Yes, I stand corrected. I didn't see 'print'. Not that my point doesn't still make sense, it simply happens to be a little superfluous in breadth in light of your correction.
No, the idiot is the guy who buys Leonardo's artistic vision, and crayons over it.
BTW, your argument is bad because the Mona Lisa is one of a kind. I promise you, if you bought all the famous American paintings and burned them 'because its your consumer rights', you'd have to deal with the rights of art lovers around the world to live in a society that preserves its culture. I can assure you that you have no rights when it comes to pissing on original and important pieces of cultural work. I dont know what the gory details are, but I think you'll find that you are not permitted to piss on your culture, even if you own it. (Could be wrong, but shouldn't be.)
Now, if you have copy #2342032 of the latest blockbuster, can you draw on it? Of course you can. The problem is simply the aggregated editing houses that will make it so 'easy' for the culture to censor their own culture that the censored works of its famed artsits become more popular and widespread than the original artistic vision. (For instance, if somebody drew a mustache on Mona Lisa prints, and sold those, you could raise an entire generation of folks who threw out what was good about the Mona Lisa because Leonardo's mustache drawing abilities were clearly sub-par.)
It's a slipperly slope. There really isn't that much difference in 'editing' something and 'completetly editing it out of existance' a la book bonfire. When you begin to aggregate censorship in large amounts, it doesn't matter if its a private body or a public body that does the censoring - it still breaks the crucial cycle of communication required between populus and the artistic community required to inspire creativity and lateral thinking in the non-art world.
To summarize, editing your 'print' of something should be legal and dandy, although probably should be discouraged by the social body in question in order to prevent a slide down that slope. Meanwhile, editing originals is very much a different thing, as cultural works of importantce are shared among a society by virtue of being culturally significant in the first place. I believe this falls into the basket of the 'general will' contract one makes with a society by choosing to participate in it.
I have to say that anyone who requests censoring their owned art to remove the 'offending' parts is intolerant and probably doomed to be uncultured and ignorant. But whatever. Thats their perogative. Should we prevent people from 'splicing' their VHS tapes?
It's totally understandable that the artists in question would fight to ensure that their vision remains unedited for two reasons:
1) Control over product. It's understantable in an artistic medium - its not like a car, where if you can make the product go faster, after-market, good for you. Art is a message (even if its an uncomplicated, shallow message), and to fuck with it is to fuck with the message.
2) Money. If I'm artist X, and I think most people who are seeing my work through word-of-mouth are seeing edited copies, I'd be upset that other people's editing of my product could be influencing potential customers' decision to purchase my movie. (After all, it's not too uncommon to hear somebody say things like, "Yeah, the movie sucked, but I own it cause of that scene where that chicks not wearing anything." or whatever. Sometimes the offensive bits sell the product.")
That being said, since people have always been free to splice VHS cassettes themselves, etc, I really think its a battle that should be fought only to present the issues directors have with it. I really do believe its unethical to edit art yourself, beyond editing that must take place for logistical reasons ('narrowed for TV' is a legit reason, 'took out bad language' is legit if it doesn't impact the artistic message).
I remain steadfast in my opinion that those who wish to edit their art should grin 'n bare the 'bad stuff', or look for new art altogether.
I actually meant the mario game coming *after* Mario Sunshine. Not that anything's been announced, just that more than one mario game for the gamecube has got to be a certainty, and if the cel shading works for Celda, they will hopefully have enough sense to give Mario the same treatment.
You can pick one up now. Two words: Eternal Darkness. The inclusion of 'Sanity Effects' is the most innovative gimmick for a new game I've seen in a *longlong* time. Without giving it away, this game has the capability to play you (as in you, the gamer, not you, the character in the game). Should be required playing for anybody who tells you that the story of a game can only get in the way of the game itself.
BTW, for those curious about Metroid, Zelda, Starfox and wonder what could possibly be innovative about these games considering the age of their franchises..
Metroid: Will be set in an FPS style. Gimmick is that your HUD actually curves as its displayed onto your helmet visor. It's a subtle effect, but thats Nintendo. They always do that last mile. When bright flashes occur during game play, you can see the animated reflection of your face on the inside of the visor. The effect is gorgeous beyond words. The gameplay looks great, and I have no doubt Metroid is about to make an amazing comeback. (And props to Nintendo for letting the franchise settle and age for awhile, makes the return that much more sweet.)
