I also think we need to reform copyright law. To me, the idea that a non-human entity (corporations) can own copyright is not inherently wrong. However the idea that an indefinite entity can own work practically indefinitely is wrong.
Interesting point about natural rights. Is the concept that we own what we make a natural right or not?
As with everything else, there is no one right solution.
However as an independent artist, I am concerned at the prospects of copyright law being strengthened for the corporation as it seeks to take all of my work and give it to all of my clients.
Outside of certain industries - typically those working on very large productions associated with label 'cartels', many artists (myself included) ARE independent and DO maintain ownership of their work directly.
We often don't think of 2-D artists (painters, photographers, printmakers, etc.) and writers as artists affected and protected by copyright law, but they are. As we live in an ever more digitally connected world so-called piracy of digitized media is an increasingly large threat to these groups
I'm happy to say that as an artist (as the sole source of my employment), I am not living in a gutter. Filthy rich? Far from it. But I'm not starving.
Ownership of my copyright allows me to control the use of my work; in turn allowing me to protect my professional image and profit from my labor.
There is certainly room to reform copyright law as it exists in Berne Convention countries, but it is a necessary piece of legislation.
As record labels shrink and/or disappear, we'll see more recording artists maintain ownership of their works. I assume they're the chunk of the group you assume comprises the "most artists" that don't own their own work.
The argument itself that most people who generate "artistic" IP don't own their work is probably fallacious anyway.
Oh, and Poe... I suspect his problems stemmed largely from psychological disorders and substance abuse problems - not his craft.
And where does Google get the "local content" that fills their search results?
Right, it comes from the local journalists (including the TV folks, although in most markets they're useless).
I wish people would realize that all this magically "free" content comes from somewhere. And once those people who pay their bills making that content lose their jobs, it's game over on many levels.
Of course you'll get people submitting photos of car crashes they saw on the way to work, or opinions on any number of topics. But what casual blogger's gonna cover city council? Who's going to take on the full-time job of keeping tabs on the school districts?
And, quite frankly, being a reporter requires skill, training and talent just like computer programming or brain surgery. It takes an understanding of the situation to ask the right questions, and it takes trust and tenacity to get sources to talk to you.
If it didn't, all CNN et al would use is crap like iReport.
Sadly, what they'll understand is that they suffered a minor to moderate inconvenience, to which a seemingly acceptable resolution was offered.
There may be no understanding beyond "technical problem."
And while I'm sure the studio isn't happy, they'll still probably get money from every single person that showed up to the movie. So they'll have something to talk about as they drive the big truck full of money to the bank.
Of course, there are some exceptions to that model, and this is coming from a guy whose last several moviegoing experiences have been so unpleasant that I have not set foot in a movie theater in almost four years.
Copyright cases are usually pursued in civil court because that allows the infringed to seek damages for the infringement. But it is a crime, and can be prosecuted as such. In fact, one can be prosecuted civilly and criminally for infringement.
Section 2319(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
"(b) Any person who commits an offense under subsection (a) of this section-
"(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500;
"(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
"(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case."
That's why they can keep your stuff for 30 days or longer.
They're not going to go file-by-file right in front of you. Oh, no. They're going to clone every storage device on you after physically inspecting the hardware. Then, if they bother to go through it and find something encrypted, they'll likely subpoena you for the key. Don't want to turn it over? Can't remember the old password? Contempt of court.
If they find something they think is criminal, watch US Marshals show up at your house weeks later to talk with you about it.
These searches will probably be carried out en masse behind closed doors; long after you get home sans laptop and CF cards.
But that's the underlying problem with the system. They can image your laptop drive and either actually confuse the data with someone else's (see: No Fly List), thereby getting you in trouble; or some unscrupulous person can drop a kiddie pron file, a missile schematic or a plan to hijack a plane in there and haul you off. How are you going to argue against that?
And we haven't even discussed how long they can hang onto the "evidence" or what their destruction policies are.
And no, they won't do it to everyone. That would cause panic and anger. They'll do it to random people because they can, and they'll do it to people they want to "get;" legitimately or otherwise. You can never show all the sheep how you're going to shave and slaughter them.
And until schools step up and start doing that, outsiders will come in to do it in their version.
We've seen it already with drugs and sex-ex. It's true, not fucking is the only way to not get pregnant. But that doesn't mean it's abstinence-only that should be taught. Yet, in many schools teachers would rather let someone else come in to talk about an uncomfortable subject; even if it's a little spun.
Same deal with digital downloads. The article mentions a few artists who do make their stuff freely available. But that's the exception, not the rule. A safe rule is, if you're not absolutely sure, don't do it.
I read the article itself, and fail to see where that was mentioned. I think that the submitter "remixed" some of what was said in the Ars article with what was on the MusicRules site.
What's wrong with teaching kids about respecting copyright? I agree completely that the US system is far from perfect, but we do have copyright laws on the books, and they're there for a good reason.
Most artists are not rich. The ability to control their music, pictures, paintings, designs, etc. allows them to pay bills very much in line with the ordinary Joe. It's a job. They should get paid for their job, if their work is in demand.
