Just watched that last night and it re-enforced decisions I had already made about my food. We do everything we can in our house to purchase from local farms, and, when that's not possible, from responsible farms.
I learned as a child in East Tennessee what happens when you have too many cattle on too little land. I learned what happens when you feed them things they're not meant to eat. The fact that these big companies with all their engineers and scientists are too stupid to know what I learned at 12 years old completely baffles me.
I find it interesting that this popped up the day after I watched the movie "Food Inc." If you think this is disturbing, you NEED to watch the movie...
Terrorists aren't the only ones who smuggle things on airplanes. I think that drug mulls have pretty much proven that if someone wants to get a banned item onto an airplane badly enough, they're going to.
For example, will this technology find things that a person has swallowed? I might point out that the most recent attempt used an acid based chemical detonator. We have acid in our bodies. I don't know if it's enough to detonate an explosive material but I have to wonder.
Will this technology find things in other orifices? I think not. In fact, I doubt that anything short of a computer aided full body X-Ray (ala Total Recall) will actually give us 100% protection. Even that could be beaten by implanting devices that look innocent on the surface.
Stealing is NOT taking without permission. Stealing is deprivation.
I have to assume that you're a troll since no one could possibly be this stupid and still be able to use a computer. I'm sorry, but you'll have to feed elsewhere.
I assume you think this because the restaurant invested money in the food. Do you think the software materialized out of thin air?
Software companies invest in talent, research, marketing, physical computers, office space, electricity, and more... all the things that are required in order to create the software you are stealing (taking without permission). This is a real physical investment of money and resources and the product they produce is the software - just like the restaurant produces a plate of food. If you take a copy of the software without paying for it, then you have taken money from the company.
Attempting to justify it by saying you didn't steal a physical thing is immature, selfish and betrays an unreasonable sense of entitlement. You are in the wrong.
Please point out an independent artist who has achieved the same level of success as Taylor Swift, Kenny Chesney, Kid Rock, or Beyonce.
Until you can, this entire post is just a bunch of hot air. Artists are going to continue to sign deals with big labels because that is the only way to achieve lasting world-wide fame.
This deserves to be modded up. Really interesting what they've done there.
I would compare free low bitrate mp3's to the way we used to tape songs off the radio. We'd buy the album if we liked it just to get the better sounding recording.
So how should they "change their business model to move with the times?" And what other industry similar to music has already done this? People say all the time that the music industry is "just going to have to change their business model."
Finally, some relief to all the congestion! Why, just look at the clogged city streets in those photographs! Not to mention the thriving metropolis that the train services! Obviously the Chinese people desperately needed this triumph of technology to help relieve the many burdens of their successful and thriving economy.
No. I have this idea that if an artist's work isn't appreciated within 7 years of its creation, but suddenly generates millions of dollars on year 8 that the creator should see some of that money.
Perhaps if you actually had the talent to create something worthwhile you'd share my opinion.
Haven't heard it used that way, but OK. I would have said that Comcast agreed to provide a service through their contract and failed to honor it.
Six or a half dozen?
Either way, Comcast did what they always do. Screwed their customers and got off with a small payout. They haven't seen a penny of my money in a year and they never will again.
... during the time Comcast was infringing their rights...
How were their rights infringed? This seems like a simple breach of contract. Comcast was contractually obligated to provide a certain service and failed to do so.
That's simply not true and was proven false before Copyright reform in the 1970's. The song and the recording are two completely different Copyrights.
If Kenny Chesney records a song that's in the public domain, he owns the Copyright to that recording. He makes all the money from the sale of that recording until the Copyright on the recording runs out. I imagine he'd have no problem making a shit load of money in under 7 years.
That would be why big record companies love public domain material so much. It allows them to rake in lots of money without paying royalties to anyone.
Downloading the song during Kenny's 7 years of Copyright coverage on the recording would still be illegal; you're violating the Copyright on the recording.
To refer to my favorite example, if Copyright really ran out in 7 years he wouldn't have had to pay Mac McAnally a penny for "Down the Road" since that was written 20 years ago. Kenny would still make millions.
I don't know how to explain this fact any more simply. You're telling me the sun isn't going to come up tomorrow and I'm fairly sure it will. Just as big record companies are going to continue to make shit loads of money regardless of whether or not Copyright runs out in 7 minutes or 700 years.
