Sure, there's more evidence, but is that evidence accessible? (Identifying an anonymous user of a site usually has to have some legal basis.)
But, yeah, with "cyberbullying" you have lots of examples of dumb bullies who flaunt their acts online, like those four Italian kids who uploaded a video to YouTube of themselves taunting a disabled kid. Definitely some parallels, with bullies who might leave on online trail of their own stupid behaviour.
Some offline bullying can be more anonymous though. Leaving a letter in someone's locker (or graffiti on the outside) is going for public humiliation rather than private intimidation.
Someone's just got to build a Digg-style ranking system so that you can vote down drivers who cut you off (or vote up driver's that let in you)... that will automatically forward your fist-shaking picture to the car you vote down.
Also, I agree, no point in rehashing our debate in detail. I don't think we disagree too much on the legal realities, just on whether or not they are troubling.
Therefore, Congress asserted that law in the USA already complied with 6bis in the Berne Convention, without any additions or changes to Copyright law in the USA.
Right. So it's not covered by copyright law in the USA. In other words, as I understand it, moral rights are not a copyright issue in American law.
Does this apply to all content? What about time-sensitive stuff? Even though the information is technically infinite, it's value lies in when it's available. I don't see how giving that away free online helps.
Well, I wasn't actually making an argument here that anyone should make anything available online for free, but just that someone will do it (i.e. even if you're not giving it away, someone else is likely doing it "for" you, if the content is any good).
If people can make money using time-sensitive information, surely they would be willing to pay for it - and a whole lot are. Giving it away free online would remove the exclusivity and kill a revenue stream. I don't think it makes sense to give away such information, especially when there aren't any other scarcities to sell.
Why does it need to be exclusive to be scarce? The scarcity in time sensitive data is that, if you have it, you can provide it first. I don't think it's such a big deal if people copy it after the fact. If anything, it would grow the demand for that data, and if you're the one with the ability to provide it fastest, it grows the demand for your services too.
I mean, I'm sure there are examples where data could be copied so fast now that a copier may have the ability to provide real-time data too, but there still have to be scarcities, benefits that you can provide if you're the provider and not just a copier. Again, copying wouldn't be a big deal if you focus on the kinds of things that differentiate the provider from the copier.
Ahh, so this is an argument? And here I thought we were having a discussion!
Sure, argument, discussion. I don't mean that in a negative sense.
All of the "protection" comments... "protection from exploitation" is only a good insofar as it "promotes the progress of science and the useful arts." Copyright is not about protection for protection's sake.
If copyright isn't there to award the ownership and control of a work to an artist or his / her representatives, why do you think it exists?"
To encourage creation by providing an economic incentive to create. Awarding ownership and (limited) control to an artist is the means through which this is done, but not the purpose of copyright.
Regarding "financial respect" and "fiscal survival," we spend a lot of time at Techdirt highlighting countless examples of how financial success is the digital age often comes about despite copyright -- not because of it. In other words, copyright isn't essential for artists to make a living (in fact, it often gets in the way given the new opportunities that technology provides). To suggest that questioning something about copyright is to suggest that musicians would have to drive taxis is a straw man argument.
About Paul McCartney's reputation, why is copyright essential for reputation? Did Shakespeare, Aristotle or Plato have a reputation? (sorry, too many essays in the past few weeks...) And what about the public domain?
The purpose of copyright is not to protect an artists reputation. And if, as it seems may be the case here, independent creation is practically meaningless, then it harms artists reputations as well.
"(2) to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the work, that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation"
First of all, that is not the purpose of copyright, it is a means through which an economic incentive is provided. Second, the United States doesn't actually completely recognize the moral rights you reference as part of copyright law. Third, how do you explain the public domain?
The "far sorrier place" comment was about a lawsuit that seems to be over a case of independent creation, because Satriani is offended. Copyright specifically doesn't cover independent creation.
I doubt that the legal teams - and judges - invloved in such cases have somehow missed the point and that you have answers they never thought of, to be honest.
