A very valid question, and frankly does anybody record from the radio anymore? Isn't that what podcasting is for? (Check out NPR's All Songs Considered live concerts...some amazing stuff.)
I basically think they implemented the levy without considering it fully. I don't think it was/started/ as a revenue grab. I think it was started with good intention, though incredibly badly implemented (which is why it was tossed by the courts at one point.) I think it's/become/ a blatant revenue grab since those idealistic early days. I don't think it's supposed to serve any moral purpose anymore.
Ah...one other thing. That section states that the "act of reproducing" a musical work doesn't violate copyright.
Downloaded music from the Internet is not a case "reproducing." I haven't reproduced anything...it's been created from the ether.
If you have the media in your possession, it seems to make it fairly clear that you can "reproduce it." This is basic fair use doctrine.
The person who reproduces it can do so only for personal use. Sharing it online is not personal use.
It *does* seem that the library CD example is still clear though: I borrowed it and reproduced it for personal use, so it seems to be covered by the section.
Ok, so that's an interesting section. It's interesting that it applies/specifically/ to "musical works." It certainly suggests that my library example is solid: I can borrow and rip without fear of violating copyright.
It does nothing for the case of movies however....
There is also the issue of the Harper Government's moves in the field: http://media.knet.ca/node/4052 but I haven't been following them.
Whereas your strategy is to get paid as few times as possible?
I/think/ I understand your point, but I'm not sure that it's a really valid argument. Not every paying isn't really going to solve the problem either...
I don't disagree with your assertion, but that's your personal politics of music not the legality at play.
Neko Case told Paste Magazine that touring payed for her farm in Vermont, not recording. I believe strongly in supporting musicians while they're touring, and detest the face that I'm basically supporting Ticketmaster most of the time anyway.
Nirvana may have recorded Bleach for $600 but most of those millions of eventual fans didn't go see them because they bought Bleach, and even fewer of them went to see them at Neumo's.
Most of those fans heard of Nirvana long after they'd been signed by a major label and given a massive promotion and marketing push.
I'm not saying a similar story/couldn't/ have happened if they'd just toured like crazy, I'm saying the story you're telling happened in the current system and not outside of it.
I feel similarly about Radiohead's succesful "experiment" with selling In Rainbow's direct, btw. It really wasn't that interesting an experiment...it was a band that had benefited from millions of dollars of earlier promotion leveraging their name recognition. It's much more interesting to see what new bands are doing with the new medium...those bands that aren't signing with major labels (like the aforementioned Divine Ms. Case, who's been asked to do so more than once but values her integrity and independence.)
It's about the legality, not the politics. In Canada if I've seen an artist live does that give me the right to liberate all of their music? I've asked this myself...I keep going to/see/ Kathleen Edwards but I don't own much of her music. Can I liberate it? I don't think it's legal.
Followup question: if I borrow a CD from the library and rip it, is it legal for me to keep it?
That's not/strictly/ true. It's true that "fair use" and "format shifting" are established more firmly here than in the U.S.
In Canada it's always been legal to make copies for personal use. This means that it's perfectly OK for you to take a line output from your 8 track stereo to your line in on your Mac Pro and create a digtal copy of that Rush 2112 album you bought in 1976.
Similarly, it's fairly clearly legal for you to rip a copy of the Serenity Special Edition DVD you've bought to watch on your iPhone. You're breaking encryption, but it's probably still legal.
To extend from that to "it's not illegal to download copyrighted works for personal use" is a stretch. Essentially the point in the scenarios above if that you've already/paid/ for a "licence" at whatever prevailing rate the things costs. From there, you can shift your format...you don't need to buy multiple licences (though you obviously can.)
Whether this justifies the liberation of content gets into muddier waters. If I buy the DVD can I download a copy and say that's my "other format?" Maybe....maybe....the source may be illegal, but technically I do "own it" but I'm not sure that's justification. (Though I may use it as justification also.)
In the case of over the air TV shows such as "30 Rock" I don't have to "pay" for a licence. It's paid for by advertisers. If I download it without advertisements...different situation. It's not like anybody's lost money, except in the abstract sense that the network could have made _more_ money through advertising revenue with a larger audience...unless of course I watched it live as well.
In the case of a Compact Disc there's a more direct cause and effect: if I download a liberated copy of the medi, somebody's lost money. Labels aren't going to keep putting out music for no money, and bands aren't going to be able to record if nobody ever buys albums (touring revenue notwithstanding.)
The media levy muddies the waters a bit, but only a bit.
No it won't. One of the rules of naming such semi-permanent structures is that they're not often named after living people. Colbert is amusing now (though I find him annoying, to be truthful) but what happens if in 5 years he runs over a group of children in a drunk driving incident? Do you really want a NASA module named after that? Is that going to be funny?