Zelda: Probably much like Ocarina of time, but cel shaded. This'll be a love/hate thing. The PS/XBox fan base really really really seems to hate 'cuteness' in their games. The Nintendo fan base shouldn't mind too much, but whether or not you like this game will seperate who plays games for the visual style and 'edgy content' and who plays games for the gameplay. Plus, if this works, I'd wager that the next Super Mario game will be cel shaded.
Starfox: Ocarina of time/w Star Fox licence (traditional Startfox game coming out later.) Looks beautiful. Nintendo makes great adventure games. Will probably be much fun, although not ground-breaking.
Combine all this with Nintendo finally shipping gory games, getting souped-up port after souped-up port from the PS2 library, and I think you've got a console easily worth committing too if you're the type of gamer who's bored with the style'n'flash-over-gameplay approach to game development these days.
I guess others will just wait until PS3 - they say that in GTA5, you'll actually be able to _watch_ yourself do it with the hookers! (Insert Beavis and Butthead sounds here.)
Fair enough, but 'assigned to an agent'.. it is my impression that copyrights are transferred in most cases with label contracts. From the link you provided (great link, could never find an easy reference):
> Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title.
If this is the case in the majority of contracts between musicians and labels, then, to me, it is much like the publishing industry is the sole recipiant of the protections and compensations afforded by copyright law?
Are people aware that the music industry was dragged through court a few years ago for paying for retailers' advertising if they promised not to sell CDs under a certain price?
CDs could be way cheaper, but the industry has been caught a few times trying to make sure you dont remember what it was like to buy an album and get 7 good songs. 3 songs and 17 filler tracks is a much more profitable and easily 'constructed' model for them.
You are talking pre-Statue of Queen Anne, because the Statue, was the first true copyright law (since everybody seems to associate copyright with the right of the author to determine the fate of the work) that allowed the author to own the copyright to their work. I'll grant you that the Act you describe did indeed use the term 'copyright', but in so far as the word is used today to champion the well-being and right of an author, it was the Statute of Anne that was the first true copyright law with the welfare of the author in mind.
You'll notice that today, 98% of copyrights are owned by the publishers again, and that most authors have to sell thier copyright in order to be published anyway.. effectively making today much like pre-Statue of Queen Anne times. Artists are *allowed* today, to own their copyrights, but those seeking publication usually have to sell it. For all intents and purposes, (save that it is the publisher, not the government, who censors in this day and age), we are in pre-Statute of Queen Anne times, when copyrights were mainly only in the hands of publishers and authors received little or no compensation outside of selling the *original* work (or the copyright, today).
I'm not aware of how the U.S.Constitution prevents the scenario as described above, save for that your government can't *force* the situation on the people. That really doesn't prevent the private sector from effectively influencing public perception and dominating the market enough to duplicate the effects of the Licencing Act you refer to.
Prior to 1622, there was a law that said you could only print works' if you were a licenced publisher. This became like today's equiv. of Hollywood - the monarchy's publishing cronies got dibs on printing culture, and make a whack load of money on it (granted, very little of that money made its way back to the author.)
The Statute of St Anne, 1622, the first copyright law, said that the publishers had to pay the author (ie, that the author actually *owned* the work) but also that the work had to go back into the public domain 20 years after publication in order to ensure that there was no monopoly on distribution and publication.
400 years later, the publishers own 98% of the copyrights again, and dont have to reqliquish control until 70 years after the death of the company.
When its all said and done, today is much more like pre-copyright law than post-copyright law. (This is even reflected in the authors slice... musicians make little to nothing over the publication and distribution of their works these days, more money is made from performing, freelancing, or, in the form of most record contracts, ***selling their copyright*** to the publisher.)
>It's kind of like the british government deciding who may or may not use a printing press.
Ironically, copyright law was enacted to *combat* that problem.. in order to make sure other folks could print cultural works after the monarchy's publishing industry cronies had the chance to make a crud load of $$ off the backs of artists.