Well, in terms of getting away from the "real intent" of copyright law, I guess I meant a couple things. First, I'm not suggesting that I know the letter of the law and they don't. But often times it's much cheaper to settle these cases than take them to a court, and pay the legal fees associated with arguing your case. Take fair use for example -- extremely expensive to actually defend yourself in court over the matter.
Second, that was in part a comment that if this is what things have come to -- lawsuits because you write a melody that sounds too similar -- then we really need to revisit the original intent of copyright, because we've strayed for from it. That's not to say that lawyers and judges don't necessarily know how to interpret that law, but that the law itself may be the problem if this is the result.
Did I miss the term "economic incentive" in the US Copyright law or is that your own editorial insertion?
This is not something I've come up with. This is something that many, many people argue. Mike wrote up a good summary last year. The constitution explicitly grants limited, artificial monopolies for the sake of promoting the progress. If this isn't an economic incentive, how would you describe it?
Again, how do you explain the public domain?
Why is no work by a LIVING composer in the public domain?
Quite frankly, because of Mickey Mouse. Copyright only lasted for 14 years initially. But we've seen a pattern emerging over the last half century or so, let by large corporate lobbyists with financial interests in extending copyright (e.g. Disney and Mickey Mouse). That's why every 20 years or so, another law is passed in the United States to extend copyright for another 20 years. It's a travesty that it's been so long since anything has entered the public domain and, I would argue, not a feature of design but an effect of lobbyist influence in Congress.
Even an amateur performance in a small village is subject to the law...
So, how does copyright protect an artists ability to make a living if the small artists have to worry that they might face a giantic lawsuit if they create a melody that's too similar to something else that's under copyright?
If the result of this lawsuit is to illustrate the independent creation really doesn't matter, even though it's supposed to, that illustrates serious problem with copyright.
Ah, I think I understand our disagreement about attribution. My point was that it's not about attribution, but it's about permission. If attribution were the main concern, then something like a Creative Commons Attribution license would suffice. That means only attribution is required, but you're free to do what you want with a work, including profit from it. If that license were used, I would believe that attribution was the main concern. But attribution is really often a sidenote. Permission tends to be the primary concern, not attribution.
Which is a problem, if you require permission to use something you've created independently.
[Sufficiently different as to be deemed original]... It's for a court to decide.
That harms creators. If you need a judge, jury and lawyer to determine whether or not you have permission to write a melody, that's a poisonous environment for new creators. Especially, if the independent creation defence is meaningless in these cases in practice.
...
This response kept getting delayed because I was trying to address everything in your comment, but I just don't think I'll have the time to do that. If you're still around (subscribed to the thread?) then maybe we can continue, but I'll just post this much for now.
The problem with the calculations in that article is that they completely ignore context. Sure, you'll wind up with a gigantic number if you consider every possible permutation of notes/rhythms... but how many are actually likely? Pop music usually uses an 8-note scale, rather than a chromatic... it's usually just 3 or 4 chords, and a melody is often within those chords... there are certain changes that are natural within a particular genre... the number gets pretty small pretty quickly when you factor in context, style, genre, theory, etc.
I enjoyed reading the article Blaise, but what do you make of a "simple coincidence" happening in three songs (or even two) over such a relatively short period of time?
Well, there are a lot more than two or three examples of similar melodies in this thread. But I'd be inclined to say that style and genre have something to do with it (when punk is popular, so are t-shaped power chord progressions...). There have been other cases we've noticed recently where it seems that coincidence is the most likely explanation: REM sued a band in the same sort of lawsuit... without realizing that the song they alleged copyright infringement over was actually a cover version of another song, written well before their own.
willyu, I agree with you for the most part (especially that parents should take responsibility too).
But there's one thing I disagree with:
Yes, it would seen to be more appropriate to attempt to "reason" with the students and try to "educate" them about why one should not use cellphones during class/at school. But seriously people, all of you have been teenagers before. Have you ever really listened to your parents/teachers/figure of authority and happily accept all these rules and regulations they said is good for you?
