Reaping What They Sowed: Recording Industry Now Quite Upset About Copyright Run Amok
from the maybe-think-about-that-next-time,-geniuses dept
We live in a post Blurred Lines world, in which songs that merely pay homage to earlier songs, or that have a similar "groove" but don't actually copy anything are deemed infringing. The latest such case is the Katy Perry case, in which a jury found that she had infringed on a work by an artist named Flame, whose track "Joyful Noise" has a few similarities to Perry's "Dark Horse." Of course, "some similarities" is not supposed to be infringing. Especially when the similarities are so basic and fundamental to lots of different songs, including many that pre-date "Joyful Noise."
The issue isn't that "Joyful Noise" or "Dark Horse" are particularly original: both fuse generic elements of pop, trap and EDM—a style that's come to define the sound of the 2010s. Though in different keys and tempos, both songs feature a descending minor-key progression with evenly spaced B and C notes.
This four-note progression is as basic as the major-scale power-chord riffs in punk, and Perry's supporters argue that standard songwriting tropes like these should stay in the public domain. Indeed, well-known works like the Stranger Things theme song and LL Cool J's "Doin' It (Remix)" use descending minor-scale loops similar to those in "Dark Horse" and "Joyful Noise."
This is all leading some to point out that this case shows that copyright law is a mess. And it is. But it's been a mess for decades, and part of this mess is because of the very industry that's now flipping out over these rulings. So, it's totally possible to agree with Katy Perry's lawyer in calling this a "travesty," while recognizing that this is the recording industry reaping what it sowed.
For decades, the recording industry -- mainly in the form of its lobbying bodies, the RIAA, IFPI and other similar organizations -- have pushed, time and time again, for broadly expansive copyright law, in which everything possible is "owned" and everything possible must be licensed. And now we're reaching the logical conclusion to that mess -- even as many of us warned that this is where things would head, and we were laughed off by the very same recording industry as being "copyright haters." Except, here we are, now, with musicians afraid to even mention their heroes for fear of being sued.
It's all creating a massive chilling effect on music, and has backed the recording industry into a corner. Perhaps it's finally time for the recording industry to just admit that it went too far in pushing for everything to be covered by copyright and that everything must be licensed. Perhaps it should start using that massive lobbying power to change copyright laws in a manner that increases fair use and puts basic building blocks of music into the public domain for anyone to use. Perhaps it should admit that not everything needs to be "property," and that creativity often flows from someone inspired by another musician to create a similar sounding song. And that's a good thing.
But, instead, the industry is likely to stick to its guns on that, and now it has to deal with the fallout from its own success in redefining copyright.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blurred lines, copyright, dark horse, katy perry
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Live by copyright, die by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So long as we don't die over copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don’t give the MAFIAA any ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They wouldn't do anything so stupid as destroying their own customers...oh wait!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's just eat them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now now, that’s not environmentally friendly.
Compost them instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doesn't that happens after eating them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I seriously doubt the MPAA/RIAA are biodegradable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Aerosmith - Eat The Rich?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yep, as long as they can show a couple of quarters worth of massive growth and the guys in charge have their golden parachutes ready, they wouldn't actually be opposed to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wouldn't that destroy future generations of MAFFIAA members' ability to fodder their nest...erm...fleece the public...um...enforce copyright?
They not only don't create anything (well they do seem intent on creating havoc, and are pretty good at creating havoc, but it isn't apparent that havoc is copyrightable, but maybe there is a patent opportunity), they merely represent companies that don't create anything. That would seem to diminish the whole concept of life plus seventy five years (which could be confused with life plus cancer when considering future creativity).
Why wouldn't they think of the children (the golden parachutes might be all the explanation needed)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Wouldn't that destroy future generations of MAFFIAA members' ability to fodder their nest...erm...fleece the public...um...enforce copyright? "
It's pretty much given that any successful CEO today looks no further down the road than 3 years. That's the average time he believes he'll work his current job before moving on to a similar one elsewhere.
In one way you've brought up a salient point - that todays generation of copyright cultists screws it up for the next generation. That, in a nutshell, is why the copyright cult now focuses on litigation and marketing rather than production.
But we've all seen the typical members and spokesmen of the MPAA, RIAA, Ifpi, etc. They're open sociopaths who have made it quite clear, quite often, that they do not give a rat's ass bout anyone other than themselves.
