. there is no way to honor the old copyright system in a new system of free-music-as-only-advertising that resembles radio airplay
so what happens? those who are invested in the old system suffer. you speak as such a person. i'm sorry that technological change has made you suffer. go commiserate with the aztec and incan nobles
but not in a million years should technological progress be halted just because it hurts those invested in an old defunct system. its a couple thousand corporate lawyers versus millions of technologically astute culturally hungry teenagers who are, most importantly, POOR
makes sense in rural areas. it doesn't make sense in urban areas. that's "spooking the horses": if you walk around the ozarks with a gun, you're just providing yourself security. but if you walk around oakland with a gun, you're a gangster
so your logical fallacy is applying the general idea of herd behavior and pointless hysteria towards opposition to carry and conceal weapons. that is, you should consider that there might actually be a solid, logical, levelheaded reason to oppose carry and conceal, not just airheaded emotionality
the truth of gun laws in this country is that currently, HUNDREDS of urban folk die needlessly every year for the sake of a law that only makes sense in the ozarks. but demographics are changing. in the better future, DOZENS of rural folk will die needlessly every year for the sake of being denied protection in the ozarks
there is no compromise between a rural approach towards guns and urban approach towards gun. there is only demographic reality and rule by majority. and demographics tick inevitably towards further urbanization, so enjoy your gun while you still can (legally). urban folks right now suffer and die for the sake of laws which only serve rural folk, only serve historical american reality. as demographics change, a seachange will eventually be tipped, and the legal approach to guns will inevitably reverse
in the better future, rural folks will actually suffer and die for the sake of urban folk. why is this better? because there are a lot more urban folk dying right now today than there are rural folk who could ever die were firearms banned
the ideal of course, is firearms legal in the ozarks, illegal in oakland. its just almost impossible to enforce that, unfortunately
i am looking at the UN building on 43rd st and 1st avenue in nyc
who am i? what am doing?
it doesn't matter
i could be, indeed, a fat 30 year old in his mother's basement, eating cheetos and wiping orange dust on his white t shirt. does that make my words more or less true?
again, it doesn't matter who i am, it matters what i say. or at least, that's the way it should be: judge the words, not the speaker
but no, what matters to you is that i have to be joan of arc before you accept any of my criticism
this speaks volumes about your psychology, and why you are such a loser: if someone else has the slightest imperfection, they have no right to criticize you (which allows you to reject all criticism, because you can find some imperfection somewhere in anyone who would criticize you). you don't actually believe you are perfect, you just believe no one has the right to criticize you... which has the same effect as believing you are perfect: you never feel a reason to change
its your life, but if i were you, i would indulge in some self-criticism at some point. of course, since i'm not che guevara, you can totally reject that comment;-P
i will guess its something like a primitive, pagan shout against things like corporate command and control, organized religious command and control, etc.
so you set up this corporate fine print about photographs for the festival. ok fine. and then later you indeed capture that 43 yo sleazeball in san fran posting pics of women's tits on his blog. yeah, good for you
you've just sold your soul
now burning man isn't a shout against the vile realities of modern life, but just another corporate command and control structure, just another mundane part of what it is supposed to stand in contrast to. no different than mcdonalds and its legal legions out to protect the brand name, or british petroleum tweaking its corporate image with shiny ad campaigns shamelessly apeing the very ecoconscious carefree vibe of something like burning man. a lie. an external image out of vibe with a corrupt internal reality. burning man: we stand for freedom and individuality(*)
*: please note our corporate command and control fine print
so here's another route for you to consider: sleazebags exist, and will parasitize burning man. your choice:
1. accept this unfortunate reality in your wisdom 2. sell your soul and become just another command and control structure, thereby negating the entire purpose of burning man in the first place
i said multiple times its 100% ok for you to do nothing
but if you say words to the effect that its ok to do nothing, i will criticize you for that, because such words are hypocritical and wrong
if you don't like that, then say nothing as well as do nothing
but if you continue speaking the thesis that doing nothing is ok, i will criticize you for being a hypocrite
and just like fighting for something puts you in jeopardy of physical harm, speaking for something puts you jeopardy of criticism
deal with it. you are not above criticism, and your words are fucking pathetic
don't like criticism? then shut up. but if you do speak, and i am saying to you directly it is 100% ok for you to speak, then you may find out some people don't agree with you. get used to it
that's not my orders. that's the orders of life in a free society: when you say something, you may get criticized. i am asking you to accept that. you don't seem to want to accept criticism. i suppose then that you are advocating for something other than a free society? (snicker)
then make burning man invitation only, and put security at the gates
but you can't have an open festival and expect that pictures won't end up on wanker sites. you must live in some parallel universe where digital rights are somehow magically 100% enforceable, nevermind even magically 10% enforceable
are you going to pony up the $1 trillion to hire the workforce to airtight police the entire free internet for years and then to fund the legion of legal goons to enforce your policies and then the political contributions to influence the diplomatic corps to put pressure on the servers located on moldova, etc., etc., etc?