It is in fact the creator's right to receive profits derived from his work. That is a fact; he created it and if money starts rolling in as a result of that creation he deserves a part of it. If you want to make money off music, go write your own.
Further, your counter-points are meaningless. Who's going to use a song no one wants to hear in their ad? Why would a more popular artist record a song no one wants to hear? Who's taking blues guitar lessons if that style isn't popular?
Some of the most talented people I've ever known have gone through this exact scenario. After spending their entire lives creating art for the enjoyment of others and living on next to nothing suddenly something they wrote 20 years ago becomes hugely popular and lots of money rolls in. Other bands sell tickets to their shows covering the song, bar owners play it over the PA to encourage patrons to stay longer and spend more money, recordings sell hundreds of thousands of copies and record companies rake in dough. Without Copyright protection they wouldn't have seen a penny of the literally millions of dollars that poured in as a direct result of their hard work.
If you have a problem with that, than your ethics are simply screwed up.
So what happens to all the money that starts pouring in? Who gets it? Because in your scenario, the RIAA and big record companies would get it since they make money from the sale of the audio recordings. The blues guitarist who wrote and recorded the song would make nothing since the Copyright that used to protect him from RIAA and big record companies is gone.
That's the real problem here. Copyright doesn't protect big companies - they are going to make money regardless. It protects the creator from big companies taking advantage of him. That was the whole point of extending Copyright in the 1970's - to protect creators who were being screwed by big record companies.
Nothing's stopping you from recording your own covers of hits from whenever. You don't even have to ask permission. If you want to record and release a cover of a song that's been sitting in the back catalog for 40 years, go for it. I'm sure the writer's would be very flattered to know someone's still listening after all these years.
Here's an excellent account of another indie musician who did exactly that:
The fact is, Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from creating new works - if anything it encourages you to do so in order to avoid paying royalties. But your main objection seems to be that it prevents you from making money off other peoples work. Which isn't even true.
As distribution has become quicker and quicker, the time needed for an artist to commercially exploit their work has decreased and therefore the time period for which copyright applies ought to be shorter, not longer, than in the past.
The problem is, you don't know WHEN the work is going to be popular - that is decided by the audience and their culture. Just because it's easier / faster to get it in front of a moderate size audience, that doesn't mean the work is going to start generating income right away. For example, Mozart had a giant audience but his work was completely misunderstood in his day.
Let's say a blues guitarist working for tips in New Orleans pours his heart into an original song and releases the recording for sale via the Internet, but it doesn't make a dime because everyone's listening to rock. Then 14 years later people start to rediscover blues and his song sells millions of copies... is he just shit out of luck? It's not his fault that he was ahead of his time, why should he be punished?
What has happened instead is that time periods have been extended, more and more money has been made, which has concentrated the means of distribution into fewer hands, with the net effect of decreasing the amount of art (music, literature etc.) that is widely available. This is now starting to change with digital distribution, although it's quite clear that DRM is not about preventing the pirating of works (because it doesn't stop commercial pirates) but is about maintaining a barrier to entry into the market.
I don't understand how DRM is a barrier to anything. What few DRM systems I've seen where extremely cheap and easy to implement. Which doesn't matter anyway since I can't think of anyone who's using it.
I have to ask why so many of you want other people's art to be in the public domain so badly? I simply don't understand what difference it would make if "Achy Breaky Heart" were in the public domain. Or more recently, who cares if Taylor Swift owns her song forever? It's not like that stops other people from writing songs.
If you honestly believe that it's better for the country, for us as a people and for the creators themselves for work to be in the public domain then... go create your own art (music, movies, paintings, whatever) and release it to the public domain. It is the right of the creator to control copy and distribution of the work (which is of course why it's called "Copyright"). So go create a killer song and exercise your right to release it to the world for free.
I just don't get the hubub. What do you think will be gained by reducing Copyright?
Slashdot Mirror
It's hard not to believe the Pakistan Daily! I mean, if you can't get reliable news from them where can you get it? :-P
Just watched that last night and it re-enforced decisions I had already made about my food. We do everything we can in our house to purchase from local farms, and, when that's not possible, from responsible farms.
I learned as a child in East Tennessee what happens when you have too many cattle on too little land. I learned what happens when you feed them things they're not meant to eat. The fact that these big companies with all their engineers and scientists are too stupid to know what I learned at 12 years old completely baffles me.
