Hm. Maybe I am in the wrong, but it is starting to appear to me that some newsposts on Slashdot needs to be reviewed more carefully. Then again having crap served to us now and again is perhaps good for keeping us critical.
<obligatory>You must be new here.</obligatory>
It has always been the case that everything on Slashdot needs to be reviewed and edited. In theory, there are editors to do that. In reality, well, there are people who are called "editors", but we're not quite sure what they do, exactly.
'Cons: Doesn't come in Ultimate and Premier editions'
Ha ha.
Not only that, he paid $150 to have Geek Squad install it, and he did all this after paying to upgrade to Vista Ultimate, and he did this because he didn't want to spend tons of money on Microsoft Office when Ubuntu comes with its own free office suite, apparently oblivious to the fact that the same free office suite is also available for Windows, which he already paid for.
Why not? If you consider "not killing someone" to be a service, then the use of threats to obtain that service can definately be seen as extortion. Extortion is not as bad as muder though, so we choose the lesser of two evils.
Um, okay, fine. Every action that has a consequence is extortion, then. The corner store uses extortion ("if you don't pay us money, we will deny you this product"). Hell, even gravity uses extortion. Whatever. I'm sorry, but it's a stupid argument.
The only difference between what the mafia does and what the RIAA does is that the latter is legal.
That's not the only difference. Extortion involves coercion. There's no coercion here, anymore than there's coercion when I go to the corner store. If I want the product, I pay for it. If I choose to take the product without paying, I've committed a crime and am subject to the consequences (prosecution). This is the same for the PROs. If you want the service (performing the song), you pay for it. If you choose to take the service without paying, you've committed a crime and are subject to the consequences (since this is civil law, not criminal, the consequence is a lawsuit, rather than prosecution). It's not extortion.
And since there is no such one to one correspondence, we can agree that there is no copyright infringement;-)
Not quite, as there doesn't really have to be a perfect one to one correspondence at all. I mean, if I make a copy of a book, but change a handful of words here and there, it's still copyright infringement.
Exactly! And that is why I cannot play a song from Deep Purples album on a phonograph, etc., lip sink to it, and call it my own without infringing, but I can play the song myself all day, even for money in a venue, without infringing. My rendition is a derivative work which differs substantially from the original (albeit, because I suck at the guitar)...
Your paragraph started with "Exactly", but then proceeded to contradict the sentence you were responding to. That sentence explained why you can't "play the song myself all day, even for money in a venue, without infringing." It's not a derivative work if you simply play a song poorly.
My last band put a cover on our first album. The original song was played with an acoustic guitar and vocals. Our version was played with two electric guitars, drums, bass, and vocals. It's clearly substantially different, but still required a mechanical license from the publisher of the original song in order to put it on the album, because it's still a cover of that song.
The thing that is covered by copyright is a thing that is intangible. It is more of a concept, a vague idea, than an actual thing that can be clearly defined. You're attempting to get around copyright law by pointing out things that aren't perfect reproductions of something tangible.
You have to understand that copyright is not just a single, simple right. It is a collection of rights that has many facets. You keep bringing up sampling, but that's covered by a completely different part of copyright (specifically, mechanical rights) than the part that covers live performance (performing rights), or tablature (I think that falls under communication rights).
In the case you cited the words would match letter for letter. There would be few if any extra or missing letters. However, in the music scenario, when you compared the analog outputs using signal analyzers, there would be no one to one correspondence.
There wouldn't need to be a one to one correspondence on the recording, just on the sheet music. Copyright doesn't just apply to a specific recording of a song, but to the music itself. If it only applied to a recording, then there would be no issue with copyright and tablature. The reason there is an issue at all is because copyright covers the actual music, not just the recording of that music.
Also, perhaps you are unaware of sampling, and the courts ruling with regard to the legality of including them in songs?
No, I'm not unaware of that at all, but thanks for bringing it up. Sampling generally involves using only a portion of the song, and creating a new derivative work. That has nothing to do with tablature.
I mean "expire" in the sense that it ceases to exist in any tangible form. The tray liners at Burger King enjoy the same duration of copyright as any other copyrighted work, yet the medium in which they are fixed is not durable for that duration and extremely unlikely to have special action undertaken to preserve them.
The tray liner at Burger King is not subject to copyright law. If there is artwork or text on the tray liner, that can be protected by copyright. Destroying the tray liner does not destroy the thing that is being copyrighted, it merely destroys the medium on which a particular copy is stored (copyright is, in its simplest definition, all about the right to make copies). You have destroyed the medium containing a copy of the work that copyright protects, not the work itself. The work continues to exist.
Works protected by copyright are intangible. That's why copyright exists. If they were tangible, normal property laws would protect them. In order for a work to become protected by copyright, it has to be "fixed" in a tangible form. However, that does not make that tangible form the thing that is covered by copyright. Essentially, all it does is provide a reference to define what "the work" is that is being protected by copyright.
So, what if you destroyed every single copy that ever existed? The work may still exist. It is intangible. It is, essentially, an idea. As long as it can be recreated in some way (ex. every single copy of a poem is destroyed, but the poet has it memorized and simply writes it out again), it still exists. There would no longer be a definitive reference point by which to define it (which might create legal hassles, I'm not sure), but it still exists.