I certainly don't think you can expect all high school students to be reasonable, but... I think the issue is that, as an authority figure, you want (and need) the respect of your students in order to maintain your authority. That doesn't mean that they have to like you (they probably won't!), and it may even largely be out of fear, but they have to respect you, to take you seriously.
And... how can you expect someone to respect you, if you don't respect them?
This incident backfired in a way that undermined that respect, in both ways.
To implement reasonable rules and consequences doesn't mean that you expect all students to persuaded by them, but that you can students to respect them, at least in general. For example, if the rule is "don't use a cell phone on an exam," students might disrespect the rules, but what reason do they really have in most cases beyond cheating? It's pretty hard to complain meaningfully when you get caught... But if your principal installs an illegal device to control your use, it gets students up in arms and grants legitimacy to their opposition.
I think the important thing when dealing with these challenges is that... what may seem to be the easy technical solution may undermine more important things, like building respect for authority.
And, btw, Blaise Alleyne? That's the single coolest name I've ever seen. Sounds like the French name of a superhero that shoots fire out of his ass or something....
LOL. I'll take that as a compliment? I get a lot of comments about my name (usually, "is that your real name?" or "blaze? do you smoke pot?")... but that was one of the most original I've ever heard. Nice one, Tgeigs.
The only way to guarantee they aren't a problem is to jam. Solves the whole problem.
Solves the whole problem? Really? Sounds to me like the electronics are just a means through which bad behaviour is expressed, not the cause of it. That's treating the symptoms. You don't think there are ways to misbehave without electronics? Would you ban pens and paper if kids draw mean pictures to make fun of teachers or other students or pass notes in class?
Is this a technological problem or a behavioural problem?
Well, high school students have rights in the sense that they're citizens too (albeit mostly underage), but I agree, that has very little to do with cell phone use. The problem though with this principal's approach is that he's just added fuel to the "rights" thing by breaking the law trying to enforce the ban.
Um... why would you give away a physical CD for free (nm shipping costs)? A physical CD is a scarce good. It's the digital audio files that are abundant.
I assume you're referring to the levy on blank media? It's important to note that it doesn't apply to digital media, so it's becoming less and less relevant (how many people use blank CDs or cassettes for music nowadays?).
I agree, most Canadians would choose a levy over lawsuits, but why does that have to be the choice? A survey is just a tool for gauging public opinion, but this survey suggests that most are not interests in levies or lawsuits. There are other solutions.
So it's a question of business here: what are you giving up, and what do you get in return?
I couldn't agree less, because you say... "take away the free music so that the downloads lose their desire and slip back into the average crowd..." as if it were that easy.
How do you propose "taking away free music?" The whole premise of peer-to-peer file sharing services is that they don't come from a central location. If people can hear your music, they can record it, and if they can record it, they can share it. If you don't want your music to be shared online, the only way to be sure of that is to not let people listen to it.
This isn't a question of "should we let people share or not?" It's a question of "is sharing even a problem?" Because people are sharing whether or not you want them to.
Nothing you've said has suggested that it's harmful -- and that's the first part of the point. Even if downloaders are only marginally more likely to spend money, they are more likely. Where's the harm?
(1) It's not something you can stop, (2) it's actually beneficial. So why not recognize that and orient your business to take advantage of it?
Second, all your number crunching about CDs and concerts is pretty artificial. You act is if it's some controlled environment, where fans never interact with each other. How often do you hear about music from friends, family, "tastemakers," or mavens (i.e.tipping point)?
The "most voracious music enthusiasts" are also often your most enthusiastic and effective promoters. To suggest that you can just forget about the top 23% of your fans by "taking away free music" (how, again?) and that it won't have any effect on the rest of the market is a bit naive.
Why cut off your most enthusiastic fans, who are more likely to spend money and to promote your music to others?