The corralary is when you place values, responsibility and accountability in the hands of technology, you free up people (or the collective social conciousness) from having to adhere to said behaviour.
There is a subconcious belief these days that *if* you can do (get away with) something, it must be OK.. I mean, if somebody *really* cared, they'd find a way of preventing your action(s) technologically, right?
>you're not going to get into trouble for spreading the non DRM version around.
If copyright was introduced in order to break the publishers' monopoly on printing (1622, I think).. ie, to force work back into the public domain, then what is the point of the entire law if I can release my music *only* in a DRM'd format?
DRM is not a musical format. It is a technology that, while its bits might sit beside my musical bits, is not technically part of the 'format' that I present my song in...
It's not a medium. It's the package _around_ the art. So, doesn't the law of copyright become useless (toothless, worthless, etc) as soon as I'm legally allowed to distribute my work in a package that nullifies any intent set forth by copyright law?
Er rather, maybe its 70 years or 90 years now, shit, I can't keep up with Disney's lawyers.. I forget how insane it is right now. Somebody care to clarify?
>DRM in itself isn't bad, because if the artist wishes to release their song in that format, that is their right.
Sorry, can you explain to me what exactly the rights of artists are? And why those rights are relevant to the artist given that 98% of the copyright in the western world is owned by corperations?
The artist is obligated to ensure that, upon claiming protection via copyright, his work is freely accessible 20 years after his death. Should he DRM-ize all his songs to expire after 6 months, and never publish them again, it is the artist that is breaking copyright law (by not making his work available to the commons after his copyright protection has expired.)
Considering that the WTO was formed in order to allow companies to seek damages from governments who 'mess' with the markets (like banning dangerous chemicals, natch, but thats a whole other ball of wax).. I can't imagine the WTO taking power away from the private sector and placing it in any kind of public body. That's practically counter to the reason it was put together.
Yeah, its frusterating - all the honest people interested in the public good are increasingly being dismissed as bleeding heart liberals incapable of making it in the real world. Cynicism like that is what makes it such a self-fulfilling prophecy for our society. Or at least thats my opinion. Given how much people hate non-winners, those not in the game to win rarely get to weild any power.. hopefully the pendulum will swing at some point and we can start creating accountable public bodies with good intentions again. Unfortunately, it'll take some tolerance to 'losers' that lack that super-Western killer instinct that always ends up being mostly self serving, much to the chagrin of its supporters. Why are people always surprised that when you support an ultra-competative system (nothing wrong with competition, but it shouldnt be the goal in its own right.. people are naturally competative, so no need to try and encourage it), they're only your friend until they've got what they want from you?
Or am I making something out of nothing again, as I'm known to do?:)
Yeah well, if you can show me a just planet, I'll admit we're earning our wealth.
Until you can prove that reality mirrors the idealistic mechanics of a perfectly capitalist free market system, I will continue to battle against the broken pieces of capitalism.
You have a 'just world' view, but get over it. The world ain't fair, and thus even tho wealth is 'earned', its not neccessarily earned as a result of the mechanics of pure capitalism and free market economics.
Thanks for reducing me to a label. I'm simply against extremes. I'm against communism, and I'm against capitalism run amok. There's a reason why 'everything in moderation' tends to be a truism in the physical world.
OH, BY THE WAY:
Institutionalized distribution of weath implies wealth distributed by a central state. If you understood my point, it was that if a PUBLIC, ie, lots of people who are *not* centrally organized make a stand on the weight of the distribution of wealth within a society , thats about as far from institutionalized distribution of wealth as you can get.
Of course, it seems the only way people can think about any alternative to laissez faire economics is to pull a McCarthy and start coughing *communist*. Open your brain and start thinking about who drives what parts of the economy - if its a small boat of people who are really successful at capitalism, their influence on the market begins to *become* exactly that of institutionlized distribution of wealth. That is, a small centralized group of people determining how the wealth trickles about the economy. I'd feel sorry for your limited viewpoint on what sorts of systems are available out there except for I understand that pity tends to make people more stubborn and more prone to self-censorship.