There are exceptions, but they're fairly rare and usually involve someone who either: a) invented the thing (Colt revolvers or Ferris Wheels), or; b) donated a tonne of money (anybody remember Enron stadium, or the Ken Lay Chair in Economics at Methodist University?)
Xenu is too religious, and a government agency wouldn't name anything after Scientology.
That's why NASA's suggestions are more benign, and why one of them will likely be chosen.
Besides, the subtlety of the shout-out to the Big Damn Heroes is awesome and not overt enough to eliminate the name.
My ERP vendor takes an entirely different strategy of providing miserable tech support, denying the existence of obvious bugs, claiming the the 1960s technology on the back end is better than modern day RDMS, and having their tech support staff focus on minute tiny details that aren't relevant to the problem whenever you ask them for a solution.
I'd switch ERPs in a heartbeat, if the economy would recover.
The subject can be an authoritative source on certain facts quite easily, by providing documentation to support claims. Errors & location of birth can easily be corrected simply by providing a copy of a birth certificate.
In this case it's not the subject themselves that's the authoritative source so much as the documentation. The subject is really just communicating the information.
So it's quite easy for subjects to/be/ authoritative, assuming they're willing to provide access to some of their personal information.
That's wonderful, if you sign in only from a single system. The/point/ of OpenID is a centralized, widely available universal sign in.
Put another way: when I travel, and I want to access my 37 Signals services from a shared computer I can still use my OpenID. I can also use it to sign in from the iPod Touch that I don't own but which I will eventually buy. (Aside: I can't use it from my Blackberry Bold, because it has a crappy browser.)
I can also use it while at work, without leaving passwords stored on my work computer for the Network Administrator to snoop. (He sits next to me, so I'm not worried about it in my specific context: more the abstract.)
Local password storage is of limited us, but has the advantage that it/doesn't/ require server configuration. OpenID is much more broadly useful, but/does/ require server side support.
I, frankly, prefer the latter, while recognizing that a lack of adoption could be a problem. I don't want to use Facebook Connect though...it would give away my secret identity.
> the DRM doesn't interfere with my particular use > of the product.
but it may only be a temporary reality. I've bought a few albums from iTunes, and all is fine as I own an iPod (well, two...but anyway...)
When I replaced my PowerBook with an iMac though, I ran into my first interesting situation. I now have two of a limit of five authorized computers playing my music.
Now, I still have my PowerBook so I can spark it up to deauthorize the computer if I want too, but that's still annoying. In 12 - 15 years, I have a real problem on my hands...
to add to this, I can't seem to find a way to deauthorize a computer remotely. What if I'd given my PowerBook to someone prior to doing this? I just hit one of my DRM limits through ignorance with no wrong doing.
Most users, I'd suggest, are unaware of this limitation at the moment and arguably they *should* be aware of it, but still...blurg...customers getting hosed through ignorance is always unpleasant.
Playback protection is part of a strategy of copy protection, but it's not the same thing.
Playback protection can hurt me even if I'm *not* trying to copy the media in question, which is my main objection to it.
Copy protection is arguably more legitimate, but it does depend on the specific copyright laws of your jurisdiction.
Up here in Canada the fair use doctrine suggest that it *should* be legal for me to rip a copy of a DVD for my personal playback in another medium (it's roughly the same as making an audio cassette copy of a vinyl record.)
I'm generally of the view that the companies that market media products should focus on improving the quality of those products in order to encourage us to buy them, rather than branding us as criminals. Then again, I still buy music whereas some people seem to not do that at all anymore.
Yeah sure, 'cause Bon Jovi & Poison were the ultimate evolution of music. It's all been downhill from there.
Good music is always getting made, you just need to find it. Most people stop doing that when they hit their 30s (which is roughly when they start finding the couch more often.)
Since when was Napster a household name? It's so far off the cultural radare you couldn't hit it with a Phoenix missile.
Those crazy kids today haven't ever even used Napster. It's like talking to them about the Love Boat: they just get a blank look in their eyes, and nod accommodatingly.
As for my general thoughts on this, I'll try to be brief.
Slashdot Mirror
A very valid question, and frankly does anybody record from the radio anymore? Isn't that what podcasting is for? (Check out NPR's All Songs Considered live concerts...some amazing stuff.)
I basically think they implemented the levy without considering it fully. I don't think it was /started/ as a revenue grab. I think it was started with good intention, though incredibly badly implemented (which is why it was tossed by the courts at one point.) I think it's /become/ a blatant revenue grab since those idealistic early days. I don't think it's supposed to serve any moral purpose anymore.
Ah...one other thing. That section states that the "act of reproducing" a musical work doesn't violate copyright.
Downloaded music from the Internet is not a case "reproducing." I haven't reproduced anything...it's been created from the ether.
