So after this lady wins her case in court, exactly what will we be able to do differently? Post clips of NFL games to YouTube with impunity? I doubt it.
Maybe you'll be able to do just that -- if you post the clips in a way that falls within the guidelines for fair use, as Seltzer did.
On the other hand, the cynic in me believe it's more likely that the NFL's legal department will find some other way to get you.
The proper procedures for copyright holders to take in the DCMA are outlined quite explicitly, and this was intentional.
...and this, along with the fact (as I see it, with my layman's understanding of the law) that the use of the clip was a near-perfect textbook example of fair use, makes me wonder if the NFL's actions might be intentionally designed to avoid court action.
If I buy a CD, I'm not concerned about the cost of production, or about who's making how much money from the purchase. The only thing I'm concerned about, money-wise, is whether I think the music on the disc is worth the asking price. K-Fed's so-called CD isn't going to be worth anything at all to me. On the other hand, a good live set from Hot Tuna, if I just got paid and I'm in a good mood, might possibly be worth $30 or more because I'll spend a LOT of hours with that sucker. Looking at the value simply from the viewpoint of production costs seems meaningful to me only if you're buying the disc because you want a shiny piece of plastic.
(Of course, that doesn't mean I'll volunteer the $30 if it's marked at $12. In that case it's simply a much better value.)
Well, it would seem you claim exactly the same insight into the minds of Al Qaeda that you sarcastically accuse me of claiming.
In fact, I don't think either side understands the other very well. Of course, the fear of death is a fairly simple concept, although it's just a single element in a much larger picture.
All I can do is figure out what makes sense to me. And what makes sense to me is that terrorism is not an end in itself; it's merely a means to an end.
When will the americans realize the terrorists already won?
No, they haven't. They want to kill everyone who isn't "one of them," and they haven't done that. This particular incident is clearly an unhealthy byproduct of terrorism, but let's not make it out to be something it's not.
When you make any sort of investment, like buying insurance or a retirement plan, you don't ask how evil the corporations are. All you want is the biggest return for the lowest price, which means the portfolios that will make your investment will be composed of stock from the companies with biggest profit.
What you say is true as far as it goes. However, you're not looking at the whole picture because the next question is, why should the general public tolerate "evil behavior" from corporations?
Just hypothetically: Let's say you own 10,000 shares of XYZ Corp. There are reports that LMNOP Corp has begun development of some sort of "disruptive technology" that would very possibly put XYZ out of business. Would you be happy if some of XYZ executives put a plot into motion to have LMNOP's lead engineer/designer/developer (or whatever) killed? All they're doing is looking out for the share price.
That's something we've forgotten here in the USA, you are innocent until proven guilty!
The court is required to consider a defendant innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it should be, and we shouldn't lose sight of it. However, the rest of us, out in the general public, are free to have whatever opinion we want.
I would argue that the amount to which social change of any sort is possible is directly correlated with how easy it is to distribute progressive and/or revolutionary ideas to sympathetic eyes and ears (to console them) and neutral eyes and ears (to convince them) and even to hostile eyes and ears (to force a response of some sort).
True. But I doubt that the companies that are pushing DRM are publishing any significant amount of progressive and/or revolutionary material, especially not on an exclusive basis.
I'm a fan of the 3/3 rule: If it has less than 3% market share or the version is over three years old, strongly consider what your effort is worth before changing code to support it.
Probably a sensible rule. But I think it's better to turn it around and say this: If a new feature you want to develop for your site will require a recent version of a "major" browser, it might be a good idea to reconsider whether you actually need that feature. Or maybe you could spend just a bit of time investigating whether there's some way to achieve the same thing with older technology. You might still end up requiring the recent, major browser, but at least you'll have a good reason for it.
More options for resizing windows is the item in the article I'd most like to see implemented. But I'll add one more of my own: I'd like to have a button I could click on to go up one level in the hierarchy of folders.
If the law meant you had to continually pay a painter, then the paint job would continually generate revenue.