you make peace with reality, because here's the reality: if you parade nude at an open festival, your pictures will show up on wanker sites. don't like that? then don't get nude. or make the festival closed invitation only. but you are a fool of you believe this digital rights nonsense is enforceable or feasible or provides you any protection otherwise from wanker sites
i'm just describing the reality of your situation. you deal with it, you make peace with wanker site sleazebags at burning man. but putting all burning man images under corporate ownership not only doesn't provide you any fucking protection, it completely negates the spirit of the festival you are trying to protect in the first place. you wish to be free... by limiting the freedom of everyone else (and it doesn't even work!). i see you've learned a lot from the spirit of the festival: "i wish to dance around nude, free and open to the world... but i wish to control the freedoms of anyone who's eyes and cameras might see me" (rolls eyes)
on what moral basis does that mean my grandchildren should be paid for that?
a real artist gets paid in fame. fame can be capitalized on in many forms, many ancillary flows of cash. but trying to enforce a distribution system the internet has made defunct by suing college students and grandmothers isn't sustainable. its just legal goons trying to rule by fear, rather than understanding how things work. no, legal goons are trying to enforce how things USED TO work
you give your songs out for free. this radical concept is similar to the radical communist method you know as "radio airplay". then you make money touring, live concerts. exactly what is so weird about that? please, tell me
or rather, exactly what is wrong with you that you can't see this is the way we are evolving towards, regardless of what i believe, regardless of what you believe?
the distribution model of the age of cassette tapes and vinyl is not written in the bible. things change. i need not advocate for my point of view. my point of view is called the reality we are evolving towards regardless. so you need to accept what i am saying, not because i say so, but because that is what is happening, already
deal with it. or don't, and grumble about freeloading kids. as if that's the whole point of what i am saying!
people should be allowed to use images of mickey mouse in anticorporate art. likewise, christian groups should be allowed to edit "apocalypse now" if they want a tamer version. or completely mix up a new version of the movie to push a cause completely anathema to the artist who created it. why? because the original is still around, it just creates controversy which drives interest in the original anyways, it ebenfits the artist: more attention, more esteem. see: streisand effect
if someone was raised watching a piece of film that was hacked to promote a sociopolitical cause, and later they find the original, this is an amazing opportunity at self-discovery and personal growth: you've been propagandized, you can now discover the truth. only in an environemtn of completel freedom is this possible. you can't control anyone or anything and expect the opposite results
what i say is: let it all out, let anyone do anything they fucking want with any image or sound out there, completely beyond the control of anyone, including if a creator's work is warped to depict something they despise. perfectly ok by me. imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. your ideological enemies using your work in a mutated form in eventuality only serves to honor you: what you said is powerful. this only adds to your fame down the line and eventually your bottom line. in such an environment, only the truly creative can flourish. command and control, by anyone, meanwhile, destroys originality and culture
let it all out, we all benefit from a richer culture
if you run around nude in front of bunch of people with cameras, some of those pictures might wind up in places you'd rather they not. don't like that? then don't get nude. otherwise, accept it may happen. but trying to control digital rights is not going to solve the problem, got it?
because its really odd to speak of the freedom and individuality of a burning man festival... but when you get nude, all images of your body are now under corporate control. wtf?
i am not a "you first" revolutionary, you are, that's the entire point of your previous comment
why am i not the same? because i'm not asking you to do anything. in fact, do nothing, go on with your bad self. that's 100% fine by me
but don't happily speak words of acceptance of the unacceptable. if you open your mouth and speak, you may find someone criticizes your words. just like you tell me that if you put your body in harm's way for a cause, you may get killed or hurt or incarcerated, so why make that sacrifice?