Protection money is not extortion. You don't have to pay it. If you choose to disobey the mafia, then you may face consequences. If you want to avoid the consequences, don't disobey the mafia.
Murder laws are not extortion. You don't have to obey them. If you choose to disobey the law, then you may face consequences. If you want to avoid the consequences, don't disobey the law.
Pain experienced as a result of putting your hand in a fireplace is not extortion. You don't have to avoid putting your hand in a fireplace. If you choose to put your hand in a fireplace, then you may face the consequences. If you want to avoid the consequences, don't put your hand in a fireplace.
Not everything with consequences is "extortion". The mafia forces you to pay up, or face consequences imposed by the mafia purely as a result of your decision to not pay up. Your only choices are pay, or suffer the consequences. However, in the case of PROs, you have the option to pay up if you want to legally perform the song. Your choices are to pay up in order to legally perform the song, or break the law and face the legal consequences, or don't perform the song at all (note the extra choice that doesn't exist in the mafia scenario). If you've made the choice to perform the song, and you've made the choice to do so illegally, the fact that there are consequences to choosing an illegal act doesn't turn this situation into extortion.
Excellent link! Guitar Tablature is the quintessential example of a clean room implementation.
That's debatable. An analogy to writing tablature would be listening to an audio CD of a book, and writing it down, word for word. The end result is a perfect copy of the original book, but it could be argued that it's a clean room implementation.
I can tell right now how well that argument would do in a courtroom.
Of course, the counter argument is that tablature isn't necessarily a perfect transcription of the song (ex. I might write down an open A chord using the 5th, 4th, and 3rd strings, whereas the guitarist on the album actually played a barre chord on the 5th fret using the 6th, 5th, and 4th strings). But that's a pretty blatant attempt at finding a loophole. A judge will see through that.
Oh, really? Point out the part of the fair use doctrine that allows performance of someone else's songs wherever and whenever you please. Here's the actual law (I'll assume you're in the U.S.).
I sometimes play various songs at my family and friends homes, yet nobody pays "royalties".
That is not a public performance. You can do that all you want without paying royalties, as no copyright holder (not even the RIAA) would ever come after you for that.
People play songs at train stations, etc. with legal permits, yet they are not required to pay royalties.
Actually, they are technically required to pay royalties if they're performing covers. The RIAA hasn't started going after them yet, so don't give them any ideas. Of course, the busking permit could be modified to include a payment to the appropriate PRO (maybe that's already in place. I don't know).
There is no such thing as a company universally authorized to collect money in exchange for the right to play everyones songs.
It would be impossible for an individual copyright holder to chase down every individual who performs the copyright holder's songs without licensing them. So, organizations were created to pool the efforts on behalf of the copyright holders. Bars, clubs, radio stations, etc voluntarily pay these fees to these organizations, known as PROs (Performing Rights Organizations), in order to avoid civil litigation. It is not a legal requirement that fees be paid to this organization, but it is a legal requirement that any fees demanded by the copyright holder be paid to them. The PRO is simply a convenience for the performers/broadcasters and the copyright holders.
While it is the conventional wisdom to buy into the extortion, it is a house of cards
It is not extortion. You don't have to pay it. If you choose to break the law (ie. perform a song that you don't have the legal right to perform), then you may face consequences. That's reality. If you want to avoid the consequences, don't break the law (ie. either pay the appropriate licensing fee, or just don't perform the song).
So if they don't have mechanical rights, they can't record it.
I should have been more clear. They can record it, they just can't legally sell it. If they do, they'd be doing so in violation of copyright and could be sued. The recording would still physically exist, as well as all rights to it.
So the performance of that cover is not fixed by them in a tangible medium, and copyright over that particular performance won't exist.
Are you talking about performance now, rather than recording? Because that's a different situation. Recording involves mechanical rights. Performance involves performing rights. Failing to pay for mechanical rights has no bearing on performing rights.
The copyright of the performance may belong to me, but then I could be sued for not having the mechanical rights to make the recording?
I'm not sure how to approach this, as your scenario confuses mechanical and performing rights. Assuming you are making a recording, with permission, of someone else's live performance of a cover song, regardless of their right to perform it, then I believe you will need to get a mechanical license if you want to sell it.
By the way, it's dead simple and cheap to get a mechanical license.
Sounds like these licensed mechanical rights mandate a public domain that no one can exploit and the extinguishing of works forced to be ephemeral, which sounds to me to be against the spirit of copyright (see signature).
-- A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Again, you're confusing mechanical and performing rights. Copyright is not a single right, it is a collection of many rights, not all of which apply to a specific work. A work does not "expire" before its copyright. Copyright covers the song, not the specific live performance of that song. That performance is not fixed, and therefore not protected by copyright. The song still exists even after the band has finished playing it. If someone records it, then it has been fixed, and that recording is covered by copyright (not the live performance, which has now "expired"). The recording still exists, and it is protected.
...since 99% of the live band music played on any given day is what we musicians call a cover song.
And that's why the club in which the band is playing pays licensing fees to a Performing Rights Organization, and those fees transform into royalties for the holders of the copyrights on the songs played, assuming the band reports their set list to the PRO, which they should, as they will also get paid royalties for playing their own songs.
By the way, if a band is recording a cover song, they first have to pay to get a license for the mechanical rights to the song.