The law doesn't require you to continually pay for a CD after you've bought it the first time. (However, it could just happen to work out that way if you use a credit card that you never get paid off, but in that case it's not the artist who's continually getting paid...)
A customer enjoying a musical recording often owns the 'house' in which that recording is played, be it a home stereo or portal MP3 player. What one buys is a way to make that device 'pretty' or otherwise functionally useful. That does have an analogy to the 'painter and house' example aforementioned as, when you buy a painter's services, you seek to make your home pretty and often times functionally useful.
I'd suggest you have it backwards. In the case of the house, the paint job is necessary to preserve its value and appearance. But the house is the primary object of value in this scenario.
In the case of music, it's the music itself that's of primary value. You purchased the stereo and/or mp3 player only because you need something to play the music with.
Just out of curiosity, does this statement by you only extend for the life of the musician or artist?
If it were in my power, I'd change copyright law so that it's similar to the following (subject to changes that might arise if I were to think it through more thoroughly, or if someone points out some reason why something won't work):
As soon as a work is published, a single, 15-year term of full copyright protection begins. Possibly it would be renewable for a second, shorter term.
If the artist sells the copyright, a new 15-year term begins for the new owner. (This provision is to preserve the value of the copyright for the original owner.) If the copyright is subsequently re-sold, the new owner gets only the time remaining from the original purchaser. (This is to prevent repeated re-selling simply to extend the copyright.)
When full protection expires, the work goes into a "partial protection" status. Others are free to use or publish the work as they wish, subject to royalty payments -- that is, a compulsory license that would cover any and all possible use of the work.
If the artist dies before the 15-year term expires, his heirs inherit the copyright for the remainder of the term. If the artist dies with less than five years remaining, the term is extended to give the heirs five years.
If the artist dies after the 15-year term expires, the work goes into public domain.
Without copyright law, people and other record companies would make their own copies of albums, leaving little or no revenue to the original artist. The revenue goes to the artist because copyright law forces it.
Yes, of course. All I was saying is that there are no revenues if no one is buying the product. If there are revenues, it's only fair for the artist to get something out of it. I bought my copy of "This Was" for the music, not because I enjoyed doing business with the store the CD came from.
If house painters had similar laws to benefit them, they could "generate revenue because lots of people buy" the privileges of residing in and selling the houses the painters painted.
So how do you propose this would work? The homeowner already owns the house before the painter ever sets foot on the property, so the situation isn't analogous to anything that gives a musician any claim to copyright on his own work. At best, his paint job would be a "derivative work."
But there's a key difference: The paint job doesn't generate revenue on an ongoing basis, the way a successful musical recording does.
Sure it does! The local pub sign performs every night, and draws paying customers, but the guy who painted the boar doesn't get a cut for fifty years, and neither does his manager.
Well, I'll tell you what. When the pub owner starts selling reproductions of the sign, get back to me on that.
That's a circular argument. A successful musical recording generates revenue only because the government forces that revenue stream via copyright law.
No, a successful musical recording generates revenue because lots people buy copies of it. Other musical recordings fail commercially because few people buy copies. Just ask Kevin Federline. He can only wish the government would force some sort of revenue stream from the CD he made.
I think "painting a house" is a better analogy. Performing/recording music is like painting a house, it requires a fixed amount of effort to complete. The painter doesn't receive ongoing royalties from people who enjoy looking at the house, nor does the owner of the house have to pay the painter every year for the previous paint job.
But there's a key difference: The paint job doesn't generate revenue on an ongoing basis, the way a successful musical recording does. As long as a musician's CDs continue to sell, I don't see a problem with that musician getting a piece of the action. (And that's not necessarily a copyright or "intellectual property" issue.)
Having said that, musicians do need to be proactive in planning for retirement, or old age, or whatever. It would be foolish to rely on royalties from sales of old albums as a primary source of income when those albums might not continue to sell.
On the other hand, I have to think that if someone makes a recording that can continue to sell for 50+ years, that person deserves some sort of financial reward for it.
50 years-worth of royalties isn't enough of a financial reward?