But to toss the record business out the window (stop selling those stupid plastic discs, as has been suggested) would mean that the income of 948 sales would be lost to make some downloaders happy. (ever notice that downloader and freeloader rhyme? Hmmm)
I don't think many people are suggesting to "stop selling plastic discs" -- and if so, I disagree -- but rather, to stop relying on sales of plastic discs. To recognize that you're in the music business and not the plastic disc business doesn't mean that you stop selling CDs, it just means that you're open to other ideas which might actually end up making you more money (or selling more CDs, if downloaders are more likely to buy CDs), and may or may not involve selling recorded music. It's about recognizing that sales of recorded music are not the end you seek, but just one method of getting there.
And... how did you come to the conclusion that people downloading music means lost sales? If non-downloaders and downloaders alike are more likely (or even, just as likely) to buy a CD... why does allowing downloads mean lost sales?
On the post: What is Cyberbullying Anyway?
Re: The "Cyber" Just Means Evidence
Sure, there's more evidence, but is that evidence accessible? (Identifying an anonymous user of a site usually has to have some legal basis.)
But, yeah, with "cyberbullying" you have lots of examples of dumb bullies who flaunt their acts online, like those four Italian kids who uploaded a video to YouTube of themselves taunting a disabled kid. Definitely some parallels, with bullies who might leave on online trail of their own stupid behaviour.
Some offline bullying can be more anonymous though. Leaving a letter in someone's locker (or graffiti on the outside) is going for public humiliation rather than private intimidation.
*shrugs*
On the post: What is Cyberbullying Anyway?
Re:
I'm in.
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Latest News
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Latest News
Also, I agree, no point in rehashing our debate in detail. I don't think we disagree too much on the legal realities, just on whether or not they are troubling.
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right. So it's not covered by copyright law in the USA. In other words, as I understand it, moral rights are not a copyright issue in American law.
On the post: The Importance Of Realizing Your Content Is Probably Available Online For Free
Re: Your Content...
On the post: The Importance Of Realizing Your Content Is Probably Available Online For Free
Re: Re: Re:
Well, I wasn't actually making an argument here that anyone should make anything available online for free, but just that someone will do it (i.e. even if you're not giving it away, someone else is likely doing it "for" you, if the content is any good).
Why does it need to be exclusive to be scarce? The scarcity in time sensitive data is that, if you have it, you can provide it first. I don't think it's such a big deal if people copy it after the fact. If anything, it would grow the demand for that data, and if you're the one with the ability to provide it fastest, it grows the demand for your services too.
I mean, I'm sure there are examples where data could be copied so fast now that a copier may have the ability to provide real-time data too, but there still have to be scarcities, benefits that you can provide if you're the provider and not just a copier. Again, copying wouldn't be a big deal if you focus on the kinds of things that differentiate the provider from the copier.
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, argument, discussion. I don't mean that in a negative sense.
All of the "protection" comments... "protection from exploitation" is only a good insofar as it "promotes the progress of science and the useful arts." Copyright is not about protection for protection's sake.
To encourage creation by providing an economic incentive to create. Awarding ownership and (limited) control to an artist is the means through which this is done, but not the purpose of copyright.
Regarding "financial respect" and "fiscal survival," we spend a lot of time at Techdirt highlighting countless examples of how financial success is the digital age often comes about despite copyright -- not because of it. In other words, copyright isn't essential for artists to make a living (in fact, it often gets in the way given the new opportunities that technology provides). To suggest that questioning something about copyright is to suggest that musicians would have to drive taxis is a straw man argument.
About Paul McCartney's reputation, why is copyright essential for reputation? Did Shakespeare, Aristotle or Plato have a reputation? (sorry, too many essays in the past few weeks...) And what about the public domain?
The purpose of copyright is not to protect an artists reputation. And if, as it seems may be the case here, independent creation is practically meaningless, then it harms artists reputations as well.
First of all, that is not the purpose of copyright, it is a means through which an economic incentive is provided. Second, the United States doesn't actually completely recognize the moral rights you reference as part of copyright law. Third, how do you explain the public domain?