Nevertheless, copyright on tablature is an interesting problem. There's no doubt that music is protected by copyright the moment it is recorded. Transferring that music to a different medium (ex. CD to tape) is an infringement of copyright. But what about transferring it to a completely different medium (ex. CD to paper in the form of tablature)? Does that really constitute a copyright violation?
Well, actually, thanks to the reality of publishing rights, it does constitute a copyright violation. Basically, the law attempts to make it possible for musicians to make money selling their music in other forms, such as releasing books of tablature.
Personally, if a website posted tablature of my songs, I wouldn't be at all concerned. Same goes for lyrics. But, then again, I also wouldn't be too concerned over MP3s of the actual songs being distributed. So I guess I'm a little more easy-going on the copyright issue than a lot of other musicians are. My preference is to put all songs, lyrics, and tablature on the band's website so no one needs to go looking for it anywhere else.
No, it was more a matter of arrogance combined with tribe mentality.
You see, all these Slashdot posters who only know a handful of facts as told on various websites concluded that there was reasonable doubt. However, the jury, who actually sat through half a year of testimony and evidence, concluded that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But, of course, we nerds all assume that we, individually, armed with a couple factoids from some random journalist, know much more than any group of jurors who were actually there for the entire trial.
Although I agree with your overall point that Tasers are seriously overused, your initial premise is incorrect.
Tasers were never intended to be used as a replacement for a gun. They are an additional non-lethal weapon to use alongside the baton and pepper spray.
Unfortunately, politicians and even the police themselves use the "Tasers replace guns" myth to win people over to the idea. After all, who wouldn't prefer to see a Taser used instead of a gun?
But that's not what happens. When the situation calls for a gun to be used, then the officer will use their gun. Period. They will never consider using the Taser instead, and they were never expected to. This is why the number of incidents involving police using their guns has not decreased since Tasers were introduced. Nor was it expected to.
The problem is that Tasers seem really harmless. You press a button, and the guy falls to the floor. Shortly thereafter, he gets up and he's apparently fine. So, hey, why not use it even in cases where the use of a baton or pepper spray would cause mass outrage?
If Viacom wants my personal information, bitch gotta pay.
There's a problem, though -- it's not your information. It's YouTube's log of your activities in a public space (the Internet). It doesn't belong to you.
Analogy time: if I sit outside a store and record the date and time that each customer walks into and out of the store, that's my information. It may be about you, if you're one if the customers, but it's still my information.
Well, I still see some non-trivial technical hurdles -- you glossed quickly over the "you post your source and platform" part, which makes me wonder if the automated system is expected to have every conceivable version of every conceivable compiler/automated build utility/whatever (and what if my build tool is homegrown?) in every conceivable configuration, or if the developer is expected to provide those tools along with the source (if I'm a.NET developer, do I have to install Visual Studio on their computer?).
Nevertheless, I will admit that it actually doesn't sound like an entirely terrible idea.
Okay, that makes more sense. As long as it doesn't cost anything to submit source code to the central authority, then I'm not too concerned about the idea.
However, it seems to me that it would be pretty simple to get past this kind of a system. I mean, how hard would it be to submit benign source code to the repository, but then release a binary that has a trojan in it. How would anyone know that the released binary was actually built from the source code in the repository? You would have to arrange it so that the source code gets submitted to the repository, then the keepers of that repository build the application and return the binary to the developer, who then releases it. But then you're introducing government bureaucracy into companies' release cycles. There's so much software being developed on any given day that the repository would quickly become bogged down.
I agree that most EULAs are crap. But I still think the current system is much better. If you don't trust the provider of the software, or if you don't like EULAs, you have the option to choose open source alternatives. If you do trust the software provider, or you're okay with the EULA, you have the option to choose closed source. And, as a developer, I have the option to keep my source closed, charge a million dollars, and write a crafty EULA that forces you to give me your first born child, or to open my source, give everything away for free, and have no license agreement of any kind. Or somewhere in between.
I like to kick puppies and throw water balloons at cats. Not really, but voicing an opinion in this particular thread is likely to get me the same sort of reputation. Heck with it, I'll do it any way.
I appreciate your opinion, and I promise not to fuel your reputation for animal cruelty. Unless you happen to kick my dog or throw water balloons at my cats, in which case prepare for a serious ass-kicking.
Unfortunately, you seem to contradict yourself (unless I'm missing something, which is possible at 11:30 at night).
First you say:
Releasing a binary without providing source to the central authority would be a crime...
But then you say:
Meanwhile, source code may be released or not as deemed desirable by the original author...
So, the source code may be released or not as deemed desirable by the original author, but really he better do it because it's a crime not to. On the one hand you make it sound like the author has a choice, but it's really a choice of whether or not to break the law.
I just really have a problem with this whole idea of legally forcing software developers to release source code. First of all, closed source binaries are just not so dangerous that we need laws against them.
Secondly, let's look at this from the user's perspective. Whatever happened to users of software taking a little responsibility for their own decisions? I mean, if I trust a particular software developer or software company enough to use their software without seeing the source code, that's my choice, and I don't want the government stepping in and arresting or fining them just because they didn't give me the source code. There are open source alternatives out there, but I made my own choice to use closed source instead.