i agree 100% with your position: why should you fight, why should you sacrifice considering the jeopardy? but, guess what: speaking words carries jeopardy too. and now you know the jeopardy for speaking: someone will call you fucking pathetic, like i have, if you say something fucking pathetic, which you did. if that's too much jeopardy for you, if you can't handle criticism, then shut up
or continue speaking, please, by all means. but say something morally coherent. because if you continue speaking the words you are now speaking, i will continue to call you fucking pathetic, because your words are FUCKING PATHETIC AND SPINELESS
if you are going to do nothing, DO NOTHING. but say nothing as well, or i will call you out for your hypocrisy
wikipedia is still the best model for what it does
criticism is always welcome, but criticism without a better model in mind is empty, nevermind if it vouches for dead models of doing something like an encyclopedia
you see a lot of voices that criticize wikipedia because it supplies an open forum for discussing certain topics that certain groups would like a monopoly on, that goes against their party line or a propagandistic agenda. this is of course further ammunition for their criticism, but criticism that doesn't have fair play or freedom of speech in mind, but in fact, the opposite
its the cathderal versus the bazaar, and the bazaar has been found to have price fixing and collusion between vendors and a powerful union at work, possibly corrupt. and yet the bazaar is still superior to the cathedral and the problems inherent in that model
and if wikipedia worsens, and begins to evolve towards the cathedral model as it ages, a new wikipedia-like replacement will emerge. such is life and death. creative destruction. its all good
ok: creators get fame and esteem and girl's panties tossed on stage. this is how they make cash from now on: touring. other ancillary services like advertising, personally signed media, etc.: lots of ways to make a comfortable living as an artist
meanwhile, all recorded music is nothing but free advertising for the band itself. not that my hippie maoist communist socialist thinking is that revolutionary. its the same business model you know as "radio airplay". truly i am a wacky obamacare secret communist muslim. and other such moronic epithets WITHOUT FUCKING UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM ACTUALLY SAYING. pffffft
welcome to the life of sculptors and dancers. are they any less artists because they don't have jay z's money? you make music because you love it, not because you want $, right?
well even if that's not true, what i am describing is the model we are moving to. you ask me to find another way. my "other way" requires no finding, requires no enforcement, its just evolving naturally. it just happens. so it is beholden to you to find another way, as my way is the way IT IS BECOMING EFFORTLESSLY. deal with it
but i know for a certainty it won't involve you, or anyone who thinks in such mindlessly negative terms like you do
you've accepted the status quo. no wonder you speak of stasis and stagnation. its all you seem to know. this makes you part of the problem. you care enough to speak of accepting the unacceptable, but you don't care of enough to actually fight for anything better
you are what is wrong with this world as much as anyone else, perhaps what is wrong with the world the most. at least the fools who profess to enjoying the status quo are deluded. meanwhile, you see the truth, AND YOU ACCEPT IT. fucking pathetic
is less about rewarding creators and more about corporate control of OUR culture
at this point, i am leaning towards "fuck you" to creators, as long as our legal system has an inability to differentiate between corporate distribution channels and actual creators
creators: i'm sorry your grandchildren can't live off your one hit wonder. i'm sorry you won't be a billionaire for "inventing" shamwow. but you can still get a great job as a respected engineer and you can still get great money from touring. sorry, thems the breaks: get to work like the rest of us dumb shlubs
the original idea that guided the creation of the notion of intellectual property: rewarding creators, has been completely corrupted as a way to reward distributors. the legal goon squads make sure actual creators get less $, and consumers fork over more $. in a preinternet world, distributors were necessary, but this is a scenario the internet has destroyed. now distributors are just unnecessary parasites. its called disruptive technology for a reason. it has disrupted the technological grounds upon which the rewarding of distributors works. all that remains is pushing the stake into the vampire's heart
intellectual property has betrayed its philosophical underpinnings, and we, the people, who are supposed to be the ones in charge, now have a duty to do our best to ignore, and/ or detroy intellectual property, since the legal system, which is supposed to serve us, serves corporate masters beholden to nothing but more cash for less reason