I find it interesting that this popped up the day after I watched the movie "Food Inc." If you think this is disturbing, you NEED to watch the movie ...
http://www.foodincmovie.com/
"In college I found the best time to drink was right after giving blood"
No duh! They don't give you the money before!
Dammit! I ALWAYS mess up the punch line! ;-)
I just couldn't wait to make a Eureka reference though. My bad.
Puts a new spin on computer viruses ...
Terrorists aren't the only ones who smuggle things on airplanes. I think that drug mulls have pretty much proven that if someone wants to get a banned item onto an airplane badly enough, they're going to.
For example, will this technology find things that a person has swallowed? I might point out that the most recent attempt used an acid based chemical detonator. We have acid in our bodies. I don't know if it's enough to detonate an explosive material but I have to wonder.
Will this technology find things in other orifices? I think not. In fact, I doubt that anything short of a computer aided full body X-Ray (ala Total Recall) will actually give us 100% protection. Even that could be beaten by implanting devices that look innocent on the surface.
What perfect timing! I just finished my newspaper reading robot!
Stealing is NOT taking without permission. Stealing is deprivation.
I have to assume that you're a troll since no one could possibly be this stupid and still be able to use a computer. I'm sorry, but you'll have to feed elsewhere.
Simply not true.
I assume you think this because the restaurant invested money in the food. Do you think the software materialized out of thin air?
Software companies invest in talent, research, marketing, physical computers, office space, electricity, and more ... all the things that are required in order to create the software you are stealing (taking without permission). This is a real physical investment of money and resources and the product they produce is the software - just like the restaurant produces a plate of food. If you take a copy of the software without paying for it, then you have taken money from the company.
Attempting to justify it by saying you didn't steal a physical thing is immature, selfish and betrays an unreasonable sense of entitlement. You are in the wrong.
Please point out an independent artist who has achieved the same level of success as Taylor Swift, Kenny Chesney, Kid Rock, or Beyonce.
Until you can, this entire post is just a bunch of hot air. Artists are going to continue to sign deals with big labels because that is the only way to achieve lasting world-wide fame.
This deserves to be modded up. Really interesting what they've done there.
I would compare free low bitrate mp3's to the way we used to tape songs off the radio. We'd buy the album if we liked it just to get the better sounding recording.
So how should they "change their business model to move with the times?" And what other industry similar to music has already done this? People say all the time that the music industry is "just going to have to change their business model."
Ok ... so HOW?
I'm seriously looking for input and ideas here.
Finally, some relief to all the congestion! Why, just look at the clogged city streets in those photographs! Not to mention the thriving metropolis that the train services! Obviously the Chinese people desperately needed this triumph of technology to help relieve the many burdens of their successful and thriving economy.
Almost as much as they need food and clothing!
No. I have this idea that if an artist's work isn't appreciated within 7 years of its creation, but suddenly generates millions of dollars on year 8 that the creator should see some of that money.
Perhaps if you actually had the talent to create something worthwhile you'd share my opinion.
Haven't heard it used that way, but OK. I would have said that Comcast agreed to provide a service through their contract and failed to honor it.
Six or a half dozen?
Either way, Comcast did what they always do. Screwed their customers and got off with a small payout. They haven't seen a penny of my money in a year and they never will again.
... during the time Comcast was infringing their rights ...
How were their rights infringed? This seems like a simple breach of contract. Comcast was contractually obligated to provide a certain service and failed to do so.
That's simply not true and was proven false before Copyright reform in the 1970's. The song and the recording are two completely different Copyrights.
If Kenny Chesney records a song that's in the public domain, he owns the Copyright to that recording. He makes all the money from the sale of that recording until the Copyright on the recording runs out. I imagine he'd have no problem making a shit load of money in under 7 years.
That would be why big record companies love public domain material so much. It allows them to rake in lots of money without paying royalties to anyone.
Downloading the song during Kenny's 7 years of Copyright coverage on the recording would still be illegal; you're violating the Copyright on the recording.
To refer to my favorite example, if Copyright really ran out in 7 years he wouldn't have had to pay Mac McAnally a penny for "Down the Road" since that was written 20 years ago. Kenny would still make millions.