Thusly, I will congratulate you on understanding that institutionalized distribution of wealth tends not to work, but also offer the suggestion that you read up on other types of economies that are possible (you might start with Polyani?). Please just keep reminding yourself that once certain entities in a free-market become powerful enough, they essentially become a centralized institutionalized method of the distribution of weath - nearly indistinguishable from communism, but with the 'carrot' offered in front of your nose saying, 'hey, one day you might get this powerful, so its not really communism, is it?'
There is a big difference between stiving for perfect equality (which I'm not) and striving for less inequality (which I happy admit) at the cost of whatever happens to 'motivate' the latest multimillionaire.
Man, being against wealth run amok and being told you might be communist is like telling a non christian that they are obviously Satanists.
There are alternatives; you don't have to relegate yourself to only offering the extreme ends of the scale as the only possible solutions, thank you very much.
Not at the cost of others' happiness. If you want to get technical and say that him masturbating his money away shouldn't make other people unhappy, I suggest you do some reading on physcology - not having access to basic needs while others' cavhort playfully around the atmosphere significantly reduces the happiness and morale of the have-nots much more than the happiness provided to the have-it.
I'm sure there are shitloads of other things he'd love to do, and if you can't make a *reasonable* compromise (and I do believe its a reasonable request given sufficient public support were he asked to contribute back into the economy in more meaningful, progress-inducing way) with society at large, you have no right to defence when the mob shows up with pitch forks and torches. I'm assuming that you agree that it is the role of government to protect his right to his wealth (the only true function of government in a pure capitalist system).. so if that's right, and the government is supposedly held accountable to the public in a democracy, isn't it hypocritical to suggest that the public has no place in determining what kind of weath receives protection?
> If we made it such that anyone who becomes wealthy must give their wealth to others, would anyone choose to become wealthy? Isn't that the root of capitalism and freedom?
This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard; its a shame I hear it so often.
We are not saying, "Okay, you made your money, and now you can't spend a cent of it." We're saying, "Spend away, and spend it on something that makes you feel good, but see if you can find something that makes you feel that that *also* helps other people."
Nobody said anything about not being able to spend your wealth, and if you think the only motivation for getting wealthy is being able to spend your money on *ANYTHING*, thats.. well, you obviously dont think too highly of your fellow humans' ability to compromise with the general will of society and desire to live a fairly socially frictionless life.
Sean is not satire. He seems to write his opinions. He editorializes. In that respect, while his opinions and jokes can be funny, his targets tend to be somewhat obvious and easy to ridicule. Since he doesn't have to deal with the ramifications and implications of his opinions, he's pretty safe. Again, his writing can be very funny, but his opinions are the 'easy to make' flavour; mostly self-serving and generally glib. Y'know, spill a little blood, caveat emptor, that kind of take on the world. Make fun of those who've already lost. Whatever. I'm not arguing against his opinions - I'm only saying that its infinately easier to scrawl hilarious but ultimately substanceless diatribes than to parody something with a straight face and still get a point across. Sean can be funny, but he has a luxury of freedom with regard to the format of his site that The Onion and Satire Wire do not have.
The Onion is satire. Their goal is to parody truths in life by writing satirical articles in an understated and dead-pan fashion. Their research and authenticity as it relates to the subculture they are parodying in any given article is second to none, in my opinion. (I find SatireWire has great concepts, or head-lines, but the writing itself is a little too self-aware and not always up to snuff with the tone you generally find in a newspaper.. which somewhat jarrs your mind out of the 'alternate universe' parody stories presumably take place in.) While The Onion's concepts are generally not as outright funny as Satire Wire's, nor potentially as laugh-out-loud funny as Sean, the actual quality of the writing and the authenticity of the tone found in The Onion is what will forever sell its parody to me.
You disagree, but thats okay. No need to try and poke fun at me for dissecting these sites. I simply like to consider the 'difficulty level' of a comedic goal before I declare who's come closest to reaching it.
His writing is okay, but being a sarcastic glib critic who needn't deal with the devil in the details of his sweeping opinions, it's much easier to do his thing than to do the onion thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Awesome!
Yes, I stand corrected. I didn't see 'print'. Not that my point doesn't still make sense, it simply happens to be a little superfluous in breadth in light of your correction.
No, the idiot is the guy who buys Leonardo's artistic vision, and crayons over it.