I see it like this. I like to write software. I write it professionally, but at home I also write software for myself. Once in a while, I might write something that I think others might find useful, and therefore I might decide to distribute it for free (as in beer). Sometimes I might include the source code. Other times I might not, for various reasons. Maybe I wrote it really quickly and I'm ashamed of the sloppy code. Whatever. The point is, if you want to use my code, then go ahead and use it. If you don't trust it without seeing the source, fine, don't use it. Whatever. But there's no reason I should be facing criminal charges for the binaries I post that don't include source code. That's just plain ridiculous.
You are endangering the public welfare because you are distributing something without any assurances that it is what you claim it is.
But that only truly matters in any real sense if there's potential harm to those who use it.
You don't like the ramifications. That's fine.
Actually, I don't give a shit about the ramifications. This is all hypothetical, anyway. And I'm not the "retard" (as you so eloquently put it) who refuses to address the difference between a product that has safety concerns, such as toys, food, or medicine, and a product that does not, such as a Tetris clone, despite your own use of the phrase "endangering public welfare" with respect to that Tetris clone.
All I can say is that I'd much rather live in a world with copyright and the GPL, as well as other licenses to choose from (choice is a wonderful thing), than a world without copyright that has your proposed mandatory source code forfeiture, where I could go to jail for putting a link on a website to a binary without source, all because you think that people are somehow in danger if they don't get to see the source code.
Now, if you're going to pay for software you're going to pay more for source code than binaries, because the source is more valuable.
If that were true, why would anybody use Oracle's RDBMS? It costs more than MySQL, and it's only a binary, whereas MySQL comes with the source.
The reason companies do, in fact, use Oracle in the real world, is because the real value is not the source code, the real value is the service and support. Companies are happy to purchase a binary that comes with all the support that Oracle provides.
I suspect that you're thinking about this primarily from the perspective of individual users, and more specifically, individual users who also happen to be developers. It's very different in the corporate world. Very few companies have any interest in the source code. They don't want to modify it. They want the vendor to do all the work. They want the vendor to be accountable if something goes wrong.
Why should the simple act of a binary being published render the source code forfeit?
I don't know, but that's what the GPL enforces. The theory is that it enforces freedom for the users. More freedom, in fact, than they would have if there was no copyright at all. Which is why, if you believe in the GPL, it would not be unnecessary in a world without copyright, since it does provide additional freedom.
No matter the imagined motivations for selling binaries, you also need customers who'd consider them superior value for money over source code.
But that's kind of the point. Those customers exist today. Oracle obviously provides something of value for so many businesses to choose their expensive closed source software over free open source alternatives. Therefore, even if there were no copyright and no GPL, and even if there had never been these things, Oracle would still have every reason to keep their source code hidden, and customers would still happily buy their products and services, despite the existence of free alternatives.
Keep in mind that Oracle could open source their products. The existence of copyright law isn't forcing them to withhold the source. They've made that choice. I see no reason why they wouldn't make the same choice if there was no copyright law.
You are attempting to pretend that the rules governing individual behavior and the rules governing participation in business are the same.
No, you are the one pretending that is the case. I am not Sony. In my hypothetical example, I am just some guy who wrote a Tetris clone and distributed it on my personal website without including the source code.
You are not and should not be prevented from creating your own software for personal use, but you should be prevented from distributing it without disclosing the method in which it operates, for the same reason as with toys and food and medicine.
Toys, food, and medicine all have safety risks, as you pointed out. People get hurt/die if toys, food, and medicine are not put through a rigorous process to ensure their quality. This is not true of my hypothetical Tetris clone. No one gets hurt if there's a bug in the code.
I'm still left asking my original question: how am I "endangering public welfare" by distributing a simple closed source Tetris clone?
In this hypothetical example, I may have chosen Oracle over the many competing products for any number of reasons. In the real world, companies do it all the time -- even choosing Oracle, which is closed source and costs a lot of money, over MySQL or PostgreSQL, which are open source and free as in beer. So, for whatever my business reasons are, I've chosen Oracle, and it's what I use.
Now, the day arrives where I decide that I need obscure feature X built into the system. Oracle offers to provide me with this for $10000, no source included.
You propose that I should purchase it from a competitor for less money, or even for more money if the source is included. But here's the problem: how exactly does a competitor build feature X into Oracle's RDBMS if they don't have the source for Oracle's RDBMS? That's why Oracle keeps the source.
You also ignored the support issue, which is another reason for them to withhold the source. They can provide better support than anyone else if they're the only ones with access to the source code.
How did Sony endanger the public welfare? All they were doing was selling CDs full of music. Oh, wait. They installed root kits into at least half a million computers.
Huh? The "endangering public welfare" in that situation comes from the fact that they actually did install root kits, not just because they could have installed root kits.
So, in the case of my Tetris clone, if there is no root kit, how have I "endangered public welfare"?
You're using the same logic that DRM proponents would use to ban Linux. "Let's ban any and all closed source software because people could use it to endanger public welfare" is the same as "Let's ban any and all hardware/software that doesn't have DRM because people could use it to break the law."
Slashdot Mirror
Hm. Maybe I am in the wrong, but it is starting to appear to me that some newsposts on Slashdot needs to be reviewed more carefully. Then again having crap served to us now and again is perhaps good for keeping us critical.
<obligatory>You must be new here.</obligatory>
It has always been the case that everything on Slashdot needs to be reviewed and edited. In theory, there are editors to do that. In reality, well, there are people who are called "editors", but we're not quite sure what they do, exactly.