Anyone taking pride in ruining a child's life or promoting China's censorship laws as a "good example" (looking at you, Bono) certainly doesn't care much about the next generation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, they are wanted. Dead or alive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abolish Copyright
Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have copyrighted dying. You are in violation. Cease and desist or you will be subject to postmortem legal action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, the RIAA already beat you to that particular punch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can't copyright dying. You have to patent it. You can only copyright a particular expression of dying.
So I have copyrighted dying by shooting yourself in the foot. RIAA can pay up as soon as they're dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can only copyright a particular expression of dying.
That was once true, but due to the "Blurred Lines" ruling (as seen applied in more suits since) the "style" is now part of copyright and can be applied in overly broad ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They didn't heed the old warning:
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whatever bad can happen to the recording industries and those who always agreed with what it was doing, SERVES YOU FUCKING GREEDY, ARSEHOLE BASTARDS, RIGHT! you haven't ever given a flyin' fuck about anyone or anything other than the amount of money you can geen or from which quarter it came, as long as no one else was able to get anything or even use anything that you considered 'yours'! with a bit of luck, in the not too distant future, artists that you have been screwing will see what has happened to them, how much you have stole from them (not just money-wise, either) and also tell you to 'GO FUCK YOURSELVES'!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its so wonderful when they screw themselves....
They were so bent on getting every cent from sampling they could, but they never considered if you turn a few seconds of a song into something that gets you paid well that they'd use it against themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Part of the reason that the major labels have been so complacent about expansive licencing is that they likely have collective license agreements among each other. All of this BS was primarily meant as shakedowns of smaller productions, individuals, or anyone else outside of the established "industry". However, the licensing ideology has expanded their own sense of entitlement to the point that their executives greed may outpace their legal departments ability to hash out new agreements and keep clashes between each other out of the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The RIAA is hoisted on their own petard. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that we all don't suffer any less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The RIAA is hoisted on their own petard. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that we all don't suffer any less."
True enough. When your neighbors family all choose to shit in their own yard the fact that you keep your own yard clean won't help much to keep away the smell.
The copyright cult has always been extremely self-destructive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Friday deep thoughts:
Other factors?
We're so busy beating the drum about green house gases and CFLs and Carbon, but what if we're chasing the wrong windmill when it comes to 'global warming'. Could any (or all) of the following, instead, be the major reason(s) for climate change:
-small variations in earth's rotational speed
-changes in earth's axis angle
-changes in earth's core temp
-changes in the orbital route or the speed of the earth's orbit around the sun
-change in the size of the sun?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop it. Get some help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Friday fake thoughts
Aside from the fact that your post is off topic, you do understand that you are just making fake sci-ency sounded noises right?
Has the sun changed size? Everything you you list is actually measurable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"Everything you you list is actually measurable."
Just because something is measurable doesn't necessarily mean that this IS being measured. There could be a correlation between these actual measurements and the supposedly irreversible climate change we're experiencing.
"fake sci-ency"
Every heard of The Veldt? What about Virtual Reality?
Sci-fi often leads to modern tech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
I look forward to your published research on this topic, demonstrating that the suggested changes have occurred, and that they responsible for climate change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
Just because something is measurable doesn't necessarily mean that this IS being measured. There could be a correlation between these actual measurements and the supposedly irreversible climate change we're experiencing.
Yeah, that's full of shit. "Maybe all those so-called scientists haven't ever tried to measure the sun!" Yup, you obviously have solved it - we aren't pouting out atmosphere with record levels of methane and CO2 - the sun is getting larger and only you have noticed it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
GARY FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSE!
Since you know everything about everything, I'll just put my faith in you!
I merely posed a question about whether other factors could be involved in climate change, but I'm so glad that YOU, 'sir', already have all knowledge.
Science is the study of God's creation, but who needs that crap when we have YOU to rely on.
Thank you, Gary!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
Science is the study of God's creation, but who needs that crap when we have YOU to rely on.
What makes Gary less reliable than an imaginary god?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
Science is the study of God's creation, but who needs that crap when we have YOU to rely on.
Science is indeed the study of God's creation. If you don't do good science, you're disrespecting God's creation.
Why are you so flagrantly disrepectful of God, AC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
...How did this comment get put here? Apologies, AC I replied to. I meant to reply to the AC you replied to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
Science is the study of God's creation
Wow, the threadjacker and science denier gets indignant but had god on his side so it's ok. Thanks for sharing, coward.