The "far sorrier place" comment was about a lawsuit that seems to be over a case of independent creation, because Satriani is offended. Copyright specifically doesn't cover independent creation.
Well, in terms of getting away from the "real intent" of copyright law, I guess I meant a couple things. First, I'm not suggesting that I know the letter of the law and they don't. But often times it's much cheaper to settle these cases than take them to a court, and pay the legal fees associated with arguing your case. Take fair use for example -- extremely expensive to actually defend yourself in court over the matter.
Second, that was in part a comment that if this is what things have come to -- lawsuits because you write a melody that sounds too similar -- then we really need to revisit the original intent of copyright, because we've strayed for from it. That's not to say that lawyers and judges don't necessarily know how to interpret that law, but that the law itself may be the problem if this is the result.
This is not something I've come up with. This is something that many, many people argue. Mike wrote up a good summary last year. The constitution explicitly grants limited, artificial monopolies for the sake of promoting the progress. If this isn't an economic incentive, how would you describe it?
Again, how do you explain the public domain?
Quite frankly, because of Mickey Mouse. Copyright only lasted for 14 years initially. But we've seen a pattern emerging over the last half century or so, let by large corporate lobbyists with financial interests in extending copyright (e.g. Disney and Mickey Mouse). That's why every 20 years or so, another law is passed in the United States to extend copyright for another 20 years. It's a travesty that it's been so long since anything has entered the public domain and, I would argue, not a feature of design but an effect of lobbyist influence in Congress.
So, how does copyright protect an artists ability to make a living if the small artists have to worry that they might face a giantic lawsuit if they create a melody that's too similar to something else that's under copyright?
If the result of this lawsuit is to illustrate the independent creation really doesn't matter, even though it's supposed to, that illustrates serious problem with copyright.
Ah, I think I understand our disagreement about attribution. My point was that it's not about attribution, but it's about permission. If attribution were the main concern, then something like a Creative Commons Attribution license would suffice. That means only attribution is required, but you're free to do what you want with a work, including profit from it. If that license were used, I would believe that attribution was the main concern. But attribution is really often a sidenote. Permission tends to be the primary concern, not attribution.
Which is a problem, if you require permission to use something you've created independently.
That harms creators. If you need a judge, jury and lawyer to determine whether or not you have permission to write a melody, that's a poisonous environment for new creators. Especially, if the independent creation defence is meaningless in these cases in practice.
...
This response kept getting delayed because I was trying to address everything in your comment, but I just don't think I'll have the time to do that. If you're still around (subscribed to the thread?) then maybe we can continue, but I'll just post this much for now.
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re:
The problem with the calculations in that article is that they completely ignore context. Sure, you'll wind up with a gigantic number if you consider every possible permutation of notes/rhythms... but how many are actually likely? Pop music usually uses an 8-note scale, rather than a chromatic... it's usually just 3 or 4 chords, and a melody is often within those chords... there are certain changes that are natural within a particular genre... the number gets pretty small pretty quickly when you factor in context, style, genre, theory, etc.
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Twelve Notes Argument
Well, there are a lot more than two or three examples of similar melodies in this thread. But I'd be inclined to say that style and genre have something to do with it (when punk is popular, so are t-shaped power chord progressions...). There have been other cases we've noticed recently where it seems that coincidence is the most likely explanation: REM sued a band in the same sort of lawsuit... without realizing that the song they alleged copyright infringement over was actually a cover version of another song, written well before their own.
On the post: Principal Installs Cellphone Jammer But Forgets To Check If It's Legal
Re: out of control
But there's one thing I disagree with:
I certainly don't think you can expect all high school students to be reasonable, but... I think the issue is that, as an authority figure, you want (and need) the respect of your students in order to maintain your authority. That doesn't mean that they have to like you (they probably won't!), and it may even largely be out of fear, but they have to respect you, to take you seriously.
And... how can you expect someone to respect you, if you don't respect them?
This incident backfired in a way that undermined that respect, in both ways.