'Cons: Doesn't come in Ultimate and Premier editions'
Ha ha.
Not only that, he paid $150 to have Geek Squad install it, and he did all this after paying to upgrade to Vista Ultimate, and he did this because he didn't want to spend tons of money on Microsoft Office when Ubuntu comes with its own free office suite, apparently oblivious to the fact that the same free office suite is also available for Windows, which he already paid for.
Brilliant.
Why not? If you consider "not killing someone" to be a service, then the use of threats to obtain that service can definately be seen as extortion. Extortion is not as bad as muder though, so we choose the lesser of two evils.
Um, okay, fine. Every action that has a consequence is extortion, then. The corner store uses extortion ("if you don't pay us money, we will deny you this product"). Hell, even gravity uses extortion. Whatever. I'm sorry, but it's a stupid argument.
The only difference between what the mafia does and what the RIAA does is that the latter is legal.
That's not the only difference. Extortion involves coercion. There's no coercion here, anymore than there's coercion when I go to the corner store. If I want the product, I pay for it. If I choose to take the product without paying, I've committed a crime and am subject to the consequences (prosecution). This is the same for the PROs. If you want the service (performing the song), you pay for it. If you choose to take the service without paying, you've committed a crime and are subject to the consequences (since this is civil law, not criminal, the consequence is a lawsuit, rather than prosecution). It's not extortion.
And since there is no such one to one correspondence, we can agree that there is no copyright infringement ;-)
Not quite, as there doesn't really have to be a perfect one to one correspondence at all. I mean, if I make a copy of a book, but change a handful of words here and there, it's still copyright infringement.
Exactly! And that is why I cannot play a song from Deep Purples album on a phonograph, etc., lip sink to it, and call it my own without infringing, but I can play the song myself all day, even for money in a venue, without infringing. My rendition is a derivative work which differs substantially from the original (albeit, because I suck at the guitar) ...
Your paragraph started with "Exactly", but then proceeded to contradict the sentence you were responding to. That sentence explained why you can't "play the song myself all day, even for money in a venue, without infringing." It's not a derivative work if you simply play a song poorly.
My last band put a cover on our first album. The original song was played with an acoustic guitar and vocals. Our version was played with two electric guitars, drums, bass, and vocals. It's clearly substantially different, but still required a mechanical license from the publisher of the original song in order to put it on the album, because it's still a cover of that song.
The thing that is covered by copyright is a thing that is intangible. It is more of a concept, a vague idea, than an actual thing that can be clearly defined. You're attempting to get around copyright law by pointing out things that aren't perfect reproductions of something tangible.
You have to understand that copyright is not just a single, simple right. It is a collection of rights that has many facets. You keep bringing up sampling, but that's covered by a completely different part of copyright (specifically, mechanical rights) than the part that covers live performance (performing rights), or tablature (I think that falls under communication rights).
In the case you cited the words would match letter for letter. There would be few if any extra or missing letters. However, in the music scenario, when you compared the analog outputs using signal analyzers, there would be no one to one correspondence.
There wouldn't need to be a one to one correspondence on the recording, just on the sheet music. Copyright doesn't just apply to a specific recording of a song, but to the music itself. If it only applied to a recording, then there would be no issue with copyright and tablature. The reason there is an issue at all is because copyright covers the actual music, not just the recording of that music.
Also, perhaps you are unaware of sampling, and the courts ruling with regard to the legality of including them in songs?
No, I'm not unaware of that at all, but thanks for bringing it up. Sampling generally involves using only a portion of the song, and creating a new derivative work. That has nothing to do with tablature.
I mean "expire" in the sense that it ceases to exist in any tangible form. The tray liners at Burger King enjoy the same duration of copyright as any other copyrighted work, yet the medium in which they are fixed is not durable for that duration and extremely unlikely to have special action undertaken to preserve them.
The tray liner at Burger King is not subject to copyright law. If there is artwork or text on the tray liner, that can be protected by copyright. Destroying the tray liner does not destroy the thing that is being copyrighted, it merely destroys the medium on which a particular copy is stored (copyright is, in its simplest definition, all about the right to make copies). You have destroyed the medium containing a copy of the work that copyright protects, not the work itself. The work continues to exist.
Works protected by copyright are intangible. That's why copyright exists. If they were tangible, normal property laws would protect them. In order for a work to become protected by copyright, it has to be "fixed" in a tangible form. However, that does not make that tangible form the thing that is covered by copyright. Essentially, all it does is provide a reference to define what "the work" is that is being protected by copyright.
So, what if you destroyed every single copy that ever existed? The work may still exist. It is intangible. It is, essentially, an idea. As long as it can be recreated in some way (ex. every single copy of a poem is destroyed, but the poet has it memorized and simply writes it out again), it still exists. There would no longer be a definitive reference point by which to define it (which might create legal hassles, I'm not sure), but it still exists.
Protection money is not extortion. You don't have to pay it. If you choose to disobey the mafia, then you may face consequences. If you want to avoid the consequences, don't disobey the mafia.
Murder laws are not extortion. You don't have to obey them. If you choose to disobey the law, then you may face consequences. If you want to avoid the consequences, don't disobey the law.
Pain experienced as a result of putting your hand in a fireplace is not extortion. You don't have to avoid putting your hand in a fireplace. If you choose to put your hand in a fireplace, then you may face the consequences. If you want to avoid the consequences, don't put your hand in a fireplace.