The Internet generation seems to think that if you can touch something, you can have it. I've started to see that 'entitlement' thing that the older folks keep talking about. Stuff on the Internet is not necessarily free. Sure, there are plenty of people who do make their songs, pictures etc. available for free legitimately. Why not download that? I'm betting it's because much of the time, it's not nearly as good as the paid-for stuff.
More people should be taught to respect copyright; even if it only leads to a change in the laws on the books (specifically, I hate the lifetime+70. Far too long.). But illegal downloading really IS stealing. I know that's an unpopular view, and the cartels have done nefarious things trying to enforce the laws, but it remains a fact.
And as to the fair use argument:
1) Fair Use is an admissive defense for copyright infringement. Meaning, you don't get to do something because it's fair use, you do it and if you get sued, you make a case for fair use.
2) Fair Use generally does not encompass making copies of something to give to someone else. It also does not encompass putting complete or majority portions of a work, say, online for review or critique purposes.
3) People should be able to make backups of CDs and movies (except for the lousy 'decryption' provision), and even shift between media.
But let's not pretend that downloading something you don't own or have license to use is somehow OK; much less Fair Use.
The only thing I hold the artists personally responsible for is signing bad contracts with the labels.
But what's their alternative? That's the way the present system is set up.
If you don't like what they're selling, don't buy it. Obviously what they're selling is in demand by many, or there wouldn't be the fights over money. But don't think that someone's creative talent rests with their representation.
This is indicative of a greater problem in the world economy. There are so few people that actually produce anything anymore (whether it's a machinist making engine blocks or a guitar player making music), that a huge chunk of the economy revolves around being a middle man.
Just like present US insurance problems, this is simply obsolete middle-men trying to protect their cube jobs; and the artists and consumers are expected to foot the bill.
Artists do need to band together, because they will get screwed otherwise, but the middleman cartels aren't looking out for those they represent, not are they looking out for the consumer. They're doing whatever they can to keep their jobs.
The clear and vast majority of artists in any medium are not rich, and don't have anything but the average person's "wouldn't it be great to be dirty rich" attitude. Day-to-day, they want to make the same living you do.
Personally, I don't feel this way about the healthcare issue specifically, but the average American is wildly overtaxed. And I don't mean that they simply pay too much in taxes, but that they get very, very little for the huge sums of money.
We have public schools, and for the most part, they are a disaster. We have public highways that are often a disaster. We have an absolutely massive military that does not seem to return much money to the taxpayer (save for the Coast Guard). We have social welfare (Social Security and Medicare/Medicade) that are completely broken.
Basically, with some exceptions, the bigger the 'public initiative,' the bigger the disaster at the end of the tunnel.
It's very hard for people to wrap their heads around paying yet MORE to help other people, when they themselves may just be getting by. Couple that with the fact that so much taxpayer money here does not go back to the citizenry, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Let's also not forget that the insurance business here is a huge one. They have plenty of money to keep the fires over this issue well-stoked. It has been suggested that some of the "protesters" at the town hall events were actually paid operatives from PR firms working on behalf of the
There is also, for better or worse, a staunch individualism among many Americans. Personally, I think it comes from being citizens of a country made of largely social outcasts from other places. Individual independence was a day-one kinda thing here.
That being said, I think that social or semi-social medicine is a great thing for the country. After all, we're going to continue to get soaked no matter who's running the show (does anyone actually think the public option will be cheaper or better than what we have now? It's the same people running the show, albeit with different titles). We might as well have the additional fractional amount of control that comes with having the program publicly administered.
While I completely agree that the "recent" timeframe oscillates somewhat over time, what happened in the past, even the distant past, is absolutely critical to what happens tomorrow. Especially in terms of politics, government and global economics.
What we consider "recent" today is generally more recent in actuality. Partly because we are exposed to so much more of what happens today. But the long view of history, all few thousand years of written human history, is absolutely and supremely important.
It's not about memorizing trivia, but understanding how Greek government worked. What did the Chinese contribute to medicine and navigation? Why are resource-rich countries in Africa still such shitholes? How did Rome come to be a global superpower, and why did it all fall apart?
You can't know where you're going, if you don't know where you've been.
Actually, I'm a Treo and Mac user. I have a 755p that is actually a great phone for me. It worked fine in Tiger, but a recent upgrade to Leopard broke the universe. I haven't played with the Mark/Space software yet, but I can say that Mac's support for Treos was weak at best, and nonexistent in recent years.
I'm not planning on upgrading to Snow Leopard any time in the very near future, but when I do, I suppose I'll get the Missing Sync software.
I would totally buy an iPhone as an alternative, but I will not do business with AT&T. So hopefully their exclusivity period ends before I buy a new phone and get locked in with another contract.
I did the same thing in February. We had a $180/month cable bill (including TV, Internet and telephone). Dropped the land line and the TV, and we're paying $45/month for the Internet.