"Maybe those dumb astronomers have never actually measured the tilt of the Earth!" Yeah, that's the ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
lol
We all come here to think and to laugh.
You keep providing the laughs, Gary...I'll keep providing the:
Friday Deep Thoughts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
Yes you are hearing laughs, but the people are laughing at you, not with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your thoughts have the depth of an apple pie—with precisely none of the good taste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably also has the attention span of a goldfish. Can we keep religious nutters out of this? If there's one thing I cannot stand, it's god freaks trying to ram their crackpot ideas down disbelievers' throats. Believe what you will. No law against it - but keep it to yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"Science is the study of God's creation..."
..lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
Do you also chant Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"I merely posed a question about whether other factors could be involved in climate change, but I'm so glad that YOU, 'sir', already have all knowledge."
He can simply read the summation of what a few ten thousand independent scientists have observed, calculated, and found true.
"Science is the study of God's creation, but who needs that crap when we have YOU to rely on."
Scientists have studied the world and come to the conclusion that man has managed to spew enough CO2 and methane into the atmosphere to increase retention of heat beyond the equilibrium.
Your issue is simply that when anyone quotes the scientists who have observed the recent world you seem to emulate the clergymen who tried to explain away galileo by assuming any number of unobservable hypothetical explanations which require black magic or factual miracles in order to be true.
But hey, thirty years down this road your children and ours will be experiencing the predicted effects of global warming for themselves. At least I'll be able to say "well, we tried". Don't know what you'll be telling yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"At least I'll be able to say "well, we tried". Don't know what you'll be telling yours."
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a5/7c/be/a57cbe2fa57f6b2a83e3431b578b4660.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
A picture worth a thousand words, right there.
The boss of the french branch of Morgan Stanley Investment bank said it best about the CEO's of his own corporation;
It's sadly quite predictable what will happen when you put "maximum profit, at any cost" as the primary priority of otherwise competent human beings. At the end of the day they not only end up cannibalizing their own company for the balance of the next quarter, they end up selling the future of their own children for short-term profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
And don't forget that any changes he mentions happen at geological scale.
That is, decades are mere instants at things that happen in the span of thousands or millions of years.
The current climate change is happening a bit faster than that, with overall temperature raising up, CO2 levels going up, ocean acidification and other effects in the span of a few decades.
Truth be said, while there might still be things that need more investigations (remember, scientific analysis it's pretty strict), there is this Precautionary Principle that is being applied in policy making.
In short:
In the end, even in the event that we were wrong about the climate change, the planet will be a better place to live than if we didn't apply most of those measures.
Because you know, the fight against pollution (and climate change) isn't a matter of ideology, but rather, something that comes out of pure common sense:
"Clean your own trash."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
I appreciate responses like yours. I dared to ask a question against popular belief, and mention the “G”[od] word. You’d thought I ripped the Pope’s picture, or shot the Queen Mum or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
In other words:
https://i.imgur.com/up6yu.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
Never mind that the fossil-fuel gravy train's going to run out at some point, and we are far better off if we can get off the train before the end of the track, instead of being on it when it eventually smashes into the wall there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
I notice that your list ignores atmospheric CO2, and how it is increasing. Is that because tackling CO2 levels would mean some industries will die?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
Industries don't necessarily have to die, but why do we keep spitting in the wind?
-Why do we keep allowing manufacturing plants to be built right beside (and dump waste right into) our rivers and streams from which we get our drinking water?
-We know that Hg is poisonous, but how long did we wait to stop using it in our dental fillings?
We know certain things are bad for our health, yet we keep doing/allowing them because...tax revenue.
All I'm asking is, since we're studying climate change, why not study other potential factors instead of focusing primarily on CO2 levels?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
So there are these people called astronomers and astrophysicists. They study the stars, the moon, the sun, and the earth's relation to all of them. These scientists use lots of sophisticated measuring devices, automated formulae, and decades of historical data to keep track of every last bit of imaginable data about the earth and the cosmos. Despite some people thinking Big-Science might block them from speaking up, let me assure you that I know a bunch of these nerds and if they'd found something as interesting as the earth was shifting on its access or the sun was growing... they wouldn't shut up about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
Thanks for the reply.