Not everything with consequences is "extortion". The mafia forces you to pay up, or face consequences imposed by the mafia purely as a result of your decision to not pay up. Your only choices are pay, or suffer the consequences. However, in the case of PROs, you have the option to pay up if you want to legally perform the song. Your choices are to pay up in order to legally perform the song, or break the law and face the legal consequences, or don't perform the song at all (note the extra choice that doesn't exist in the mafia scenario). If you've made the choice to perform the song, and you've made the choice to do so illegally, the fact that there are consequences to choosing an illegal act doesn't turn this situation into extortion.
Excellent link! Guitar Tablature is the quintessential example of a clean room implementation.
That's debatable. An analogy to writing tablature would be listening to an audio CD of a book, and writing it down, word for word. The end result is a perfect copy of the original book, but it could be argued that it's a clean room implementation.
I can tell right now how well that argument would do in a courtroom.
Of course, the counter argument is that tablature isn't necessarily a perfect transcription of the song (ex. I might write down an open A chord using the 5th, 4th, and 3rd strings, whereas the guitarist on the album actually played a barre chord on the 5th fret using the 6th, 5th, and 4th strings). But that's a pretty blatant attempt at finding a loophole. A judge will see through that.
Under fair use, no such payment is required.
Oh, really? Point out the part of the fair use doctrine that allows performance of someone else's songs wherever and whenever you please. Here's the actual law (I'll assume you're in the U.S.).
I sometimes play various songs at my family and friends homes, yet nobody pays "royalties".
That is not a public performance. You can do that all you want without paying royalties, as no copyright holder (not even the RIAA) would ever come after you for that.
People play songs at train stations, etc. with legal permits, yet they are not required to pay royalties.
Actually, they are technically required to pay royalties if they're performing covers. The RIAA hasn't started going after them yet, so don't give them any ideas. Of course, the busking permit could be modified to include a payment to the appropriate PRO (maybe that's already in place. I don't know).
There is no such thing as a company universally authorized to collect money in exchange for the right to play everyones songs.
It would be impossible for an individual copyright holder to chase down every individual who performs the copyright holder's songs without licensing them. So, organizations were created to pool the efforts on behalf of the copyright holders. Bars, clubs, radio stations, etc voluntarily pay these fees to these organizations, known as PROs (Performing Rights Organizations), in order to avoid civil litigation. It is not a legal requirement that fees be paid to this organization, but it is a legal requirement that any fees demanded by the copyright holder be paid to them. The PRO is simply a convenience for the performers/broadcasters and the copyright holders.
While it is the conventional wisdom to buy into the extortion, it is a house of cards
It is not extortion. You don't have to pay it. If you choose to break the law (ie. perform a song that you don't have the legal right to perform), then you may face consequences. That's reality. If you want to avoid the consequences, don't break the law (ie. either pay the appropriate licensing fee, or just don't perform the song).
So if they don't have mechanical rights, they can't record it.
I should have been more clear. They can record it, they just can't legally sell it. If they do, they'd be doing so in violation of copyright and could be sued. The recording would still physically exist, as well as all rights to it.
So the performance of that cover is not fixed by them in a tangible medium, and copyright over that particular performance won't exist.
Are you talking about performance now, rather than recording? Because that's a different situation. Recording involves mechanical rights. Performance involves performing rights. Failing to pay for mechanical rights has no bearing on performing rights.
The copyright of the performance may belong to me, but then I could be sued for not having the mechanical rights to make the recording?
I'm not sure how to approach this, as your scenario confuses mechanical and performing rights. Assuming you are making a recording, with permission, of someone else's live performance of a cover song, regardless of their right to perform it, then I believe you will need to get a mechanical license if you want to sell it.
By the way, it's dead simple and cheap to get a mechanical license.
Sounds like these licensed mechanical rights mandate a public domain that no one can exploit and the extinguishing of works forced to be ephemeral, which sounds to me to be against the spirit of copyright (see signature).
--
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Again, you're confusing mechanical and performing rights. Copyright is not a single right, it is a collection of many rights, not all of which apply to a specific work. A work does not "expire" before its copyright. Copyright covers the song, not the specific live performance of that song. That performance is not fixed, and therefore not protected by copyright. The song still exists even after the band has finished playing it. If someone records it, then it has been fixed, and that recording is covered by copyright (not the live performance, which has now "expired"). The recording still exists, and it is protected.
...since 99% of the live band music played on any given day is what we musicians call a cover song.
And that's why the club in which the band is playing pays licensing fees to a Performing Rights Organization, and those fees transform into royalties for the holders of the copyrights on the songs played, assuming the band reports their set list to the PRO, which they should, as they will also get paid royalties for playing their own songs.
By the way, if a band is recording a cover song, they first have to pay to get a license for the mechanical rights to the song.
Nevertheless, copyright on tablature is an interesting problem. There's no doubt that music is protected by copyright the moment it is recorded. Transferring that music to a different medium (ex. CD to tape) is an infringement of copyright. But what about transferring it to a completely different medium (ex. CD to paper in the form of tablature)? Does that really constitute a copyright violation?
Well, actually, thanks to the reality of publishing rights, it does constitute a copyright violation. Basically, the law attempts to make it possible for musicians to make money selling their music in other forms, such as releasing books of tablature.