50 years of royalties is the financial reward I'm talking about. What else would there be?
You are assuming that the artist actually owns the copyright to their works.
No, I'm not. I simply stated what I think artists "deserve." I didn't go into enough depth to touch on the particular question you're talking about.
What we should also discuss are intellectual property laws that provide proper protection to the artists.
We seem to be pretty much in agreement on that point. I'd prefer to see artists get better deals as a result of market forces (for lack of a better word) than as a result of laws. I'm not convinced that's a realistic thing to hope for, though.
Well yep - honestly if you haven't done anything else in 50 years it probably should be gone too.
On the one hand, I have to agree with this. On the other hand, I have to think that if someone makes a recording that can continue to sell for 50+ years, that person deserves some sort of financial reward for it.
On the third hand, when copyright expires, it doesn't mean the original creator loses all rights to sell the work. It just means he no longer has the exclusive right.
Ad agencies and companies pay stations to play commercials, so what is so different about someone paying them to play certain music?
I invite someone more knowledgeable to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing wrong with it if the DJ discloses that the air time is being paid for.
It's wrong when a paid-for song is presented as if it were part of the regular programming, with the implication being that they're playing it because it's what their listeners want to hear. In that case, it's deceptive.
Last time I checked emusic, not only did it lack DRM, but it lacked ANY artist I was looking for. Now it looks like I have to complete a lengthy enrollment process just to get to the search screen to see what it has.
Click the "Log In" link on the main page. From the log in page, you can either do a search or begin browsing, without logging in.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, the cynic in me believe it's more likely that the NFL's legal department will find some other way to get you.
(Of course, that doesn't mean I'll volunteer the $30 if it's marked at $12. In that case it's simply a much better value.)
In fact, I don't think either side understands the other very well. Of course, the fear of death is a fairly simple concept, although it's just a single element in a much larger picture.
All I can do is figure out what makes sense to me. And what makes sense to me is that terrorism is not an end in itself; it's merely a means to an end.
I said that's what they want. I didn't say it's possible. Get some reading comprehension.
Just hypothetically: Let's say you own 10,000 shares of XYZ Corp. There are reports that LMNOP Corp has begun development of some sort of "disruptive technology" that would very possibly put XYZ out of business. Would you be happy if some of XYZ executives put a plot into motion to have LMNOP's lead engineer/designer/developer (or whatever) killed? All they're doing is looking out for the share price.
Thanks. Works like a charm. I also found that in the customization I can replace the icons with text labels, which I prefer.
More options for resizing windows is the item in the article I'd most like to see implemented. But I'll add one more of my own: I'd like to have a button I could click on to go up one level in the hierarchy of folders.
In the case of music, it's the music itself that's of primary value. You purchased the stereo and/or mp3 player only because you need something to play the music with.
As soon as a work is published, a single, 15-year term of full copyright protection begins. Possibly it would be renewable for a second, shorter term.
If the artist sells the copyright, a new 15-year term begins for the new owner. (This provision is to preserve the value of the copyright for the original owner.) If the copyright is subsequently re-sold, the new owner gets only the time remaining from the original purchaser. (This is to prevent repeated re-selling simply to extend the copyright.)
When full protection expires, the work goes into a "partial protection" status. Others are free to use or publish the work as they wish, subject to royalty payments -- that is, a compulsory license that would cover any and all possible use of the work.
If the artist dies before the 15-year term expires, his heirs inherit the copyright for the remainder of the term. If the artist dies with less than five years remaining, the term is extended to give the heirs five years.
If the artist dies after the 15-year term expires, the work goes into public domain.
Having said that, musicians do need to be proactive in planning for retirement, or old age, or whatever. It would be foolish to rely on royalties from sales of old albums as a primary source of income when those albums might not continue to sell.
On the third hand, when copyright expires, it doesn't mean the original creator loses all rights to sell the work. It just means he no longer has the exclusive right.
It's wrong when a paid-for song is presented as if it were part of the regular programming, with the implication being that they're playing it because it's what their listeners want to hear. In that case, it's deceptive.