We don't watch much TV beyond the odd PBS show, and the OTA HD actually looks better than the stuff I was getting through Cox. And even if it didn't, the near $1600 we're saving every year lets us get out and have more fun. Not at home. Watching fat and desperate people sing for a shot at fame and supper.
So yeah. 46" 1080p TV with rabbit ears, an Xbox360 (games and some streaming Netflix) and a bookshelf full of books.
I can't speak to an individual officer's experience.
And it hasn't gotten to the point of military or paramilitary involvement here (in the US) because for the most part, it's still bad guys killing and kidnapping bad guys.
But more than 400 kidnappings in Phoenix in 2008 points to the problem.
Plus, much of the anti-cartel action in Mexico is the same security theater employed by TSA here. It's all for show. Keep the gringos happy about the "War on Drugs."
My point was to show that it is happening here (even if not to the same magnitude, but certainly the same degree), and to call to light the fact that one of the solutions most likely to fix the problem is the legalization of marijuana. When booze was re-legalized, the wheels fell off the gunbattles in the streets of Chicago, the church-basement murders and the rest of what now resembles life as usual in Mexico.
Bullshit. Do a little poking around in San Diego, Phoenix, Tucson, LA, Houston, and El Paso, and you'll see very quickly that narco violence is at the same degree in the US as it is in Mexico. Sure, it may not be at the same frequency, but it's getting there.
Drug rips in the form of home invasions are becoming quite common, kidnappings for extortion (drugs or money from other cartels or factions) are very common and good ol' fashioned outright murder is not uncommon at all.
Granted, we don't hear as much about it because often it's badguys killing badguys. When we do, it's usually because some doofus hit the wrong house, or the kidnapee himself was an innocent; possibly only related to a rival.
Cartels are driven by the artificially high prices of drugs (especially marijuana) and fight with eachother either for access to more trade routes, access to more drugs, or shockingly, personal insults and vendettas.
No, no one likes the cartels. But the solution is the same as that which finally brought about the end of the American booze cartels of the 1920's and 1930's.
Qualification: I am a journalist who very often covers narco violence and cartel activities in the US, and northwestern Mexico.
Translation: "We have tons of traffic on our site that generates no revenue at all, so plans are in place to pare that back to core consumers that support our product."
Seriously, newspapers are faced with a huge problem, and it's not the Internet. They can continue to peddle the dog shit that passes for news these days in an attempt to capture the eyes of everyone cheaply, or they can refine their product to the point it has real value and seek to peddle it to those who can afford to pay for it.
Freeloading traffic to a site is great when you're trying to sell something other than the site itself. In the case of journalism, the information itself is what needs to sell.
That traffic brings in absolutely no money at all.
Most national advertisers can do much better campaign-wise than advertising in newspapers or on their Web sites.
And does a flowershop advertising in a paper in in New York (or Phoenix or Chicago) really give a shit if someone in Nebraska glanced at an ad for the flowershop hundreds of miles away?
I think the next step for news agencies is to turn off the Web sites to the public, and only sell content to the people willing to pay well for it.
Industry magazines do it all the time. Last I checked, National Journal was well over $3,000 per year and people were happily paying it.
Who cares if you get a bajillion majillion hits? Click does not equal cash.
Yeah, the first Rainbow Six where you had to plan and coordinate the entries was awesome, and Ghost Recon is one of the best shooters I've ever played. The graphics were absolutely awesome too, especially for its day.
While there are some good Ubi titles out there, they killed those two.
Which is my point exactly. The original, one-of-a-kind painting is worth a lot more than any large-volume reproduction. Picasso's work is likely still under copyright (whether the term is too long or not is not my subject here).
That allows people to buy/lease rights to make poster reproductions and turn a reasonable profit.
Work I sell at galleries commands much higher prices than machine prints and posters I sell online. But copyright allows me to be the one to determine how that work gets sold. In other words, someone else can't just start making posters of my work and selling it.
Who modded this insightful? I'm not trolling, but the fact that copyright allows labels to benefit from sales more than artists is THE FAULT OF THE ARTIST for signing away forever and ever rights in exchange for an advance from the label. Especially since today a record label is largely obsolete.
But yeah, ruin it for everyone because you don't like David Geffen or the teeny bopper shitheads who know nothing of the world and are willing to sell what proves to be millions, if not billions, of dollars of music for and advance that works out to be pennies on the dollar, but will slake their beer, coke and hooker binges until they have to keep releasing shitty album after shitty album as indentured servants paying off a lien.
It is copyright that ALLOWS individuals to make a living simply by being creative. How, again, does making a living making some form of art hamper creativity? I hear that all the time, but NO ONE has been able to flesh it out.
Academics (or anyone else) can ALREADY cite papers within their own. When was the last time that someone got sued for a cited quote and an entry for the source of that quote in a bibliography or footnote?
It sucks that stuff costs money, I guess. But take away the profit incentive for people who research, write books, record music, take pictures and make movies and you'll see all of it wane and disappear.
There is a certain amount of creative talent that can emerge when you can dedicate your life to the pursuit of your interest. I get a lot more work done by doing it full time, rather than working at McBurger or Ikea or Lawfirm 1120 and playing in my "spare time."