intellectual property law is still effective across the land because of legal goon squads, but philosophically, it is defunct, and you should ignore it... at the peril of the legal goon squads, but not at the peril of your conscience. it is at the peril of your conscience that you continue to believe in intellectual property
Slashdot Mirror
is for both of us to harden our positions, and start screaming epithets at each other
for demonstrating a rare openmindedness and therefore a genuine attempt at honest exchange, i hereby declare that if those 1% of unreasonable men who result in progress exists, it exists in you
thank you for reinstating my faith in humanity, and well met
the sonny bono argument that copyrights must be extended to geological time is defeated by your observation over the logic of the patent system on drugs
out of the moral recognition that people's lives should not be held ransom to corporate cashflow, the patent on wonderdrugs is very brief, a few years. is the pharmaceutical industry then swimming in poverty? of course not, its quite profitable. meaning what? meaning very short copyrights are not the gateway to the destruction of wealth and the media industry
the reason why the same moral argument as that over drug patents is not held to the argument on copyrights is because the damage done is not plain and apparent. if you can't afford a drug, you die. pretty clear and straightforward. but with copyrights, the damage done is more vague: the loss of culture, the limiting of its richness, the impoverishment of our cultural lives
and so you're right: intellectual property is not a flawed concept, and i would support it if it were limited like drug patents. the problem being, the legalistic trip back to a less insane intellectual property reality is almost impossible, what with corporate interests and their legions of lawyers pulling in the opposite direction. such that, pessimistically, i believe only revolt on the part of the general populace will result in meaningful change (purposefully ignoring and outright destroying copyright laws via technological superiority)
copyright laws are acceptable when it is just corporations suing each other. which is the way it was in the day of the VHS, when the means of distribution was a small gentleman's club. but now every teenager has as much distribution reach on the internet as the major publishing houses. so when it is corporations suing citizens for obscene amounts of cash willy nilly, based on laws which should really apply only to corporations, then philosophical absurdity has been reached, and the laws obviously need a sea change
so ban cameras at burning man
but if you say the strategy of banning firearms is allegorical to the banning of digital rights... then i have to say sorry, but your analogy is not logically coherent
meanwhile, banning cameras at burning man would be a logically coherent analogy to banning firearms
and (so as not to be a hypocrite, which is what you seem to be suggesting i am) at the point you agree to this tweak on your analogy, i would heartily support you and agree cameras should be banned at burning man
in short:
cameras == guns == tools that can be abused
digital rights != guns != legalistic restrictions on expression
your analogy fails
as if i am advocating for some socialist hippie commune
that paying a programmer a salary is the same as giving an artist's grandchildren a cashflow. i say an artist should instead only get cash for you know, actually working a job: touring concerthalls. and that this is akin to working for a salary like a programmer or an accountant. but nah... let's completely screw up our analogies and play battle hymn of the republic and amp up the high holy moral outrage and act like a programmer working for a salary is the same as paying the grandchildren of the guy who wrote the "happy birthday" song. but thanks for bringing up examples that, in reality, actually support my understanding of the world;-)
all you have to do is describe the old defunct ways of doing things, call me a secret communist muslim, and **poof**, i disappear as a threat to your worldview
if only it were that easy
i'm not ADVOCATING for any alternative reality, i am DESCRIBING reality that is already here
thousands of corporate lawyers versus millions technologically astute, culturally hungry, and most importantly, POOR teenagers: place your bets
i don't have to react to a word of your venom, because i don't have to exert an iota of effort to see what i am talking about come into existence: IT ALREADY IS HERE. i see the writing on the wall, and i incorporate it into my worldview. meanwhile, your reaction against me really isn't a reaction against my particular attitude, but a reaction against reality
hate me and what i am saying all you want. its called shooting the messenger. you'll get just as much mileage out of hating the rising and setting of the sun or the rising and falling of the tides: it won't change a thing
or, rather, understand that things are changing, and deal with that
but right now, you're just living in denial ...something about 3 monkeys covering various orifices in the head...