I still don't believe that pollution is the ONLY reason why our climate is changing. I could be completely wrong, though, since I don't know everything...hence the original question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
So... let's not pollute less is the hill you'd prefer to die on? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
The issue is not that the climate is changing. The issue is that the climate is changing too rapidly for a lot of ecosystems to properly adapt, many of these ecosystems being things that human beings depend upon. The difference in speed between this and other climate events is clearly explained by CO2 and other greenhouse gases that have been pumped out in massive quantities by human beings since the industrial revolution. We have all the knowledge required, the only issue is convincing people to actually do something about it before it's too late, it it isn't already.
You're not going to be able to sit there and come up with a magic explanation that scientists already working in the field have not already considered. In fact, the reason why this is becoming so much of a big issue is that we've spent so much time arguing with people fooled by those with vested interested is keeping the pollution to make the changes we already knew were needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"The difference in speed between this and other climate events is clearly explained by CO2 and other greenhouse gases that have been pumped out in massive quantities by human beings since the industrial revolution."
And as we can quantify the amount of greenhouse gas released by humanity and correlate this exactly to predicted and observed temperature increases we are in fact at the point where if we assumed alternative explanation we'd have to start by abandoning most of basic textbook physics.
That makes any alternative explanation an extraordinary claim, akin to Russel's Teapot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
They have been studied, and found wanting in relationship to the current changes in climate, while CO2 levels have been found to explain the changes. What is being debated is the magnitude of future climate change, as there are lots of what ifs about tipping points that climate change will likely trigger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
I don't mind kicking the sacred cows. I want people to actually think instead of merely shooting from the hip with profanity and name calling responses.
Suppose atmospheric CO2 and pollutants were indeed the sole source/factor/primary culprit in climate change...what then?
-If we destroy all of the plants, we'll die of starvation and/or asphyxiation.
-Let's face it (smell it), we all fart. There's no getting rid of that methane source.
There's gotta be other factors contributing to climate change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
If only those dumb climate scientists knew how to think like you do, huh? How do we all get to be as smart as you?
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"I don't mind kicking the sacred cows."
You're not. You're asking the question on whether anyone has managed to prove there ISN'T a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between the earth and mars orbits.
We have every reason to believe there's not, and no SANE person should place credence in the current theory on the hows and whys of global warming without extraordinary evidence - like, first, disproving all the empirical observations which explicitly demonstrate that global warming is a manmade phenomenon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
Not only that, but they keep pumping deadly dihydrogen monoxide directly into our homes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
100% of all people who’ve ever died ingested dihydrogen monoxide! How dare they!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"All I'm asking is, since we're studying climate change, why not study other potential factors instead of focusing primarily on CO2 levels?"
Because although it took a lot of empirical observation and clinical studies to initially nail down the effects of heavy metals and mercury in particular on the body metabolism, the levels of CO2 and it's effect on atmospheric heat retention is a matter of fundamental physics.
In short, science can say, to the exact decimal, how much better the atmosphere will retain heat if said atmosphere gains a few extra ppm CO2. And it has observed, multiple times, these calculations to be true in vivo.
So since we already know by calculation that pumping the current proportion of CO2 into the atmosphere will result in a given increase of globale average temperature and have observed this very same effect then we require extraordinary evidence to support the hypothesis that global warming is NOT exclusively caused by greenhouse gas emission.
Such evidence has been sought by quite a lot of scientists by now, and no such alternative explanation has been found.
And that leaves crackpots claiming magic, alien intervention, massive conspiracies, or divine interference as the only remaining sceptics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"Is that because tackling CO2 levels would mean some industries will die?"
Oh, ten years ago it would have stayed at a few industries dying.
Today? It's likely we'll have to pull the brakes so hard a global recession will follow.
The effects of pulling that brake and the abruptness with which we'll have to pull it will become more severe the longer we wait.
But we ARE going to have to pull that brake, and given how our body politic is sticking its collective head in the sand on the issue, we will probably start taking meaningful action only at the point where the choice will be between "every coastal city flooded" and "waterworld".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"Just because something is measurable doesn't necessarily mean that this IS being measured."
When it concerns global change? Yes, anything which has an impact is certainly measurable and being measured both.
We're actually at the point where it might be easier to explain away gravity as an effect of a wand-waving wizard than it would be to exculpate direct human interference as the primary cause for warming.