The solution is to educate people about what copyright is, how it applies to them, and how to use it effectively.
As the US and most industrialized nations shift part of their economies away from manufacturing and raw materials to information, copyright becomes an absolutely more necessary protection for the economy.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be fair, but why shouldn't I have the ability to make money as a photographer because you want to download the new Metallica album for free so that they can "make it up on concerts and t-shirts?"
I may be prejudiced as a heterosexual male, but women are designed better, or at least more multifunctional, than men. And we chose our mates more on appearance then women do. Perhaps because historically, women wanted men who were hunters and killers. Occupationally, that line of work does not yield pleasant, soft-skinned appearances.
Besides, does anyone of any gender and sexuality actually find the male reproductive apparatus attractive? What about the seemingly random patches of hair that appear all over the place?
When women are active, for the most part, they tone and yet retain visually appealing curves and shapes. When men work out, we get bulky and bulgy.
Certainly men can be attractive, but I think it's more in the face and general appearance and styling than the "complete package."
Women's bodies are multifunctional. Enough strength to perform tasks, and the room and structure to have and support babies.
Men's bodies are bulky with thick bones and big muscles designed for little more than acts of violence, killing prey/rivals and moving heavy objects (like carrying the kill back to camp).
And we have millions of years of evolution (if you're into that kind of thing *wink*) that has prepped us for that, with a very, very tiny fraction of our history where those traits aren't really necessary for the vast majority of men.
Diabetes and other diseases of relative lethargy may be our evolutionary hurdle for adapting to our newfound automation and sedentary ways.
I'm married, and have no desire for kids. Nor does my wife. We're happy with the committed companionship and the structure of household life, but are completely happy without kids.
It's weird, though, because all our married friends say we'll change our minds about kids. While we're certainly still inside child-bearing age, we're reaching the point where it would be impractical; maybe even dangerous for her or the kid.
And I have lots of family with either one child or, in more cases, no kids regardless of marital status.
This is not to sound prejudicial, but merely to add anecdotal information to the discussion.
I have experienced that the higher earning, more educated and/or more self-employed my peers are, the less likely they are to have and want children.
My wife and I aren't high earners, but she's a journalist and I'm a self-employed freelance photojournalist and documentarian (we never work together). We're also both very "degreed." In another case, a good friend of mine is a doctor. Married 12 years and he and his wife have no kids. Our accountant has been married for over 30 with no kids (no desire to have them), and my engineer neighbor and his wife have one, with no plans for more.
My parents were both highly degreed and well employed and they only had two kids. From a biological standpoint, they replaced themselves and nothing more. Knowing my brother's interests, it's unlikely he'll have kids either. Could be the death of the bloodline.
Conversely, in public and in the field on the job, I notice more people who seem to be of average education and average or below financial means with several children. Children to an extent that high-earners would be unlikely to comfortably afford. I don't know if the kids are their cause for being scrapers-by, or if there is another cause. And I'm not specifically talking about "welfare queens" having kids just for the check.
I have begun to wonder if there isn't some social factor that keeps the more educated and higher-earning folks from wanting children? Certainly, there are exceptions (this isn't even a rule)
And it's not that we're in a huge, sprawling urban area. We're in a city of half a mil, with a total metro population of about 1M.
If my hypothesis holds water, is it a choice thing, or is it an evolutionary thing? The more you're "worth" from a financial and raw material standpoint, the more you consume from a raw material standpoint. Could this be some self-limiting mechanism to keep our human overhead down?
In my work, I have seen people literally living off a few hundred calories per day and a couple bucks per month and expanding their family. It's not a life I'd want to live, but from an evolutionary standpoint, we don't need computers, rocketships and cubicles. We need to pass on our best genes to the next brood. That apparently requires very little resource to do.
But you do have to have some understanding of what you want done before you can expect any hired expert to fix it appropriately.
You also have to know enough to sort out the good experts from the bad. To use your dental example, it's best to have an understanding of what is involved in a wisdom tooth extraction, and the reasons they might need to be extracted. I was lucky, and had a childhood dentist who recognized that I had a big enough space in my jaw that I could at least let the wisdoms grow in before having them yanked (cheaper and less painful). As it works out, once they were in, he said I could keep them. 15 years later, they're fine. But my new dentist (other guy is long since retired) keeps talking about how I should have them out, despite there being no clinical reason.
It's good to have a cursory knowledge about cars so that you can ask the mechanic pertinent questions and avoid being fleeced.
I know that life has become busier and more complicated at the hands of an ever increasing and more complicated set of tools we use daily, but users must still bear the responsibility of at least a basic understanding of what they're using.
And it can only help. I'm actually quite handy with vehicle diagnostics and repair. I don't do every repair myself, but if the time and tools are there, I'm known to do it myself. And that leaves me money to spend paying someone else to fix the stuff I have no idea about. Like washing machines.
Slashdot Mirror
I also think we need to reform copyright law. To me, the idea that a non-human entity (corporations) can own copyright is not inherently wrong. However the idea that an indefinite entity can own work practically indefinitely is wrong.