"No. What happens is the musical artists (the fact you focus on this proves you don't understand art in general) will simply do small performances (restricting recording devices, by the way), because there would be absolutely no incentive to spend the time and money producing even the first permanent recording when some ass will burst it around the world the next day, eliminating profits."
right, because massive internet fame from free content doesn't exist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boots
"You also obviously fail to recognize that the stage fame and panties! are restricted to a minuscule percentage or musical artists. Yo Yo Ma probably doesn't generate that form of adoration. It's quite fifteenish in nature."
oh, you mean in the 1980s every single act that existed had fame and fortune? that in the world i am describing no one will ever become famous? you are representing a logical fallacy: that fame in the age of cassettes and vinyl will be any different than in the age of free music, aka radio play over the internet, or was any different in the age of mozart or lord byron. so that's your argument?: the quality and nature of fame is going to undergo some sort of unquantifiable vague change... therefore, we should continue supporting bertelsmann with reams of cash. pfffffffft
"Another by the way, blooded fights between technologies work well for the higher technology. This is a level playing field, with both sides having all technology available."
BWAHAHAHAHA. are you trying to say that the technological playing field isn't level? what do i need to record today? A LAPTOP, moron, with FREELY AVAILABLE SOFTWARE. with that, i have more technological acumen than the age of the wall of sound in the 1960s and the massive amounts of cash needed to make that work
the lesson is: technological advancement leads to cheaper means of production. hell, your average teenager with a cheap HD camera and some cheap editing software has more power today than all of the filming and editing power of all of the movie houses in the 1950s!
but thanks for bringing up an argument that only supports the reality i am describing... not advocating for, but describing, the world i am describing is the future, regardless of anything i say or do, or anything you say or do. i'm just telling you facts of life, you're the one playing rearguard for a defunct era
good luck with that
and his grey album (jay zs black album plus beatles white album)
what he did was totally illegal. of course, he worked things out to serve the current legal status quo after he got fame for his work, but imagine a world where such legal concerns were zero, and anyone could mix a grey album. any mashup of any audio content was free and clear. the result?: more, better culture for us
the counter argument is that jay z and the beatles aren't served. but even if they weren't paid one cent by danger mouse, their fame grows because of his remix. which serves them. fame leads to ancillary sources of revenue. now imagine a world where all of these free remixes wind up serving you in fame, rather than in legalistic flows of coinage: if your output is remixed a lot, your fame is huge, you get lots of people at your concerts, you get to plug merchandise on tv, etc
this is the future of the intersection of art and commerce
in the ozarks, it leans one way, in oakland, it leans the other way
all freedoms exist in tension with other freedoms, i'm glad you understand that
currently, the legal status quo favors the ozarks, at the detriment of the deaths of hundreds of urbanites. the legal status quo will inevitably give way as demographics continue to evolve more and more urban, like it is already in europe, where the legal reality is severely limited firearms because of the demographic reality there
in the future, there will be dozens of deaths of rural people because of firearms restrictions. maybe there will be away to make firearms legal rural, illegal urban in the future, and some effective way to actually enforce that, so deaths in both places are at a minimum. but if given the choice between dozens of rural deaths (in the future), versus hundreds of urban deaths (the reality now because of american gun laws), i choose in favor of laws that serve urbanites, out of the desire to limit needless deaths the most
if technological change is fair. they are sitting around, enjoying their priveledged status, and along come a few hundred assholes in these things called saling ships with horses and iron armor and something called a firearm
and centuries old social and legal structures of millions of the people crumble practically overnight
"Second, it must be proven safely, i.e. that we can't subvert the current system (except, of course, in legitimate competition) while we prove it"
the point is, there is no way to bloodlessly transition from the old technological reality to the new technological reality. there is no way to honor the old copyright system in a new system of free-music-as-only-advertising that resembles radio airplay
so what happens? those who are invested in the old system suffer. you speak as such a person. i'm sorry that technological change has made you suffer. go commiserate with the aztec and incan nobles
but not in a million years should technological progress be halted just because it hurts those invested in an old defunct system. its a couple thousand corporate lawyers versus millions of technologically astute culturally hungry teenagers who are, most importantly, POOR
place your bets
makes sense in rural areas. it doesn't make sense in urban areas. that's "spooking the horses": if you walk around the ozarks with a gun, you're just providing yourself security. but if you walk around oakland with a gun, you're a gangster
so your logical fallacy is applying the general idea of herd behavior and pointless hysteria towards opposition to carry and conceal weapons. that is, you should consider that there might actually be a solid, logical, levelheaded reason to oppose carry and conceal, not just airheaded emotionality
the truth of gun laws in this country is that currently, HUNDREDS of urban folk die needlessly every year for the sake of a law that only makes sense in the ozarks. but demographics are changing. in the better future, DOZENS of rural folk will die needlessly every year for the sake of being denied protection in the ozarks
there is no compromise between a rural approach towards guns and urban approach towards gun. there is only demographic reality and rule by majority. and demographics tick inevitably towards further urbanization, so enjoy your gun while you still can (legally). urban folks right now suffer and die for the sake of laws which only serve rural folk, only serve historical american reality. as demographics change, a seachange will eventually be tipped, and the legal approach to guns will inevitably reverse
in the better future, rural folks will actually suffer and die for the sake of urban folk. why is this better? because there are a lot more urban folk dying right now today than there are rural folk who could ever die were firearms banned
the ideal of course, is firearms legal in the ozarks, illegal in oakland. its just almost impossible to enforce that, unfortunately
is that someone got paid $5.85 million by the chinese govt for copying and pasting cybersitter's source code:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1422235/Chinas-Green-Dam-No-Longer-Compulsory-May-Have-Lifted-Code
i am looking at the UN building on 43rd st and 1st avenue in nyc
who am i? what am doing?