"There could be a correlation between these actual measurements and the supposedly irreversible climate change we're experiencing."
No there couldn't. We already have direct correlation between empirical evidence of the effect of greenhouse gas, man-made emission of the same, and global warming.
In order to plug in alternative explanations you first need to rewrite physics from its most basic foundations.
As for "irreversible"...it's not, and no one claims it is. What is being claimed, with a great deal of certainty, is that it won't be reversible this side of the polar icecaps melting off.
Personally I think we won't be making the 1,5 degree OR the 2 degree goal, given how much incentive there is for every businessman and government in the current generation to stick their head in the sand. Mind you, the difference of either is whether Florida, for instance, will cease to exist half a century or a century from now. Or whether the current breadbasket agrarian regions will have half a century or a whole century to completely relocate their production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"When it concerns global change? Yes, anything which has an impact is certainly measurable and being measured both."
Or, at the very least, it is the role of the sceptic to look at all the publicly available data and answer their own questions before they invent some exclusion. Not to reel off a stupid list of the top of your head that can be found to be measured in a quick Google search, as this guy has done.
He thinks he's some kind of genius whose thought of a bunch of things scientists are refusing to do, but all he's shown is he's too lazy to research his dumbass theories and find the relevant papers with the required data.
"Such evidence has been sought by quite a lot of scientists by now, and no such alternative explanation has been found."
More to the point - factors other than CO2 emissions have been found, measured and taken into full account, but CO2 levels are the factor that's not only the largest, but the one that can be most easily addressed. Things like axial tilt and rotation speed are not only trivial in comparison, but there's very little we can do about them with current technology. We already have most of the technology required to reduce CO2 emissions, it's just a matter of getting people to use them. Which is happening, just not fast enough to avoid the inevitable results of climate change while idiots like this insist on making sure that it's not really dragons at fault before we stop polluting the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"We already have most of the technology required to reduce CO2 emissions, it's just a matter of getting people to use them."
Sadly, the problem is bigger than that.
The new technology has to be constructed before it can be deployed. Said construction in itself has a whopping carbon footprint. When your new solar plant has an initial investment cost in CO2 emission it won't help that it is CO2-neutral once in operation. The IPCC has already recommended nations to build nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuel plants since the energy yield by CO2 footprint cost of a new nuclear power plant exceeds that of both old fossil fuel plants and solar cells/wind turbines alike. That, coming from a decidedly greenpeace-aligned organization of scientists, is the smell of sheer desperation.
Although there is incentive to develop away from fossil fuels and quite a lot of industries are retooling themselves to electric, that adaptation itself comes at cost. The increased hunger for high-capacity batteries, for instance, has turned lithium excavation and extraction into a mining industry which makes old school strip-mining look like a stroke of ecological responsibility.
The fact is, if every country manages to hit their targets under the Paris accords we aren't heading for a 1,5 degree target. We'll be hitting 3 degrees by 2100.
Currently no participant in the Paris accords is anywhere close to those targets, so it's likely the curve will be far steeper.
Most politicians and businessmen in the position to do anything about this are facing the choice of metaphorically either having both their legs broken today or having their kids shot in the face ten years down the road.
It's a lamentable fact of human nature that the prospect of whatever will happen ten years down the road will be seen as less important as the hammer about to fall on their kneecaps right now, should they stand up and proclaim the required steps actually needed to reduce CO2 emission to the point where it'll do any good.
We needed to be in full swing fixing things ten years ago. Today the IPCC has nothing but bad news to offer, even if we do our best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"The new technology has to be constructed before it can be deployed"
This is true, but construction of some form has to take place eventually and the long term benefits are valid. Add to that economies of scale and innovation - manufacturing tends to get much more efficient over long production runs, which sometimes results in the ability to produce new tech that wasn't possible at the start. There's no guarantee, of course, but when you go from small production runs for a few clients to long-term runs for large numbers of clients, most companies will find ways to steadily improve efficiency, which leads to savings in both cost and emissions.
That goes back to my original point - the trick isn't getting new tech, the trick is getting people to use the cleaner tech we already have en masse.
"We needed to be in full swing fixing things ten years ago. Today the IPCC has nothing but bad news to offer, even if we do our best."
Yes, and the reaction to that should be to do our damn best to ease as much pain as possible in the future even if we can't hit the original targets, not to throw our hands up and give up because we won't get everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"That goes back to my original point - the trick isn't getting new tech, the trick is getting people to use the cleaner tech we already have en masse."