If you have the media in your possession, it seems to make it fairly clear that you can "reproduce it." This is basic fair use doctrine.
The person who reproduces it can do so only for personal use. Sharing it online is not personal use.
It *does* seem that the library CD example is still clear though: I borrowed it and reproduced it for personal use, so it seems to be covered by the section.
Dollhouse is on now. Gotta go.
Ok, so that's an interesting section. It's interesting that it applies /specifically/ to "musical works." It certainly suggests that my library example is solid: I can borrow and rip without fear of violating copyright.
It does nothing for the case of movies however....
There is also the issue of the Harper Government's moves in the field:
http://media.knet.ca/node/4052
but I haven't been following them.
Whereas your strategy is to get paid as few times as possible?
I /think/ I understand your point, but I'm not sure that it's a really valid argument. Not every paying isn't really going to solve the problem either...
I don't disagree with your assertion, but that's your personal politics of music not the legality at play.
Neko Case told Paste Magazine that touring payed for her farm in Vermont, not recording. I believe strongly in supporting musicians while they're touring, and detest the face that I'm basically supporting Ticketmaster most of the time anyway.
Nirvana may have recorded Bleach for $600 but most of those millions of eventual fans didn't go see them because they bought Bleach, and even fewer of them went to see them at Neumo's.
Most of those fans heard of Nirvana long after they'd been signed by a major label and given a massive promotion and marketing push.
I'm not saying a similar story /couldn't/ have happened if they'd just toured like crazy, I'm saying the story you're telling happened in the current system and not outside of it.
I feel similarly about Radiohead's succesful "experiment" with selling In Rainbow's direct, btw. It really wasn't that interesting an experiment...it was a band that had benefited from millions of dollars of earlier promotion leveraging their name recognition. It's much more interesting to see what new bands are doing with the new medium...those bands that aren't signing with major labels (like the aforementioned Divine Ms. Case, who's been asked to do so more than once but values her integrity and independence.)
It's about the legality, not the politics. In Canada if I've seen an artist live does that give me the right to liberate all of their music? I've asked this myself...I keep going to /see/ Kathleen Edwards but I don't own much of her music. Can I liberate it? I don't think it's legal.
Followup question: if I borrow a CD from the library and rip it, is it legal for me to keep it?
That's not /strictly/ true. It's true that "fair use" and "format shifting" are established more firmly here than in the U.S.
In Canada it's always been legal to make copies for personal use. This means that it's perfectly OK for you to take a line output from your 8 track stereo to your line in on your Mac Pro and create a digtal copy of that Rush 2112 album you bought in 1976.
Similarly, it's fairly clearly legal for you to rip a copy of the Serenity Special Edition DVD you've bought to watch on your iPhone. You're breaking encryption, but it's probably still legal.
To extend from that to "it's not illegal to download copyrighted works for personal use" is a stretch. Essentially the point in the scenarios above if that you've already /paid/ for a "licence" at whatever prevailing rate the things costs. From there, you can shift your format...you don't need to buy multiple licences (though you obviously can.)
Whether this justifies the liberation of content gets into muddier waters. If I buy the DVD can I download a copy and say that's my "other format?" Maybe....maybe....the source may be illegal, but technically I do "own it" but I'm not sure that's justification. (Though I may use it as justification also.)
In the case of over the air TV shows such as "30 Rock" I don't have to "pay" for a licence. It's paid for by advertisers. If I download it without advertisements...different situation. It's not like anybody's lost money, except in the abstract sense that the network could have made _more_ money through advertising revenue with a larger audience...unless of course I watched it live as well.
In the case of a Compact Disc there's a more direct cause and effect: if I download a liberated copy of the medi, somebody's lost money. Labels aren't going to keep putting out music for no money, and bands aren't going to be able to record if nobody ever buys albums (touring revenue notwithstanding.)
The media levy muddies the waters a bit, but only a bit.
according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 20th is the anniversary of the first publication of Einstein's theory of relativity.
Oh, that is just disturbing...
No it won't. One of the rules of naming such semi-permanent structures is that they're not often named after living people. Colbert is amusing now (though I find him annoying, to be truthful) but what happens if in 5 years he runs over a group of children in a drunk driving incident? Do you really want a NASA module named after that? Is that going to be funny?
There are exceptions, but they're fairly rare and usually involve someone who either: a) invented the thing (Colt revolvers or Ferris Wheels), or; b) donated a tonne of money (anybody remember Enron stadium, or the Ken Lay Chair in Economics at Methodist University?)
Xenu is too religious, and a government agency wouldn't name anything after Scientology.
That's why NASA's suggestions are more benign, and why one of them will likely be chosen.
Besides, the subtlety of the shout-out to the Big Damn Heroes is awesome and not overt enough to eliminate the name.