it doesn't matter
i could be, indeed, a fat 30 year old in his mother's basement, eating cheetos and wiping orange dust on his white t shirt. does that make my words more or less true?
again, it doesn't matter who i am, it matters what i say. or at least, that's the way it should be: judge the words, not the speaker
but no, what matters to you is that i have to be joan of arc before you accept any of my criticism
this speaks volumes about your psychology, and why you are such a loser: if someone else has the slightest imperfection, they have no right to criticize you (which allows you to reject all criticism, because you can find some imperfection somewhere in anyone who would criticize you). you don't actually believe you are perfect, you just believe no one has the right to criticize you... which has the same effect as believing you are perfect: you never feel a reason to change
its your life, but if i were you, i would indulge in some self-criticism at some point. of course, since i'm not che guevara, you can totally reject that comment ;-P
buh bye loser
i will guess its something like a primitive, pagan shout against things like corporate command and control, organized religious command and control, etc.
so you set up this corporate fine print about photographs for the festival. ok fine. and then later you indeed capture that 43 yo sleazeball in san fran posting pics of women's tits on his blog. yeah, good for you
you've just sold your soul
now burning man isn't a shout against the vile realities of modern life, but just another corporate command and control structure, just another mundane part of what it is supposed to stand in contrast to. no different than mcdonalds and its legal legions out to protect the brand name, or british petroleum tweaking its corporate image with shiny ad campaigns shamelessly apeing the very ecoconscious carefree vibe of something like burning man. a lie. an external image out of vibe with a corrupt internal reality. burning man: we stand for freedom and individuality(*)
*: please note our corporate command and control fine print
so here's another route for you to consider: sleazebags exist, and will parasitize burning man. your choice:
1. accept this unfortunate reality in your wisdom
2. sell your soul and become just another command and control structure, thereby negating the entire purpose of burning man in the first place
its up to you, you choose
i said multiple times its 100% ok for you to do nothing
but if you say words to the effect that its ok to do nothing, i will criticize you for that, because such words are hypocritical and wrong
if you don't like that, then say nothing as well as do nothing
but if you continue speaking the thesis that doing nothing is ok, i will criticize you for being a hypocrite
and just like fighting for something puts you in jeopardy of physical harm, speaking for something puts you jeopardy of criticism
deal with it. you are not above criticism, and your words are fucking pathetic
don't like criticism? then shut up. but if you do speak, and i am saying to you directly it is 100% ok for you to speak, then you may find out some people don't agree with you. get used to it
that's not my orders. that's the orders of life in a free society: when you say something, you may get criticized. i am asking you to accept that. you don't seem to want to accept criticism. i suppose then that you are advocating for something other than a free society? (snicker)
then make burning man invitation only, and put security at the gates
but you can't have an open festival and expect that pictures won't end up on wanker sites. you must live in some parallel universe where digital rights are somehow magically 100% enforceable, nevermind even magically 10% enforceable
are you going to pony up the $1 trillion to hire the workforce to airtight police the entire free internet for years and then to fund the legion of legal goons to enforce your policies and then the political contributions to influence the diplomatic corps to put pressure on the servers located on moldova, etc., etc., etc?