Personally, if a website posted tablature of my songs, I wouldn't be at all concerned. Same goes for lyrics. But, then again, I also wouldn't be too concerned over MP3s of the actual songs being distributed. So I guess I'm a little more easy-going on the copyright issue than a lot of other musicians are. My preference is to put all songs, lyrics, and tablature on the band's website so no one needs to go looking for it anywhere else.
Wasn't it more a matter of reasonable doubt?
No, it was more a matter of arrogance combined with tribe mentality.
You see, all these Slashdot posters who only know a handful of facts as told on various websites concluded that there was reasonable doubt. However, the jury, who actually sat through half a year of testimony and evidence, concluded that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But, of course, we nerds all assume that we, individually, armed with a couple factoids from some random journalist, know much more than any group of jurors who were actually there for the entire trial.
A Taser was designed to replace a gun.
Although I agree with your overall point that Tasers are seriously overused, your initial premise is incorrect.
Tasers were never intended to be used as a replacement for a gun. They are an additional non-lethal weapon to use alongside the baton and pepper spray.
Unfortunately, politicians and even the police themselves use the "Tasers replace guns" myth to win people over to the idea. After all, who wouldn't prefer to see a Taser used instead of a gun?
But that's not what happens. When the situation calls for a gun to be used, then the officer will use their gun. Period. They will never consider using the Taser instead, and they were never expected to. This is why the number of incidents involving police using their guns has not decreased since Tasers were introduced. Nor was it expected to.
The problem is that Tasers seem really harmless. You press a button, and the guy falls to the floor. Shortly thereafter, he gets up and he's apparently fine. So, hey, why not use it even in cases where the use of a baton or pepper spray would cause mass outrage?
And that's exactly what's happening now.
The difference is that Viacom didn't sit outside youtube and record who went in and out.
I know. My point wasn't that the data is rightfully Viacom's, just that it's not the users' personal information. It's YouTube's data.
Youtube (as most sites) has a privacy policy that says they wont share the info...
A privacy policy does not trump a court order.
To be clear, I'm not saying that the judge was correct in ordering YouTube to turn the records over to Viacom.
Is there any way to legally make myself a company instead of a person? I think I'd have way more rights that way.
In this day and age, it's not that you need to legally become a company, you need to become an entertainment company. They seem to have all the power.
If Viacom wants my personal information, bitch gotta pay.
There's a problem, though -- it's not your information. It's YouTube's log of your activities in a public space (the Internet). It doesn't belong to you.
Analogy time: if I sit outside a store and record the date and time that each customer walks into and out of the store, that's my information. It may be about you, if you're one if the customers, but it's still my information.
Actually I have friends and family with dyslexia. ... The result is a perscription for glasses with coloured tinting.
Yes. It's your "friends and family" that have dyslexia.
:)
Well, I still see some non-trivial technical hurdles -- you glossed quickly over the "you post your source and platform" part, which makes me wonder if the automated system is expected to have every conceivable version of every conceivable compiler/automated build utility/whatever (and what if my build tool is homegrown?) in every conceivable configuration, or if the developer is expected to provide those tools along with the source (if I'm a .NET developer, do I have to install Visual Studio on their computer?).
Nevertheless, I will admit that it actually doesn't sound like an entirely terrible idea.
Okay, that makes more sense. As long as it doesn't cost anything to submit source code to the central authority, then I'm not too concerned about the idea.
However, it seems to me that it would be pretty simple to get past this kind of a system. I mean, how hard would it be to submit benign source code to the repository, but then release a binary that has a trojan in it. How would anyone know that the released binary was actually built from the source code in the repository? You would have to arrange it so that the source code gets submitted to the repository, then the keepers of that repository build the application and return the binary to the developer, who then releases it. But then you're introducing government bureaucracy into companies' release cycles. There's so much software being developed on any given day that the repository would quickly become bogged down.
I agree that most EULAs are crap. But I still think the current system is much better. If you don't trust the provider of the software, or if you don't like EULAs, you have the option to choose open source alternatives. If you do trust the software provider, or you're okay with the EULA, you have the option to choose closed source. And, as a developer, I have the option to keep my source closed, charge a million dollars, and write a crafty EULA that forces you to give me your first born child, or to open my source, give everything away for free, and have no license agreement of any kind. Or somewhere in between.
I like to kick puppies and throw water balloons at cats. Not really, but voicing an opinion in this particular thread is likely to get me the same sort of reputation. Heck with it, I'll do it any way.
I appreciate your opinion, and I promise not to fuel your reputation for animal cruelty. Unless you happen to kick my dog or throw water balloons at my cats, in which case prepare for a serious ass-kicking.
Unfortunately, you seem to contradict yourself (unless I'm missing something, which is possible at 11:30 at night).
First you say:
Releasing a binary without providing source to the central authority would be a crime...
But then you say:
Meanwhile, source code may be released or not as deemed desirable by the original author...
So, the source code may be released or not as deemed desirable by the original author, but really he better do it because it's a crime not to. On the one hand you make it sound like the author has a choice, but it's really a choice of whether or not to break the law.
I just really have a problem with this whole idea of legally forcing software developers to release source code. First of all, closed source binaries are just not so dangerous that we need laws against them.