To implement reasonable rules and consequences doesn't mean that you expect all students to persuaded by them, but that you can students to respect them, at least in general. For example, if the rule is "don't use a cell phone on an exam," students might disrespect the rules, but what reason do they really have in most cases beyond cheating? It's pretty hard to complain meaningfully when you get caught... But if your principal installs an illegal device to control your use, it gets students up in arms and grants legitimacy to their opposition.
I think the important thing when dealing with these challenges is that... what may seem to be the easy technical solution may undermine more important things, like building respect for authority.
On the post: Principal Installs Cellphone Jammer But Forgets To Check If It's Legal
Re: Hysterical
LOL. I'll take that as a compliment? I get a lot of comments about my name (usually, "is that your real name?" or "blaze? do you smoke pot?")... but that was one of the most original I've ever heard. Nice one, Tgeigs.
On the post: Principal Installs Cellphone Jammer But Forgets To Check If It's Legal
Re:
Solves the whole problem? Really? Sounds to me like the electronics are just a means through which bad behaviour is expressed, not the cause of it. That's treating the symptoms. You don't think there are ways to misbehave without electronics? Would you ban pens and paper if kids draw mean pictures to make fun of teachers or other students or pass notes in class?
Is this a technological problem or a behavioural problem?
On the post: Principal Installs Cellphone Jammer But Forgets To Check If It's Legal
Re: Re: Cement...
On the post: Principal Installs Cellphone Jammer But Forgets To Check If It's Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Jill Sobule Shows She Can Create A 'Professional' Fan-Financed Album
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dear Clueless Moron
On the post: Jill Sobule Shows She Can Create A 'Professional' Fan-Financed Album
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Surprise, Surprise: Canadians Aren't Interested In ISP Levies
Re:
I agree, most Canadians would choose a levy over lawsuits, but why does that have to be the choice? A survey is just a tool for gauging public opinion, but this survey suggests that most are not interests in levies or lawsuits. There are other solutions.
On the post: Surprise, Surprise: Canadians Aren't Interested In ISP Levies
Re: Re: Re:
I couldn't agree less, because you say... "take away the free music so that the downloads lose their desire and slip back into the average crowd..." as if it were that easy.
How do you propose "taking away free music?" The whole premise of peer-to-peer file sharing services is that they don't come from a central location. If people can hear your music, they can record it, and if they can record it, they can share it. If you don't want your music to be shared online, the only way to be sure of that is to not let people listen to it.
This isn't a question of "should we let people share or not?" It's a question of "is sharing even a problem?" Because people are sharing whether or not you want them to.
Nothing you've said has suggested that it's harmful -- and that's the first part of the point. Even if downloaders are only marginally more likely to spend money, they are more likely. Where's the harm?
(1) It's not something you can stop, (2) it's actually beneficial. So why not recognize that and orient your business to take advantage of it?
Second, all your number crunching about CDs and concerts is pretty artificial. You act is if it's some controlled environment, where fans never interact with each other. How often do you hear about music from friends, family, "tastemakers," or mavens (i.e.tipping point)?
The "most voracious music enthusiasts" are also often your most enthusiastic and effective promoters. To suggest that you can just forget about the top 23% of your fans by "taking away free music" (how, again?) and that it won't have any effect on the rest of the market is a bit naive.
Why cut off your most enthusiastic fans, who are more likely to spend money and to promote your music to others?
I don't think many people are suggesting to "stop selling plastic discs" -- and if so, I disagree -- but rather, to stop relying on sales of plastic discs. To recognize that you're in the music business and not the plastic disc business doesn't mean that you stop selling CDs, it just means that you're open to other ideas which might actually end up making you more money (or selling more CDs, if downloaders are more likely to buy CDs), and may or may not involve selling recorded music. It's about recognizing that sales of recorded music are not the end you seek, but just one method of getting there.
And... how did you come to the conclusion that people downloading music means lost sales? If non-downloaders and downloaders alike are more likely (or even, just as likely) to buy a CD... why does allowing downloads mean lost sales?
Next >>