Interesting point about natural rights. Is the concept that we own what we make a natural right or not?
As with everything else, there is no one right solution.
However as an independent artist, I am concerned at the prospects of copyright law being strengthened for the corporation as it seeks to take all of my work and give it to all of my clients.
Outside of certain industries - typically those working on very large productions associated with label 'cartels', many artists (myself included) ARE independent and DO maintain ownership of their work directly.
We often don't think of 2-D artists (painters, photographers, printmakers, etc.) and writers as artists affected and protected by copyright law, but they are. As we live in an ever more digitally connected world so-called piracy of digitized media is an increasingly large threat to these groups
I'm happy to say that as an artist (as the sole source of my employment), I am not living in a gutter. Filthy rich? Far from it. But I'm not starving.
Ownership of my copyright allows me to control the use of my work; in turn allowing me to protect my professional image and profit from my labor.
There is certainly room to reform copyright law as it exists in Berne Convention countries, but it is a necessary piece of legislation.
As record labels shrink and/or disappear, we'll see more recording artists maintain ownership of their works. I assume they're the chunk of the group you assume comprises the "most artists" that don't own their own work.
The argument itself that most people who generate "artistic" IP don't own their work is probably fallacious anyway.
Oh, and Poe... I suspect his problems stemmed largely from psychological disorders and substance abuse problems - not his craft.
And where does Google get the "local content" that fills their search results?
Right, it comes from the local journalists (including the TV folks, although in most markets they're useless).
I wish people would realize that all this magically "free" content comes from somewhere. And once those people who pay their bills making that content lose their jobs, it's game over on many levels.
Of course you'll get people submitting photos of car crashes they saw on the way to work, or opinions on any number of topics. But what casual blogger's gonna cover city council? Who's going to take on the full-time job of keeping tabs on the school districts?
And, quite frankly, being a reporter requires skill, training and talent just like computer programming or brain surgery. It takes an understanding of the situation to ask the right questions, and it takes trust and tenacity to get sources to talk to you.
If it didn't, all CNN et al would use is crap like iReport.
Sadly, what they'll understand is that they suffered a minor to moderate inconvenience, to which a seemingly acceptable resolution was offered.
There may be no understanding beyond "technical problem."
And while I'm sure the studio isn't happy, they'll still probably get money from every single person that showed up to the movie. So they'll have something to talk about as they drive the big truck full of money to the bank.
Of course, there are some exceptions to that model, and this is coming from a guy whose last several moviegoing experiences have been so unpleasant that I have not set foot in a movie theater in almost four years.
Nope. Try again.
Copyright cases are usually pursued in civil court because that allows the infringed to seek damages for the infringement. But it is a crime, and can be prosecuted as such. In fact, one can be prosecuted civilly and criminally for infringement.
Section 2319(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
"(b) Any person who commits an offense under subsection (a) of this section-
"(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500;
"(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
"(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case."
That's why they can keep your stuff for 30 days or longer.
They're not going to go file-by-file right in front of you. Oh, no. They're going to clone every storage device on you after physically inspecting the hardware. Then, if they bother to go through it and find something encrypted, they'll likely subpoena you for the key. Don't want to turn it over? Can't remember the old password? Contempt of court.
If they find something they think is criminal, watch US Marshals show up at your house weeks later to talk with you about it.
These searches will probably be carried out en masse behind closed doors; long after you get home sans laptop and CF cards.
But that's the underlying problem with the system. They can image your laptop drive and either actually confuse the data with someone else's (see: No Fly List), thereby getting you in trouble; or some unscrupulous person can drop a kiddie pron file, a missile schematic or a plan to hijack a plane in there and haul you off. How are you going to argue against that?
And we haven't even discussed how long they can hang onto the "evidence" or what their destruction policies are.
And no, they won't do it to everyone. That would cause panic and anger. They'll do it to random people because they can, and they'll do it to people they want to "get;" legitimately or otherwise. You can never show all the sheep how you're going to shave and slaughter them.
As a professional photographer (albeit not weddings), thank you very much for having a brain. Here's a virtual Friday afternoon beer for you. Salud!
And until schools step up and start doing that, outsiders will come in to do it in their version.
We've seen it already with drugs and sex-ex. It's true, not fucking is the only way to not get pregnant. But that doesn't mean it's abstinence-only that should be taught. Yet, in many schools teachers would rather let someone else come in to talk about an uncomfortable subject; even if it's a little spun.
Same deal with digital downloads. The article mentions a few artists who do make their stuff freely available. But that's the exception, not the rule. A safe rule is, if you're not absolutely sure, don't do it.
I read the article itself, and fail to see where that was mentioned. I think that the submitter "remixed" some of what was said in the Ars article with what was on the MusicRules site.
I bet I'll lose a ton of karma here, but...
What's wrong with teaching kids about respecting copyright? I agree completely that the US system is far from perfect, but we do have copyright laws on the books, and they're there for a good reason.