Secondly, let's look at this from the user's perspective. Whatever happened to users of software taking a little responsibility for their own decisions? I mean, if I trust a particular software developer or software company enough to use their software without seeing the source code, that's my choice, and I don't want the government stepping in and arresting or fining them just because they didn't give me the source code. There are open source alternatives out there, but I made my own choice to use closed source instead.
I see it like this. I like to write software. I write it professionally, but at home I also write software for myself. Once in a while, I might write something that I think others might find useful, and therefore I might decide to distribute it for free (as in beer). Sometimes I might include the source code. Other times I might not, for various reasons. Maybe I wrote it really quickly and I'm ashamed of the sloppy code. Whatever. The point is, if you want to use my code, then go ahead and use it. If you don't trust it without seeing the source, fine, don't use it. Whatever. But there's no reason I should be facing criminal charges for the binaries I post that don't include source code. That's just plain ridiculous.
You are endangering the public welfare because you are distributing something without any assurances that it is what you claim it is.
But that only truly matters in any real sense if there's potential harm to those who use it.
You don't like the ramifications. That's fine.
Actually, I don't give a shit about the ramifications. This is all hypothetical, anyway. And I'm not the "retard" (as you so eloquently put it) who refuses to address the difference between a product that has safety concerns, such as toys, food, or medicine, and a product that does not, such as a Tetris clone, despite your own use of the phrase "endangering public welfare" with respect to that Tetris clone.
All I can say is that I'd much rather live in a world with copyright and the GPL, as well as other licenses to choose from (choice is a wonderful thing), than a world without copyright that has your proposed mandatory source code forfeiture, where I could go to jail for putting a link on a website to a binary without source, all because you think that people are somehow in danger if they don't get to see the source code.
Now, if you're going to pay for software you're going to pay more for source code than binaries, because the source is more valuable.
If that were true, why would anybody use Oracle's RDBMS? It costs more than MySQL, and it's only a binary, whereas MySQL comes with the source.
The reason companies do, in fact, use Oracle in the real world, is because the real value is not the source code, the real value is the service and support. Companies are happy to purchase a binary that comes with all the support that Oracle provides.
I suspect that you're thinking about this primarily from the perspective of individual users, and more specifically, individual users who also happen to be developers. It's very different in the corporate world. Very few companies have any interest in the source code. They don't want to modify it. They want the vendor to do all the work. They want the vendor to be accountable if something goes wrong.
Why should the simple act of a binary being published render the source code forfeit?
I don't know, but that's what the GPL enforces. The theory is that it enforces freedom for the users. More freedom, in fact, than they would have if there was no copyright at all. Which is why, if you believe in the GPL, it would not be unnecessary in a world without copyright, since it does provide additional freedom.
No matter the imagined motivations for selling binaries, you also need customers who'd consider them superior value for money over source code.
But that's kind of the point. Those customers exist today. Oracle obviously provides something of value for so many businesses to choose their expensive closed source software over free open source alternatives. Therefore, even if there were no copyright and no GPL, and even if there had never been these things, Oracle would still have every reason to keep their source code hidden, and customers would still happily buy their products and services, despite the existence of free alternatives.
Keep in mind that Oracle could open source their products. The existence of copyright law isn't forcing them to withhold the source. They've made that choice. I see no reason why they wouldn't make the same choice if there was no copyright law.
You are attempting to pretend that the rules governing individual behavior and the rules governing participation in business are the same.
No, you are the one pretending that is the case. I am not Sony. In my hypothetical example, I am just some guy who wrote a Tetris clone and distributed it on my personal website without including the source code.
You are not and should not be prevented from creating your own software for personal use, but you should be prevented from distributing it without disclosing the method in which it operates, for the same reason as with toys and food and medicine.
Toys, food, and medicine all have safety risks, as you pointed out. People get hurt/die if toys, food, and medicine are not put through a rigorous process to ensure their quality. This is not true of my hypothetical Tetris clone. No one gets hurt if there's a bug in the code.
I'm still left asking my original question: how am I "endangering public welfare" by distributing a simple closed source Tetris clone?
In this hypothetical example, I may have chosen Oracle over the many competing products for any number of reasons. In the real world, companies do it all the time -- even choosing Oracle, which is closed source and costs a lot of money, over MySQL or PostgreSQL, which are open source and free as in beer. So, for whatever my business reasons are, I've chosen Oracle, and it's what I use.
Now, the day arrives where I decide that I need obscure feature X built into the system. Oracle offers to provide me with this for $10000, no source included.
You propose that I should purchase it from a competitor for less money, or even for more money if the source is included. But here's the problem: how exactly does a competitor build feature X into Oracle's RDBMS if they don't have the source for Oracle's RDBMS? That's why Oracle keeps the source.
You also ignored the support issue, which is another reason for them to withhold the source. They can provide better support than anyone else if they're the only ones with access to the source code.
How did Sony endanger the public welfare? All they were doing was selling CDs full of music. Oh, wait. They installed root kits into at least half a million computers.
Huh? The "endangering public welfare" in that situation comes from the fact that they actually did install root kits, not just because they could have installed root kits.
So, in the case of my Tetris clone, if there is no root kit, how have I "endangered public welfare"?
You're using the same logic that DRM proponents would use to ban Linux. "Let's ban any and all closed source software because people could use it to endanger public welfare" is the same as "Let's ban any and all hardware/software that doesn't have DRM because people could use it to break the law."