My ERP vendor takes an entirely different strategy of providing miserable tech support, denying the existence of obvious bugs, claiming the the 1960s technology on the back end is better than modern day RDMS, and having their tech support staff focus on minute tiny details that aren't relevant to the problem whenever you ask them for a solution.
I'd switch ERPs in a heartbeat, if the economy would recover.
The subject can be an authoritative source on certain facts quite easily, by providing documentation to support claims. Errors & location of birth can easily be corrected simply by providing a copy of a birth certificate.
In this case it's not the subject themselves that's the authoritative source so much as the documentation. The subject is really just communicating the information.
So it's quite easy for subjects to /be/ authoritative, assuming they're willing to provide access to some of their personal information.
I, for one, welcome our new Wikipedian overlords.
There are people that HHGTTG isn't fun for?
> What, no love for the Big 3?
Not really, no.
To be more specific: Apple Mail does this as of Leopard.
I'm not sure which version of Thunderbird added the auto-configuration for gmail option, but it's been quite a while...
Both Thunderbird and Apple's Mail auto configure for gmail accounts.
That's wonderful, if you sign in only from a single system. The /point/ of OpenID is a centralized, widely available universal sign in.
Put another way: when I travel, and I want to access my 37 Signals services from a shared computer I can still use my OpenID. I can also use it to sign in from the iPod Touch that I don't own but which I will eventually buy. (Aside: I can't use it from my Blackberry Bold, because it has a crappy browser.)
I can also use it while at work, without leaving passwords stored on my work computer for the Network Administrator to snoop. (He sits next to me, so I'm not worried about it in my specific context: more the abstract.)
Local password storage is of limited us, but has the advantage that it /doesn't/ require server configuration. OpenID is much more broadly useful, but /does/ require server side support.
I, frankly, prefer the latter, while recognizing that a lack of adoption could be a problem. I don't want to use Facebook Connect though...it would give away my secret identity.
BSD is no longer BSD either. You need to pick your flavour, whichever one suits your poison.
That last part is exactly the point. This:
> the DRM doesn't interfere with my particular use
> of the product.
but it may only be a temporary reality. I've bought a few albums from iTunes, and all is fine as I own an iPod (well, two...but anyway...)
When I replaced my PowerBook with an iMac though, I ran into my first interesting situation. I now have two of a limit of five authorized computers playing my music.
Now, I still have my PowerBook so I can spark it up to deauthorize the computer if I want too, but that's still annoying. In 12 - 15 years, I have a real problem on my hands...
to add to this, I can't seem to find a way to deauthorize a computer remotely. What if I'd given my PowerBook to someone prior to doing this? I just hit one of my DRM limits through ignorance with no wrong doing.
Most users, I'd suggest, are unaware of this limitation at the moment and arguably they *should* be aware of it, but still...blurg...customers getting hosed through ignorance is always unpleasant.
I mean, it just aggravates me when have to put my Tim Horton's coffee and doughnut to point out that some of us don't even own a hockey stick.
I'm so steaming mad, I'm taking my toque off, and putting down my Margaret Atwood novel to listen to the Tragically Hip sing Fireworks.
Not every igloo comes with a shed to store the stuff in, you know.
I'm gonna snowmobile home now.
Playback protection is part of a strategy of copy protection, but it's not the same thing.
Playback protection can hurt me even if I'm *not* trying to copy the media in question, which is my main objection to it.
Copy protection is arguably more legitimate, but it does depend on the specific copyright laws of your jurisdiction.
Up here in Canada the fair use doctrine suggest that it *should* be legal for me to rip a copy of a DVD for my personal playback in another medium (it's roughly the same as making an audio cassette copy of a vinyl record.)
I'm generally of the view that the companies that market media products should focus on improving the quality of those products in order to encourage us to buy them, rather than branding us as criminals. Then again, I still buy music whereas some people seem to not do that at all anymore.
A cabal?
I thought it more as a clique, or perhaps a legion. Not a cabal.
I knew The Far Side. I worked with The Far Side. You, Berkeley Breated, are no Far Side.
On the other hand, in the hierarchy of Penguins Opus ranks pretty high, possibly higher than Tux.
Yeah sure, 'cause Bon Jovi & Poison were the ultimate evolution of music. It's all been downhill from there.
Good music is always getting made, you just need to find it. Most people stop doing that when they hit their 30s (which is roughly when they start finding the couch more often.)
Since when was Napster a household name? It's so far off the cultural radare you couldn't hit it with a Phoenix missile.
Those crazy kids today haven't ever even used Napster. It's like talking to them about the Love Boat: they just get a blank look in their eyes, and nod accommodatingly.
As for my general thoughts on this, I'll try to be brief.
WTF?