BTW, your argument is bad because the Mona Lisa is one of a kind. I promise you, if you bought all the famous American paintings and burned them 'because its your consumer rights', you'd have to deal with the rights of art lovers around the world to live in a society that preserves its culture. I can assure you that you have no rights when it comes to pissing on original and important pieces of cultural work. I dont know what the gory details are, but I think you'll find that you are not permitted to piss on your culture, even if you own it. (Could be wrong, but shouldn't be.)
Now, if you have copy #2342032 of the latest blockbuster, can you draw on it? Of course you can. The problem is simply the aggregated editing houses that will make it so 'easy' for the culture to censor their own culture that the censored works of its famed artsits become more popular and widespread than the original artistic vision. (For instance, if somebody drew a mustache on Mona Lisa prints, and sold those, you could raise an entire generation of folks who threw out what was good about the Mona Lisa because Leonardo's mustache drawing abilities were clearly sub-par.)
It's a slipperly slope. There really isn't that much difference in 'editing' something and 'completetly editing it out of existance' a la book bonfire. When you begin to aggregate censorship in large amounts, it doesn't matter if its a private body or a public body that does the censoring - it still breaks the crucial cycle of communication required between populus and the artistic community required to inspire creativity and lateral thinking in the non-art world.
To summarize, editing your 'print' of something should be legal and dandy, although probably should be discouraged by the social body in question in order to prevent a slide down that slope. Meanwhile, editing originals is very much a different thing, as cultural works of importantce are shared among a society by virtue of being culturally significant in the first place. I believe this falls into the basket of the 'general will' contract one makes with a society by choosing to participate in it.
I have to say that anyone who requests censoring their owned art to remove the 'offending' parts is intolerant and probably doomed to be uncultured and ignorant. But whatever. Thats their perogative. Should we prevent people from 'splicing' their VHS tapes?
It's totally understandable that the artists in question would fight to ensure that their vision remains unedited for two reasons:
1) Control over product. It's understantable in an artistic medium - its not like a car, where if you can make the product go faster, after-market, good for you. Art is a message (even if its an uncomplicated, shallow message), and to fuck with it is to fuck with the message.
2) Money. If I'm artist X, and I think most people who are seeing my work through word-of-mouth are seeing edited copies, I'd be upset that other people's editing of my product could be influencing potential customers' decision to purchase my movie. (After all, it's not too uncommon to hear somebody say things like, "Yeah, the movie sucked, but I own it cause of that scene where that chicks not wearing anything." or whatever. Sometimes the offensive bits sell the product.")
That being said, since people have always been free to splice VHS cassettes themselves, etc, I really think its a battle that should be fought only to present the issues directors have with it. I really do believe its unethical to edit art yourself, beyond editing that must take place for logistical reasons ('narrowed for TV' is a legit reason, 'took out bad language' is legit if it doesn't impact the artistic message).
I remain steadfast in my opinion that those who wish to edit their art should grin 'n bare the 'bad stuff', or look for new art altogether.
> The new mario game won't be cellshaded
I actually meant the mario game coming *after* Mario Sunshine. Not that anything's been announced, just that more than one mario game for the gamecube has got to be a certainty, and if the cel shading works for Celda, they will hopefully have enough sense to give Mario the same treatment.
Sunshine looks way fun tho.
Boo! :)
> I think it may be time to pick up a Gamecube
..
/w Star Fox licence (traditional Startfox game coming out later.) Looks beautiful. Nintendo makes great adventure games. Will probably be much fun, although not ground-breaking.
You can pick one up now. Two words: Eternal Darkness. The inclusion of 'Sanity Effects' is the most innovative gimmick for a new game I've seen in a *longlong* time. Without giving it away, this game has the capability to play you (as in you, the gamer, not you, the character in the game). Should be required playing for anybody who tells you that the story of a game can only get in the way of the game itself.
BTW, for those curious about Metroid, Zelda, Starfox and wonder what could possibly be innovative about these games considering the age of their franchises
Metroid: Will be set in an FPS style. Gimmick is that your HUD actually curves as its displayed onto your helmet visor. It's a subtle effect, but thats Nintendo. They always do that last mile. When bright flashes occur during game play, you can see the animated reflection of your face on the inside of the visor. The effect is gorgeous beyond words. The gameplay looks great, and I have no doubt Metroid is about to make an amazing comeback. (And props to Nintendo for letting the franchise settle and age for awhile, makes the return that much more sweet.)