Most artists are not rich. The ability to control their music, pictures, paintings, designs, etc. allows them to pay bills very much in line with the ordinary Joe. It's a job. They should get paid for their job, if their work is in demand.
The Internet generation seems to think that if you can touch something, you can have it. I've started to see that 'entitlement' thing that the older folks keep talking about. Stuff on the Internet is not necessarily free. Sure, there are plenty of people who do make their songs, pictures etc. available for free legitimately. Why not download that? I'm betting it's because much of the time, it's not nearly as good as the paid-for stuff.
More people should be taught to respect copyright; even if it only leads to a change in the laws on the books (specifically, I hate the lifetime+70. Far too long.). But illegal downloading really IS stealing. I know that's an unpopular view, and the cartels have done nefarious things trying to enforce the laws, but it remains a fact.
And as to the fair use argument:
1) Fair Use is an admissive defense for copyright infringement. Meaning, you don't get to do something because it's fair use, you do it and if you get sued, you make a case for fair use.
2) Fair Use generally does not encompass making copies of something to give to someone else. It also does not encompass putting complete or majority portions of a work, say, online for review or critique purposes.
3) People should be able to make backups of CDs and movies (except for the lousy 'decryption' provision), and even shift between media.
But let's not pretend that downloading something you don't own or have license to use is somehow OK; much less Fair Use.
It's not the artists.
The only thing I hold the artists personally responsible for is signing bad contracts with the labels.
But what's their alternative? That's the way the present system is set up.
If you don't like what they're selling, don't buy it. Obviously what they're selling is in demand by many, or there wouldn't be the fights over money. But don't think that someone's creative talent rests with their representation.
This is indicative of a greater problem in the world economy. There are so few people that actually produce anything anymore (whether it's a machinist making engine blocks or a guitar player making music), that a huge chunk of the economy revolves around being a middle man.
Just like present US insurance problems, this is simply obsolete middle-men trying to protect their cube jobs; and the artists and consumers are expected to foot the bill.
Artists do need to band together, because they will get screwed otherwise, but the middleman cartels aren't looking out for those they represent, not are they looking out for the consumer. They're doing whatever they can to keep their jobs.
The clear and vast majority of artists in any medium are not rich, and don't have anything but the average person's "wouldn't it be great to be dirty rich" attitude. Day-to-day, they want to make the same living you do.
Personally, I don't feel this way about the healthcare issue specifically, but the average American is wildly overtaxed. And I don't mean that they simply pay too much in taxes, but that they get very, very little for the huge sums of money.
We have public schools, and for the most part, they are a disaster. We have public highways that are often a disaster. We have an absolutely massive military that does not seem to return much money to the taxpayer (save for the Coast Guard). We have social welfare (Social Security and Medicare/Medicade) that are completely broken.
Basically, with some exceptions, the bigger the 'public initiative,' the bigger the disaster at the end of the tunnel.
It's very hard for people to wrap their heads around paying yet MORE to help other people, when they themselves may just be getting by. Couple that with the fact that so much taxpayer money here does not go back to the citizenry, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Let's also not forget that the insurance business here is a huge one. They have plenty of money to keep the fires over this issue well-stoked. It has been suggested that some of the "protesters" at the town hall events were actually paid operatives from PR firms working on behalf of the
There is also, for better or worse, a staunch individualism among many Americans. Personally, I think it comes from being citizens of a country made of largely social outcasts from other places. Individual independence was a day-one kinda thing here.
That being said, I think that social or semi-social medicine is a great thing for the country. After all, we're going to continue to get soaked no matter who's running the show (does anyone actually think the public option will be cheaper or better than what we have now? It's the same people running the show, albeit with different titles). We might as well have the additional fractional amount of control that comes with having the program publicly administered.
Wrong.
While I completely agree that the "recent" timeframe oscillates somewhat over time, what happened in the past, even the distant past, is absolutely critical to what happens tomorrow. Especially in terms of politics, government and global economics.
What we consider "recent" today is generally more recent in actuality. Partly because we are exposed to so much more of what happens today. But the long view of history, all few thousand years of written human history, is absolutely and supremely important.
It's not about memorizing trivia, but understanding how Greek government worked. What did the Chinese contribute to medicine and navigation? Why are resource-rich countries in Africa still such shitholes? How did Rome come to be a global superpower, and why did it all fall apart?
You can't know where you're going, if you don't know where you've been.
Actually, I'm a Treo and Mac user. I have a 755p that is actually a great phone for me. It worked fine in Tiger, but a recent upgrade to Leopard broke the universe. I haven't played with the Mark/Space software yet, but I can say that Mac's support for Treos was weak at best, and nonexistent in recent years.
I'm not planning on upgrading to Snow Leopard any time in the very near future, but when I do, I suppose I'll get the Missing Sync software.
I would totally buy an iPhone as an alternative, but I will not do business with AT&T. So hopefully their exclusivity period ends before I buy a new phone and get locked in with another contract.
I did the same thing in February. We had a $180/month cable bill (including TV, Internet and telephone). Dropped the land line and the TV, and we're paying $45/month for the Internet.