you make peace with reality, because here's the reality: if you parade nude at an open festival, your pictures will show up on wanker sites. don't like that? then don't get nude. or make the festival closed invitation only. but you are a fool of you believe this digital rights nonsense is enforceable or feasible or provides you any protection otherwise from wanker sites
i'm just describing the reality of your situation. you deal with it, you make peace with wanker site sleazebags at burning man. but putting all burning man images under corporate ownership not only doesn't provide you any fucking protection, it completely negates the spirit of the festival you are trying to protect in the first place. you wish to be free... by limiting the freedom of everyone else (and it doesn't even work!). i see you've learned a lot from the spirit of the festival: "i wish to dance around nude, free and open to the world... but i wish to control the freedoms of anyone who's eyes and cameras might see me" (rolls eyes)
its a great song, loved by many
on what moral basis does that mean my grandchildren should be paid for that?
a real artist gets paid in fame. fame can be capitalized on in many forms, many ancillary flows of cash. but trying to enforce a distribution system the internet has made defunct by suing college students and grandmothers isn't sustainable. its just legal goons trying to rule by fear, rather than understanding how things work. no, legal goons are trying to enforce how things USED TO work
you give your songs out for free. this radical concept is similar to the radical communist method you know as "radio airplay". then you make money touring, live concerts. exactly what is so weird about that? please, tell me
or rather, exactly what is wrong with you that you can't see this is the way we are evolving towards, regardless of what i believe, regardless of what you believe?
the distribution model of the age of cassette tapes and vinyl is not written in the bible. things change. i need not advocate for my point of view. my point of view is called the reality we are evolving towards regardless. so you need to accept what i am saying, not because i say so, but because that is what is happening, already
deal with it. or don't, and grumble about freeloading kids. as if that's the whole point of what i am saying!
you're out of touch with reality
if i ever fucking finish it
people should be allowed to use images of mickey mouse in anticorporate art. likewise, christian groups should be allowed to edit "apocalypse now" if they want a tamer version. or completely mix up a new version of the movie to push a cause completely anathema to the artist who created it. why? because the original is still around, it just creates controversy which drives interest in the original anyways, it ebenfits the artist: more attention, more esteem. see: streisand effect
if someone was raised watching a piece of film that was hacked to promote a sociopolitical cause, and later they find the original, this is an amazing opportunity at self-discovery and personal growth: you've been propagandized, you can now discover the truth. only in an environemtn of completel freedom is this possible. you can't control anyone or anything and expect the opposite results
what i say is: let it all out, let anyone do anything they fucking want with any image or sound out there, completely beyond the control of anyone, including if a creator's work is warped to depict something they despise. perfectly ok by me. imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. your ideological enemies using your work in a mutated form in eventuality only serves to honor you: what you said is powerful. this only adds to your fame down the line and eventually your bottom line. in such an environment, only the truly creative can flourish. command and control, by anyone, meanwhile, destroys originality and culture
let it all out, we all benefit from a richer culture
if you run around nude in front of bunch of people with cameras, some of those pictures might wind up in places you'd rather they not. don't like that? then don't get nude. otherwise, accept it may happen. but trying to control digital rights is not going to solve the problem, got it?
because its really odd to speak of the freedom and individuality of a burning man festival... but when you get nude, all images of your body are now under corporate control. wtf?
i am not a "you first" revolutionary, you are, that's the entire point of your previous comment
why am i not the same? because i'm not asking you to do anything. in fact, do nothing, go on with your bad self. that's 100% fine by me
but don't happily speak words of acceptance of the unacceptable. if you open your mouth and speak, you may find someone criticizes your words. just like you tell me that if you put your body in harm's way for a cause, you may get killed or hurt or incarcerated, so why make that sacrifice?
i agree 100% with your position: why should you fight, why should you sacrifice considering the jeopardy? but, guess what: speaking words carries jeopardy too. and now you know the jeopardy for speaking: someone will call you fucking pathetic, like i have, if you say something fucking pathetic, which you did. if that's too much jeopardy for you, if you can't handle criticism, then shut up
or continue speaking, please, by all means. but say something morally coherent. because if you continue speaking the words you are now speaking, i will continue to call you fucking pathetic, because your words are FUCKING PATHETIC AND SPINELESS
if you are going to do nothing, DO NOTHING. but say nothing as well, or i will call you out for your hypocrisy
got it?