True enough. I've been watching some presentations from "the other side" in order to get a handle on what exactly the holdup is. One of the most revealing would be this one, issued by the oil company BP;
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/06/16/bps-somber-review-warns-of-an-unsustainable-path /#1056fd1ee3d4
Although the statistics are presented in dry tone and words like "2018 gas bonanza" are used, it does paint an alarming picture where the main reason we're having trouble isn't that renewables aren't growing fast enough.
Renewables are expanding explosively. But the increase in energy demand is outpacing the supply which has rendered coal the second fastest growing contributor to the power sector.
In short, people DO use cleaner tech - but they also use vastly larger amounts of power each year which means the clean tech expansion can't keep up. The sole actor capable of instant stop-gap kWh gratification? Coal. The main usage of that increased power demand according to BP's statistics? Dealing with extra hot/cold weather.
It's one thing to get bad news from the IPCC but when a major oil company presents the same it's time to start reading the writing on the wall.
From what I can see what we'll need now isn't cleaner tech. We aren't going to push that rollout significantly faster than we already do. Massive active atmospheric scrubbing, carbon capture technologies deployed in massive scale, and, most importantly, reducing the demand on the power sector. That's what will be necessary.
Unfortunately all of those extremely necessary steps are also extremely expensive, and rely heavily not only on the corporate sector accepting serious chunks taken out of their GM's, but also on every citizen using less electricity to power AC's, dehumidifiers, or heating in summer and winter.
"Yes, and the reaction to that should be to do our damn best to ease as much pain as possible in the future even if we can't hit the original targets, not to throw our hands up and give up because we won't get everything."
Concur completely.
But i think we need to realize that we're at the point where we need to be very careful to set targets we can reasonably reach if we are to get anything at all. When even oil companies and major US industries decide to commit to eating losses over climate change in spite of anything the screaming orange says...that's a positive sign. Also one which is alarming because it means things have gone THAT far.
New tech won't cut it, nor will increased deployment of carbon capture technology at scale. We literally don't have the time to roll it out for it to be effective.
What we need is to shrink the power sector. Cut power expenditure. And unfortunately that's a tough goal since for the most part the increases in expenditure in recent years aren't due to technology which can be made that much more efficient because physics.
I don't think even flattening the curve on global warming will be possible unless we start by forcefully rationing the power usable by households and industries. That...will lead to pretty harsh consequences, even if the political will to do so magically appears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
That's called pseudoscience. And yes, it is dangerous.
According to NASA: "Astronomers have searched for short term changes in the radius of the Sun, but have not been able to find much reliable evidence that the sun's diameter is changing, at least over times as short as the solar cycle."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
Yeah...last I hear NASA was full of scientists. Scientist don't know everything; that's why they're still studying.
...Let me...hold that ladder for ya...while you cherry pick your response to my multi-factored question...
I guess you're just another who wholeheartedly believes that pollution is the only factor in climate change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
You didn't post a multi-factored question, you asked why aren't people blaming the sun for climate change, and why are you all listening to those so-called experts.
And on a thread about Imaginary Property rights to boot. If you get flagged for being a troll, you'll comain that we are just being elitist and following the herd, lol.
Maybe there are other venue's better suited to pseudo-science and anti-vaxxing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
Unlike you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
I look forward to your published research that shows in detail how all the scientists are wrong and pollution isn't the primary reason for climate change.
It should certainly turn the whole thing on its head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"Yeah...last I hear NASA was full of scientists. Scientist don't know everything; that's why they're still studying."
Scientists don't know everything, true.
But they know enough about CO2, electromagnetic radiation, and heat transference to accurately predict that the current amount of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere will result in the current increase in temperature.
Since we have observed the scientists prediction as true then in order to explain away the rest of their prediction you first need to overturn the basic laws of physics. Good luck with that.
"...while you cherry pick your response to my multi-factored question..."
No cherrypicking required and your question wasn't multifaceted. Your question was literally that of someone stating doubts about a rock in a 1G environment actually falling downwards. And demanding an alternative explanation as to how the rock should move when every test will keep showing the exact same result.
"I guess you're just another who wholeheartedly believes that pollution is the only factor in climate change."