We don't watch much TV beyond the odd PBS show, and the OTA HD actually looks better than the stuff I was getting through Cox. And even if it didn't, the near $1600 we're saving every year lets us get out and have more fun. Not at home. Watching fat and desperate people sing for a shot at fame and supper.
So yeah. 46" 1080p TV with rabbit ears, an Xbox360 (games and some streaming Netflix) and a bookshelf full of books.
I miss cable like I miss chlamydia.
I can't speak to an individual officer's experience.
And it hasn't gotten to the point of military or paramilitary involvement here (in the US) because for the most part, it's still bad guys killing and kidnapping bad guys.
But more than 400 kidnappings in Phoenix in 2008 points to the problem.
Plus, much of the anti-cartel action in Mexico is the same security theater employed by TSA here. It's all for show. Keep the gringos happy about the "War on Drugs."
My point was to show that it is happening here (even if not to the same magnitude, but certainly the same degree), and to call to light the fact that one of the solutions most likely to fix the problem is the legalization of marijuana. When booze was re-legalized, the wheels fell off the gunbattles in the streets of Chicago, the church-basement murders and the rest of what now resembles life as usual in Mexico.
Bullshit. Do a little poking around in San Diego, Phoenix, Tucson, LA, Houston, and El Paso, and you'll see very quickly that narco violence is at the same degree in the US as it is in Mexico. Sure, it may not be at the same frequency, but it's getting there.
Drug rips in the form of home invasions are becoming quite common, kidnappings for extortion (drugs or money from other cartels or factions) are very common and good ol' fashioned outright murder is not uncommon at all.
Granted, we don't hear as much about it because often it's badguys killing badguys. When we do, it's usually because some doofus hit the wrong house, or the kidnapee himself was an innocent; possibly only related to a rival.
Cartels are driven by the artificially high prices of drugs (especially marijuana) and fight with eachother either for access to more trade routes, access to more drugs, or shockingly, personal insults and vendettas.
No, no one likes the cartels. But the solution is the same as that which finally brought about the end of the American booze cartels of the 1920's and 1930's.
Qualification: I am a journalist who very often covers narco violence and cartel activities in the US, and northwestern Mexico.
Translation: "We have tons of traffic on our site that generates no revenue at all, so plans are in place to pare that back to core consumers that support our product."
Seriously, newspapers are faced with a huge problem, and it's not the Internet. They can continue to peddle the dog shit that passes for news these days in an attempt to capture the eyes of everyone cheaply, or they can refine their product to the point it has real value and seek to peddle it to those who can afford to pay for it.
Freeloading traffic to a site is great when you're trying to sell something other than the site itself. In the case of journalism, the information itself is what needs to sell.
That traffic brings in absolutely no money at all.
Most national advertisers can do much better campaign-wise than advertising in newspapers or on their Web sites.
And does a flowershop advertising in a paper in in New York (or Phoenix or Chicago) really give a shit if someone in Nebraska glanced at an ad for the flowershop hundreds of miles away?
I think the next step for news agencies is to turn off the Web sites to the public, and only sell content to the people willing to pay well for it.
Industry magazines do it all the time. Last I checked, National Journal was well over $3,000 per year and people were happily paying it.
Who cares if you get a bajillion majillion hits? Click does not equal cash.
Yeah, the first Rainbow Six where you had to plan and coordinate the entries was awesome, and Ghost Recon is one of the best shooters I've ever played. The graphics were absolutely awesome too, especially for its day.
While there are some good Ubi titles out there, they killed those two.
Which is my point exactly. The original, one-of-a-kind painting is worth a lot more than any large-volume reproduction. Picasso's work is likely still under copyright (whether the term is too long or not is not my subject here).
That allows people to buy/lease rights to make poster reproductions and turn a reasonable profit.
Work I sell at galleries commands much higher prices than machine prints and posters I sell online. But copyright allows me to be the one to determine how that work gets sold. In other words, someone else can't just start making posters of my work and selling it.
Who modded this insightful? I'm not trolling, but the fact that copyright allows labels to benefit from sales more than artists is THE FAULT OF THE ARTIST for signing away forever and ever rights in exchange for an advance from the label. Especially since today a record label is largely obsolete.
But yeah, ruin it for everyone because you don't like David Geffen or the teeny bopper shitheads who know nothing of the world and are willing to sell what proves to be millions, if not billions, of dollars of music for and advance that works out to be pennies on the dollar, but will slake their beer, coke and hooker binges until they have to keep releasing shitty album after shitty album as indentured servants paying off a lien.
It is copyright that ALLOWS individuals to make a living simply by being creative. How, again, does making a living making some form of art hamper creativity? I hear that all the time, but NO ONE has been able to flesh it out.
Academics (or anyone else) can ALREADY cite papers within their own. When was the last time that someone got sued for a cited quote and an entry for the source of that quote in a bibliography or footnote?
It sucks that stuff costs money, I guess. But take away the profit incentive for people who research, write books, record music, take pictures and make movies and you'll see all of it wane and disappear.