wikipedia is still the best model for what it does
criticism is always welcome, but criticism without a better model in mind is empty, nevermind if it vouches for dead models of doing something like an encyclopedia
you see a lot of voices that criticize wikipedia because it supplies an open forum for discussing certain topics that certain groups would like a monopoly on, that goes against their party line or a propagandistic agenda. this is of course further ammunition for their criticism, but criticism that doesn't have fair play or freedom of speech in mind, but in fact, the opposite
its the cathderal versus the bazaar, and the bazaar has been found to have price fixing and collusion between vendors and a powerful union at work, possibly corrupt. and yet the bazaar is still superior to the cathedral and the problems inherent in that model
and if wikipedia worsens, and begins to evolve towards the cathedral model as it ages, a new wikipedia-like replacement will emerge. such is life and death. creative destruction. its all good
so confiscate cameras. duh. end of problem
don't pull this digital rights nonsense. your scenario is real, but a complete red herring to the issue at hand here
the punishment we are discussing here is the wrong punishment for the crime in question
ok: creators get fame and esteem and girl's panties tossed on stage. this is how they make cash from now on: touring. other ancillary services like advertising, personally signed media, etc.: lots of ways to make a comfortable living as an artist
meanwhile, all recorded music is nothing but free advertising for the band itself. not that my hippie maoist communist socialist thinking is that revolutionary. its the same business model you know as "radio airplay". truly i am a wacky obamacare secret communist muslim. and other such moronic epithets WITHOUT FUCKING UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM ACTUALLY SAYING. pffffft
welcome to the life of sculptors and dancers. are they any less artists because they don't have jay z's money? you make music because you love it, not because you want $, right?
well even if that's not true, what i am describing is the model we are moving to. you ask me to find another way. my "other way" requires no finding, requires no enforcement, its just evolving naturally. it just happens. so it is beholden to you to find another way, as my way is the way IT IS BECOMING EFFORTLESSLY. deal with it
i thought columbia house went the way of my simple minds cassette tape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_House
little did i know its still alive and kicking
http://www.columbiahouse.com/
well, i guess some people like getting their mail by pack mule rather than truck too
i can't criticize your indolence until i send by certified mail my certificate of excellence from che guevara
god forbid i'm actually right about your rotten attitude
but you can only accept criticism from gandhi or mother teresa
which tells us volumes about how you came to have such a fucking pathetic attitude in the first place, doesn't it?
but i know for a certainty it won't involve you, or anyone who thinks in such mindlessly negative terms like you do
you've accepted the status quo. no wonder you speak of stasis and stagnation. its all you seem to know. this makes you part of the problem. you care enough to speak of accepting the unacceptable, but you don't care of enough to actually fight for anything better
you are what is wrong with this world as much as anyone else, perhaps what is wrong with the world the most. at least the fools who profess to enjoying the status quo are deluded. meanwhile, you see the truth, AND YOU ACCEPT IT. fucking pathetic
is less about rewarding creators and more about corporate control of OUR culture
at this point, i am leaning towards "fuck you" to creators, as long as our legal system has an inability to differentiate between corporate distribution channels and actual creators
creators: i'm sorry your grandchildren can't live off your one hit wonder. i'm sorry you won't be a billionaire for "inventing" shamwow. but you can still get a great job as a respected engineer and you can still get great money from touring. sorry, thems the breaks: get to work like the rest of us dumb shlubs
the original idea that guided the creation of the notion of intellectual property: rewarding creators, has been completely corrupted as a way to reward distributors. the legal goon squads make sure actual creators get less $, and consumers fork over more $. in a preinternet world, distributors were necessary, but this is a scenario the internet has destroyed. now distributors are just unnecessary parasites. its called disruptive technology for a reason. it has disrupted the technological grounds upon which the rewarding of distributors works. all that remains is pushing the stake into the vampire's heart
intellectual property has betrayed its philosophical underpinnings, and we, the people, who are supposed to be the ones in charge, now have a duty to do our best to ignore, and/ or detroy intellectual property, since the legal system, which is supposed to serve us, serves corporate masters beholden to nothing but more cash for less reason
intellectual property law is still effective across the land because of legal goon squads, but philosophically, it is defunct, and you should ignore it... at the peril of the legal goon squads, but not at the peril of your conscience. it is at the peril of your conscience that you continue to believe in intellectual property