Zelda: Probably much like Ocarina of time, but cel shaded. This'll be a love/hate thing. The PS/XBox fan base really really really seems to hate 'cuteness' in their games. The Nintendo fan base shouldn't mind too much, but whether or not you like this game will seperate who plays games for the visual style and 'edgy content' and who plays games for the gameplay. Plus, if this works, I'd wager that the next Super Mario game will be cel shaded.
Starfox: Ocarina of time
Combine all this with Nintendo finally shipping gory games, getting souped-up port after souped-up port from the PS2 library, and I think you've got a console easily worth committing too if you're the type of gamer who's bored with the style'n'flash-over-gameplay approach to game development these days.
I guess others will just wait until PS3 - they say that in GTA5, you'll actually be able to _watch_ yourself do it with the hookers! (Insert Beavis and Butthead sounds here.)
Fair enough, but 'assigned to an agent' .. it is my impression that copyrights are transferred in most cases with label contracts. From the link you provided (great link, could never find an easy reference):
> Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title.
If this is the case in the majority of contracts between musicians and labels, then, to me, it is much like the publishing industry is the sole recipiant of the protections and compensations afforded by copyright law?
Are people aware that the music industry was dragged through court a few years ago for paying for retailers' advertising if they promised not to sell CDs under a certain price?
CDs could be way cheaper, but the industry has been caught a few times trying to make sure you dont remember what it was like to buy an album and get 7 good songs. 3 songs and 17 filler tracks is a much more profitable and easily 'constructed' model for them.
You are talking pre-Statue of Queen Anne, because the Statue, was the first true copyright law (since everybody seems to associate copyright with the right of the author to determine the fate of the work) that allowed the author to own the copyright to their work. I'll grant you that the Act you describe did indeed use the term 'copyright', but in so far as the word is used today to champion the well-being and right of an author, it was the Statute of Anne that was the first true copyright law with the welfare of the author in mind.
.. effectively making today much like pre-Statue of Queen Anne times. Artists are *allowed* today, to own their copyrights, but those seeking publication usually have to sell it. For all intents and purposes, (save that it is the publisher, not the government, who censors in this day and age), we are in pre-Statute of Queen Anne times, when copyrights were mainly only in the hands of publishers and authors received little or no compensation outside of selling the *original* work (or the copyright, today).
You'll notice that today, 98% of copyrights are owned by the publishers again, and that most authors have to sell thier copyright in order to be published anyway
I'm not aware of how the U.S.Constitution prevents the scenario as described above, save for that your government can't *force* the situation on the people. That really doesn't prevent the private sector from effectively influencing public perception and dominating the market enough to duplicate the effects of the Licencing Act you refer to.
Ah, you're one of those folks that won't follow somebody until millions of others have, huh? Does it hurt when they shear your wool off?
Prior to 1622, there was a law that said you could only print works' if you were a licenced publisher. This became like today's equiv. of Hollywood - the monarchy's publishing cronies got dibs on printing culture, and make a whack load of money on it (granted, very little of that money made its way back to the author.)
... musicians make little to nothing over the publication and distribution of their works these days, more money is made from performing, freelancing, or, in the form of most record contracts, ***selling their copyright*** to the publisher.)
The Statute of St Anne, 1622, the first copyright law, said that the publishers had to pay the author (ie, that the author actually *owned* the work) but also that the work had to go back into the public domain 20 years after publication in order to ensure that there was no monopoly on distribution and publication.
400 years later, the publishers own 98% of the copyrights again, and dont have to reqliquish control until 70 years after the death of the company.
When its all said and done, today is much more like pre-copyright law than post-copyright law. (This is even reflected in the authors slice
>It's kind of like the british government deciding who may or may not use a printing press.
.. in order to make sure other folks could print cultural works after the monarchy's publishing industry cronies had the chance to make a crud load of $$ off the backs of artists.