There is a certain amount of creative talent that can emerge when you can dedicate your life to the pursuit of your interest. I get a lot more work done by doing it full time, rather than working at McBurger or Ikea or Lawfirm 1120 and playing in my "spare time."
The solution is to educate people about what copyright is, how it applies to them, and how to use it effectively.
As the US and most industrialized nations shift part of their economies away from manufacturing and raw materials to information, copyright becomes an absolutely more necessary protection for the economy.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be fair, but why shouldn't I have the ability to make money as a photographer because you want to download the new Metallica album for free so that they can "make it up on concerts and t-shirts?"
I may be prejudiced as a heterosexual male, but women are designed better, or at least more multifunctional, than men. And we chose our mates more on appearance then women do. Perhaps because historically, women wanted men who were hunters and killers. Occupationally, that line of work does not yield pleasant, soft-skinned appearances.
Besides, does anyone of any gender and sexuality actually find the male reproductive apparatus attractive? What about the seemingly random patches of hair that appear all over the place?
When women are active, for the most part, they tone and yet retain visually appealing curves and shapes. When men work out, we get bulky and bulgy.
Certainly men can be attractive, but I think it's more in the face and general appearance and styling than the "complete package."
Women's bodies are multifunctional. Enough strength to perform tasks, and the room and structure to have and support babies.
Men's bodies are bulky with thick bones and big muscles designed for little more than acts of violence, killing prey/rivals and moving heavy objects (like carrying the kill back to camp).
And we have millions of years of evolution (if you're into that kind of thing *wink*) that has prepped us for that, with a very, very tiny fraction of our history where those traits aren't really necessary for the vast majority of men.
Diabetes and other diseases of relative lethargy may be our evolutionary hurdle for adapting to our newfound automation and sedentary ways.
I'm married, and have no desire for kids. Nor does my wife. We're happy with the committed companionship and the structure of household life, but are completely happy without kids.
It's weird, though, because all our married friends say we'll change our minds about kids. While we're certainly still inside child-bearing age, we're reaching the point where it would be impractical; maybe even dangerous for her or the kid.
And I have lots of family with either one child or, in more cases, no kids regardless of marital status.
This is not to sound prejudicial, but merely to add anecdotal information to the discussion.
I have experienced that the higher earning, more educated and/or more self-employed my peers are, the less likely they are to have and want children.
My wife and I aren't high earners, but she's a journalist and I'm a self-employed freelance photojournalist and documentarian (we never work together). We're also both very "degreed." In another case, a good friend of mine is a doctor. Married 12 years and he and his wife have no kids. Our accountant has been married for over 30 with no kids (no desire to have them), and my engineer neighbor and his wife have one, with no plans for more.
My parents were both highly degreed and well employed and they only had two kids. From a biological standpoint, they replaced themselves and nothing more. Knowing my brother's interests, it's unlikely he'll have kids either. Could be the death of the bloodline.
Conversely, in public and in the field on the job, I notice more people who seem to be of average education and average or below financial means with several children. Children to an extent that high-earners would be unlikely to comfortably afford. I don't know if the kids are their cause for being scrapers-by, or if there is another cause. And I'm not specifically talking about "welfare queens" having kids just for the check.
I have begun to wonder if there isn't some social factor that keeps the more educated and higher-earning folks from wanting children? Certainly, there are exceptions (this isn't even a rule)
And it's not that we're in a huge, sprawling urban area. We're in a city of half a mil, with a total metro population of about 1M.
If my hypothesis holds water, is it a choice thing, or is it an evolutionary thing? The more you're "worth" from a financial and raw material standpoint, the more you consume from a raw material standpoint. Could this be some self-limiting mechanism to keep our human overhead down?
In my work, I have seen people literally living off a few hundred calories per day and a couple bucks per month and expanding their family. It's not a life I'd want to live, but from an evolutionary standpoint, we don't need computers, rocketships and cubicles. We need to pass on our best genes to the next brood. That apparently requires very little resource to do.
But you do have to have some understanding of what you want done before you can expect any hired expert to fix it appropriately.
You also have to know enough to sort out the good experts from the bad. To use your dental example, it's best to have an understanding of what is involved in a wisdom tooth extraction, and the reasons they might need to be extracted. I was lucky, and had a childhood dentist who recognized that I had a big enough space in my jaw that I could at least let the wisdoms grow in before having them yanked (cheaper and less painful). As it works out, once they were in, he said I could keep them. 15 years later, they're fine. But my new dentist (other guy is long since retired) keeps talking about how I should have them out, despite there being no clinical reason.
It's good to have a cursory knowledge about cars so that you can ask the mechanic pertinent questions and avoid being fleeced.
I know that life has become busier and more complicated at the hands of an ever increasing and more complicated set of tools we use daily, but users must still bear the responsibility of at least a basic understanding of what they're using.
And it can only help. I'm actually quite handy with vehicle diagnostics and repair. I don't do every repair myself, but if the time and tools are there, I'm known to do it myself. And that leaves me money to spend paying someone else to fix the stuff I have no idea about. Like washing machines.