Because if pollution isn't the only factor then we need to assume that an unobservable force is magically changing things on a global scale the effects of which have been cleverly hidden by somehow rendering its effects immune to observation.
Your argument is much like that of the clergyman explaining away the evidence of his own eyes when viewing the craters of the moon through galileo's telescope.
The science of how global warming works is literally understandable through high school physics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"The science of how global warming works is literally understandable through high school physics."
Not only understandable, but easily replicated in a lab environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
Yep. You can calculate it, show it in a classroom, demonstrate it by empirical observation in vivo, understand every aspect of it with nothing but a standard textbook of physics...
...and it's at that point the clergyman looks through Galileo's telescope, sees the craters, and posits the existence of the "invisible and undetectable material filling in the craters since scripture states the moon must be a perfect sphere".
Or todays religious nutcase grasps for any pseudoscientific gobbledygook or faith-based hypothetical, from the sun expanding or the alignment of planets causing a planetary Yang-infusion, to the metaphysical influence of Kurt Russel's nutsack being more exposed than usual, prompting hell to open it's gates a crack and heating the earth by the escaping gusts of hellfire.
It's at times like these that I truly find religion offensive. When it will try, by any means, to explain away factual observation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Friday deep thoughts:
Could any (or all) of the following, instead, be the major reason(s) for climate change:
Only if you are able to provide observable evidence that the proposed changes have in fact occurred, and after demonstrating this, provide observable evidence of the proposed changes having the effect you claim they have.
I look forward to your published research on this topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Friday deep thoughts:
Ooooo.... Sounds like something Star Trek should get into. That would be a fun episode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Friday deep thoughts:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
Additional note: "It's the changing Sun's fault" is but one example of the pseudoscience bought and paid for by the American Petroleum Institute from professional frauds like Wei-hock "Willie" Soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Friday deep thoughts:
Er......Just a moment while I have a think. Ah, yes, I do believe this has nothing to do with the topic in hand. Take your thoughts (for what they're worth) and ruminate elsewhere - preferably on another planet without an atmosphere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Friday deep thoughts:
"We're so busy beating the drum about green house gases and CFLs and Carbon, but what if we're chasing the wrong windmill when it comes to 'global warming'."
We really aren't. The science is incredibly straightforward. To the point where the only way humans couldn't be the biggest factor in global warming is if the basic laws of physics suddenly aren't working any more.
"Could any (or all) of the following, instead, be the major reason(s) for climate change:"
No. Because if any of those reasons applied they could be observed. And they haven't been.
We can tell global warming is manmade simply because we can accurately measure the amount of green house gas in the atmosphere and track it to human activity - then calculate the net effect and correlate it to empirical observation.
In order to explain away human activity as the net factor in global warming we'd have to rewrite the entire book of physics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Part of me wants to make an application that analyzes the metadata of every popular song and can generate a flowchart of whom to sue for what. Maybe I'll call it "ouroboros."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I read a really good short story years ago where all possible combinations of notes and phrases in music had been copyrighted, and there was now a computer system that automatically determined which IP corporations the artist had to pay for the distribution, performance and recording of any "new" song.
It's kind of scary that through Blurred Lines they appear to have significantly shortened the amount of time required to land at or near this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Melancholy Elephants, by Spider Robinson? http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analyze the metadata of every song...
Wonderful idea. Every piece of music ever! Be a good foundation for an AI composer application :-)
This is just as ridiculous as the Oracle lawsuit claiming copyright on an API. I'm surprised no one attempted to copyright the "for" loop...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analyze the metadata of every song...
I'm copyrighting my version of A440. Everyone owes me money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Analyze the metadata of every song...
ANSI may laugh. https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/a440/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The recording industry cannot change course now. Copyright has expanded so far that the anti-expansion forces were automatically given exclusive ownership of arguing against copyright expansion, so the industry cannot change course without infringing the copyrights of the anti-expansion forces.
Hey, it makes about as much sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anti-Copyright tool:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A teaching moment
Since my daughter loves Katy Perry and she's heard a little about this, I took the opportunity to explain what this whole mess was about... (I did my best to explain the difference between being influenced by previous works and just copying someone else's song)
When she found out that the songs were pretty different, she was quite upset about copyright law too.