Ironically, copyright law was enacted to *combat* that problem
You are absolutely right.
.. I mean, if somebody *really* cared, they'd find a way of preventing your action(s) technologically, right?
The corralary is when you place values, responsibility and accountability in the hands of technology, you free up people (or the collective social conciousness) from having to adhere to said behaviour.
There is a subconcious belief these days that *if* you can do (get away with) something, it must be OK
>you're not going to get into trouble for spreading the non DRM version around.
.. ie, to force work back into the public domain, then what is the point of the entire law if I can release my music *only* in a DRM'd format?
...
If copyright was introduced in order to break the publishers' monopoly on printing (1622, I think)
DRM is not a musical format. It is a technology that, while its bits might sit beside my musical bits, is not technically part of the 'format' that I present my song in
It's not a medium. It's the package _around_ the art. So, doesn't the law of copyright become useless (toothless, worthless, etc) as soon as I'm legally allowed to distribute my work in a package that nullifies any intent set forth by copyright law?
Er rather, maybe its 70 years or 90 years now, shit, I can't keep up with Disney's lawyers .. I forget how insane it is right now. Somebody care to clarify?
>DRM in itself isn't bad, because if the artist wishes to release their song in that format, that is their right.
Sorry, can you explain to me what exactly the rights of artists are? And why those rights are relevant to the artist given that 98% of the copyright in the western world is owned by corperations?
The artist is obligated to ensure that, upon claiming protection via copyright, his work is freely accessible 20 years after his death. Should he DRM-ize all his songs to expire after 6 months, and never publish them again, it is the artist that is breaking copyright law (by not making his work available to the commons after his copyright protection has expired.)
Considering that the WTO was formed in order to allow companies to seek damages from governments who 'mess' with the markets (like banning dangerous chemicals, natch, but thats a whole other ball of wax) .. I can't imagine the WTO taking power away from the private sector and placing it in any kind of public body. That's practically counter to the reason it was put together.
+1 insightful. :)
.. hopefully the pendulum will swing at some point and we can start creating accountable public bodies with good intentions again. Unfortunately, it'll take some tolerance to 'losers' that lack that super-Western killer instinct that always ends up being mostly self serving, much to the chagrin of its supporters. Why are people always surprised that when you support an ultra-competative system (nothing wrong with competition, but it shouldnt be the goal in its own right .. people are naturally competative, so no need to try and encourage it), they're only your friend until they've got what they want from you?
:)
Yeah, its frusterating - all the honest people interested in the public good are increasingly being dismissed as bleeding heart liberals incapable of making it in the real world. Cynicism like that is what makes it such a self-fulfilling prophecy for our society. Or at least thats my opinion. Given how much people hate non-winners, those not in the game to win rarely get to weild any power
Or am I making something out of nothing again, as I'm known to do?
Yeah well, if you can show me a just planet, I'll admit we're earning our wealth.
Until you can prove that reality mirrors the idealistic mechanics of a perfectly capitalist free market system, I will continue to battle against the broken pieces of capitalism.
You have a 'just world' view, but get over it. The world ain't fair, and thus even tho wealth is 'earned', its not neccessarily earned as a result of the mechanics of pure capitalism and free market economics.
Thanks for reducing me to a label. I'm simply against extremes. I'm against communism, and I'm against capitalism run amok. There's a reason why 'everything in moderation' tends to be a truism in the physical world.
OH, BY THE WAY:
Institutionalized distribution of weath implies wealth distributed by a central state. If you understood my point, it was that if a PUBLIC, ie, lots of people who are *not* centrally organized make a stand on the weight of the distribution of wealth within a society , thats about as far from institutionalized distribution of wealth as you can get.
Of course, it seems the only way people can think about any alternative to laissez faire economics is to pull a McCarthy and start coughing *communist*. Open your brain and start thinking about who drives what parts of the economy - if its a small boat of people who are really successful at capitalism, their influence on the market begins to *become* exactly that of institutionlized distribution of wealth. That is, a small centralized group of people determining how the wealth trickles about the economy. I'd feel sorry for your limited viewpoint on what sorts of systems are available out there except for I understand that pity tends to make people more stubborn and more prone to self-censorship.