I don't know how to explain this fact any more simply. You're telling me the sun isn't going to come up tomorrow and I'm fairly sure it will. Just as big record companies are going to continue to make shit loads of money regardless of whether or not Copyright runs out in 7 minutes or 700 years.
It is in fact the creator's right to receive profits derived from his work. That is a fact; he created it and if money starts rolling in as a result of that creation he deserves a part of it. If you want to make money off music, go write your own.
Further, your counter-points are meaningless. Who's going to use a song no one wants to hear in their ad? Why would a more popular artist record a song no one wants to hear? Who's taking blues guitar lessons if that style isn't popular?
Some of the most talented people I've ever known have gone through this exact scenario. After spending their entire lives creating art for the enjoyment of others and living on next to nothing suddenly something they wrote 20 years ago becomes hugely popular and lots of money rolls in. Other bands sell tickets to their shows covering the song, bar owners play it over the PA to encourage patrons to stay longer and spend more money, recordings sell hundreds of thousands of copies and record companies rake in dough. Without Copyright protection they wouldn't have seen a penny of the literally millions of dollars that poured in as a direct result of their hard work.
If you have a problem with that, than your ethics are simply screwed up.
So what happens to all the money that starts pouring in? Who gets it? Because in your scenario, the RIAA and big record companies would get it since they make money from the sale of the audio recordings. The blues guitarist who wrote and recorded the song would make nothing since the Copyright that used to protect him from RIAA and big record companies is gone.
That's the real problem here. Copyright doesn't protect big companies - they are going to make money regardless. It protects the creator from big companies taking advantage of him. That was the whole point of extending Copyright in the 1970's - to protect creators who were being screwed by big record companies.
How is that even remotely relevant to my example?
Nothing's stopping you from recording your own covers of hits from whenever. You don't even have to ask permission. If you want to record and release a cover of a song that's been sitting in the back catalog for 40 years, go for it. I'm sure the writer's would be very flattered to know someone's still listening after all these years.
Here's an excellent account of another indie musician who did exactly that:
http://www.cleverjoe.com/articles/music_copyright_law.html
The fact is, Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from creating new works - if anything it encourages you to do so in order to avoid paying royalties. But your main objection seems to be that it prevents you from making money off other peoples work. Which isn't even true.
As distribution has become quicker and quicker, the time needed for an artist to commercially exploit their work has decreased and therefore the time period for which copyright applies ought to be shorter, not longer, than in the past.
The problem is, you don't know WHEN the work is going to be popular - that is decided by the audience and their culture. Just because it's easier / faster to get it in front of a moderate size audience, that doesn't mean the work is going to start generating income right away. For example, Mozart had a giant audience but his work was completely misunderstood in his day.
Let's say a blues guitarist working for tips in New Orleans pours his heart into an original song and releases the recording for sale via the Internet, but it doesn't make a dime because everyone's listening to rock. Then 14 years later people start to rediscover blues and his song sells millions of copies ... is he just shit out of luck? It's not his fault that he was ahead of his time, why should he be punished?
What has happened instead is that time periods have been extended, more and more money has been made, which has concentrated the means of distribution into fewer hands, with the net effect of decreasing the amount of art (music, literature etc.) that is widely available. This is now starting to change with digital distribution, although it's quite clear that DRM is not about preventing the pirating of works (because it doesn't stop commercial pirates) but is about maintaining a barrier to entry into the market.
I don't understand how DRM is a barrier to anything. What few DRM systems I've seen where extremely cheap and easy to implement. Which doesn't matter anyway since I can't think of anyone who's using it.
Are you actually arguing that the world would be a better place if that song were in the public domain?
Personally, I'll be fine if they keep that one locked up forever plus 50 years ... LOL .... ;-)
I have to ask why so many of you want other people's art to be in the public domain so badly? I simply don't understand what difference it would make if "Achy Breaky Heart" were in the public domain. Or more recently, who cares if Taylor Swift owns her song forever? It's not like that stops other people from writing songs.
If you honestly believe that it's better for the country, for us as a people and for the creators themselves for work to be in the public domain then ... go create your own art (music, movies, paintings, whatever) and release it to the public domain. It is the right of the creator to control copy and distribution of the work (which is of course why it's called "Copyright"). So go create a killer song and exercise your right to release it to the world for free.
I just don't get the hubub. What do you think will be gained by reducing Copyright?