For a bonus, we talked a little about Vanilla Ice and his melt down ... ... and even though he threw a fit, there really wasn't a "problem" with him using the same damn beat in his song as another had :p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A teaching moment
The one that brought it home for me was Huey Lewis vs Ghostbusters. And THAT was an actual case of stealing the bass line due to its popularity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A teaching moment
Vanilla Ice ended up settling with Queen and Bowie for an undisclosed amount of money (possibly a good percentage of Ice Ice Baby) and writing credits. So there really was a "problem", at least as far as copyright and lawyers were concerned.
Glad you could teach your daughter. I'm hoping the next generation will be smarter about this kind of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I couldn't resist a parody here...
So you wanna play with copyright law?
Boy, you should know what you're falling for.
RIAA, do you dare to do this?
Flame's coming at you like a Dark Horse.
Are you ready for, ready for...
Infringement suits galore, suits galore.
'Cause once all IP's mine, IP's mine...
There's no going back!
(Cue the "Infringing" Ostinato)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Katy Perry vs. The Copyright Brain Worms
Sounds like a good horror-flick title to me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok..2 groups cover by ???
So how many groups are covered and protected by WHO and WHAT..
RIAA/MPAA..
So who is suing Who?? Who gets to Pay for it?
The Creators?
The Distributors?? Who bought the rights.
And Money won from the courts, is ??? non taxed? Taxed?
Really sounds like Convoluting what they are Really doing..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 2 songs have a similar sequence of notes ,they melody is not identical, the four notes sequence has been used in songs going back to 1900,
it was not invented by flame,
its not like she stole a classic riff .
Katy perry did not write the song .
copyright legal cases like this could destroy music creativity .
in the eu there was a case about krafwerk, about a 2 second sample of a
kraftwerk song by another group.
theres probably someone out there right now going through hit songs
looking a a few notes that might be used in an older song
by some unknown group .
it was declared to be illegal after going through the german courts for 12 years .
So as far as fair use go,s it does, not exist in europe for songs ,
unless the song is in the public domain .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always appropriate in this type of discussion:
4 Chords | Music Videos | The Axis Of Awesome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Axis of Awesome and their four chords is an incredible work.
But it illustrates the point, really. At the end of the day no music stands as completely unique.
And with the recent precedents against sampling, I'm just wondering how long it'll be before the various copyright trolls start devouring each other in a legalistic frenzy of SCO-like proportions.
Sadly, even if the future makes it impossible to legally write music of ANY kind without risking a lawsuit, there still isn't any lobby incentive to abolish copyright since, as has been shown too often, strangling new ideas in the cradle isn't considered a "loss".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lesson for today
When you build heaven for yourself sometime you just create hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it's so basic why do artists still use it? Art is supposed to be ORIGINAL. All I see is two "artists" who are nothing but intellectual property thieves who stole some poor 15th century composer's 4 notes and are now passing it as their own song. I say both of them should pay a trillion dollars per quarter-note.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm, just how similar are they is the question.
And then, using my amazing magical mathematical skills, I wonder how many songs you could possible have and not be infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, seriously, where the fuck IS Poochie?
When I clicked on this with 68 comments I was expecting blue, Hamilton or Herrick to be shitting things up.
Instead I get a climate change denier? The fuck?
I honestly don't believe this demonstration of the RIAA fucking things up again is so bad that not even blue can stand up to defend it! (Well, not because the demonstration itself is that bad, but because there is no depth that blue won't sink to fellate Cary Sherman.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, seriously, where the fuck IS Poochie?
I just assumed it was one of Hamilton’s personas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, seriously, where the fuck IS Poochie?
" When I clicked on this with 68 comments I was expecting blue, Hamilton or Herrick to be shitting things up. Instead I get a climate change denier? The fuck?"
Baghdad Bob has a lot of things on his plate, given his penchant for denying most of known reality.
He could just be on vacation or taking a break from this labor of love of his where he shows himself proudly and unapologetically pissing against the storm with what he believes to be a dignified expression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, seriously, where the fuck IS Poochie?
Personally, I wondered too.
Where's Poochie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what you're saying is...
Katy Perry just hates it when copyright law is enforced?
I could get into that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They Were Warned!
https://fablesofaesop.com/the-goose-with-the-golden-eggs.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leopards Eating People's Faces Party
It seems like many people somehow expect laws to only apply when it is to their benefit and wind up unpleasantly surprised when it isn't so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friday fake thoughts
"Science is the study of God's creation..."
..lol