Thusly, I will congratulate you on understanding that institutionalized distribution of wealth tends not to work, but also offer the suggestion that you read up on other types of economies that are possible (you might start with Polyani?). Please just keep reminding yourself that once certain entities in a free-market become powerful enough, they essentially become a centralized institutionalized method of the distribution of weath - nearly indistinguishable from communism, but with the 'carrot' offered in front of your nose saying, 'hey, one day you might get this powerful, so its not really communism, is it?'
There is a big difference between stiving for perfect equality (which I'm not) and striving for less inequality (which I happy admit) at the cost of whatever happens to 'motivate' the latest multimillionaire.
:P
Man, being against wealth run amok and being told you might be communist is like telling a non christian that they are obviously Satanists.
There are alternatives; you don't have to relegate yourself to only offering the extreme ends of the scale as the only possible solutions, thank you very much.
Course, maybe you were just baiting me.
>the pursuit of happiness
.. so if that's right, and the government is supposedly held accountable to the public in a democracy, isn't it hypocritical to suggest that the public has no place in determining what kind of weath receives protection?
Not at the cost of others' happiness. If you want to get technical and say that him masturbating his money away shouldn't make other people unhappy, I suggest you do some reading on physcology - not having access to basic needs while others' cavhort playfully around the atmosphere significantly reduces the happiness and morale of the have-nots much more than the happiness provided to the have-it.
I'm sure there are shitloads of other things he'd love to do, and if you can't make a *reasonable* compromise (and I do believe its a reasonable request given sufficient public support were he asked to contribute back into the economy in more meaningful, progress-inducing way) with society at large, you have no right to defence when the mob shows up with pitch forks and torches. I'm assuming that you agree that it is the role of government to protect his right to his wealth (the only true function of government in a pure capitalist system)
> If we made it such that anyone who becomes wealthy must give their wealth to others, would anyone choose to become wealthy? Isn't that the root of capitalism and freedom?
.. well, you obviously dont think too highly of your fellow humans' ability to compromise with the general will of society and desire to live a fairly socially frictionless life.
This is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard; its a shame I hear it so often.
We are not saying, "Okay, you made your money, and now you can't spend a cent of it." We're saying, "Spend away, and spend it on something that makes you feel good, but see if you can find something that makes you feel that that *also* helps other people."
Nobody said anything about not being able to spend your wealth, and if you think the only motivation for getting wealthy is being able to spend your money on *ANYTHING*, thats
Slow down, boy.
.. which somewhat jarrs your mind out of the 'alternate universe' parody stories presumably take place in.) While The Onion's concepts are generally not as outright funny as Satire Wire's, nor potentially as laugh-out-loud funny as Sean, the actual quality of the writing and the authenticity of the tone found in The Onion is what will forever sell its parody to me.
Sean is not satire. He seems to write his opinions. He editorializes. In that respect, while his opinions and jokes can be funny, his targets tend to be somewhat obvious and easy to ridicule. Since he doesn't have to deal with the ramifications and implications of his opinions, he's pretty safe. Again, his writing can be very funny, but his opinions are the 'easy to make' flavour; mostly self-serving and generally glib. Y'know, spill a little blood, caveat emptor, that kind of take on the world. Make fun of those who've already lost. Whatever. I'm not arguing against his opinions - I'm only saying that its infinately easier to scrawl hilarious but ultimately substanceless diatribes than to parody something with a straight face and still get a point across. Sean can be funny, but he has a luxury of freedom with regard to the format of his site that The Onion and Satire Wire do not have.
The Onion is satire. Their goal is to parody truths in life by writing satirical articles in an understated and dead-pan fashion. Their research and authenticity as it relates to the subculture they are parodying in any given article is second to none, in my opinion. (I find SatireWire has great concepts, or head-lines, but the writing itself is a little too self-aware and not always up to snuff with the tone you generally find in a newspaper
You disagree, but thats okay. No need to try and poke fun at me for dissecting these sites. I simply like to consider the 'difficulty level' of a comedic goal before I declare who's come closest to reaching it.
His writing is okay, but being a sarcastic glib critic who needn't deal with the devil in the details of his sweeping opinions, it's much easier to do his thing than to do the onion thing.