Facts can't be copyrighted. We're not speaking of copyright here. We're speaking of privacy, and search. Entirely different parts of the Constitution, hon.
The cover art for the first book in the series, Twilight, features a pair of hands holding an apple. I think it's supposed to reference temptation, which is a neat reference that's now been wasted on such a juvenile offering. Sad. :(
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Yes, and I'm sure that legal shake-downs for cash don't dissuade venues from letting musicians play at all. You must be correct, and this must not affect musicians at all.
Re: I don't understand the prism through which you view the world,
A soulless pirate? Like Amanda Palmer, who celebrated her release from Roadrunner with a free track, amongst many other free tracks?
(Because it's not about the money. It's about the art.)
Or Nina Paley, who wants you to copy and distribute her movie?
(Because obscurity is way worse than piracy.)
Like Doctorow, who allows, and has always allowed, his works to be copied for free?
(Because free ebooks sell print books. Because he copied his ass off when he was 17 and grew up to spend practically every discretionary cent he has on books when he became an adult. Because he thinks that the idea that he'd get dyspeptic over people -- readers -- celebrating what he writes is goddamned bizarre.*)
Or a soulless pirate like you, who illegally distributes the music of other artists.?
You're right, Techno, it is about power... But not your power, as an artist, but our power, as American citizens. Respect for the law includes respect for the citizens who use their legal power to grant you your limited copyright. It does not include respect for some sort of fairy-land idea of copyright as a natural right.
You see, you're part of a dangerous group of anti-copyright activists, not me. You pose a clear and present danger to the future of authors, publishing, music, art, and science, not me.
You have no respect for property or laws, and your abhorrent views are backed by organizations that are powerful and organized, and have the ears of lawmakers and the press.
People like you don't believe in copyright law. Copyright law says that when you buy a book, an mp3, or a piece of art, you own it. You can give it away, you can lend it, you can pass it on to your descendants or donate it to the local homeless shelter. Owning books has been around for longer than publishing books has. Copyright law has always recognized your right to own your books. When copyright laws are made -- by elected officials, acting for the public good -- they always safeguard this right.
But you don't respect copyright law, and you don't believe in my right to own property. Instead, you abuse my legal ownership with bullshit talk about 'licensing' and 'power', and the copyright law that you claim to want to protect is superseded by the thousands of farcical, abusive words in the license agreement you click through on the way to sealing the deal.
So which one of us doesn't respect the law, and artists again?
*Shamelessly paraphrasing Doctorow for most of this... :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
That's not true at all. The courts have repeatedly ruled that if your 'arrangement' is similar to someone else's, you're violating their ip. This has been seen in cases where as many as four chords were the same, and everything else was different. In other words, whether you're arranging saxophone sounds or some other kind of sounds, you're still liable because of bad laws.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
Plans for what? Changing the law? Why in the world would I bother to attempt that?
As much media as I want is there for the watching, listening, and entertaining. I realize that the CD industry is dying, and musicians are probably breaking the law when they create but that doesn't stop them from creating and it doesn't stop me from consuming.
Amazing artists like Amanda Palmer and Nina Paley are blazing new paths, and to hell with the dinosaurs whom are getting left behind. You see, while they're having conniptions, we're having fun. :)
In other words, it doesn't matter whether or not the law changes anytime soon, because the people and markets have already changed. And in history, the law always goes slower than the people. It will follow, in time, probably after the dinos are bankrupt (which won't be too much longer...).
So, did you mean a plan to change the law, or some other sort of plan?
If you play a song that someone else has written, you are covering that song. That's what people mean by "covers."
You're (probably deliberately) ignoring an entire third section of music. There are covers, there is completely original music, and there is derivative music. The law doesn't allow derivative music, and that's a problem, especially in jazz.
You see the same problems in art, such as the Damien Hurst issue, you see it in films, and you definitely see it in science.
In other words, the problem that you're carefully ignoring is everywhere.
That would be a complicated thing to enforce, because private businesses have the right to refuse service for any reason. I'm down with card-counting, but I'm not down with anything that waters down my right to kick out customers when I feel that it's needful, without being investigated for it.
On the post: If Your Brother Was Arrested For A Crime, Does It Violate Your Privacy When They Store His DNA?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If Your Brother Was Arrested For A Crime, Does It Violate Your Privacy When They Store His DNA?
Re:
On the post: European Advocate General Says Copyright Levy Should Only Be Charged If There's Actual Content Copying
So next...
On the post: European Advocate General Says Copyright Levy Should Only Be Charged If There's Actual Content Copying
So next...
On the post: Official Twilight T-Shirt Contest Won't Let You Use Anything From Twilight
See the cover here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Twilightbook.jpg
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Oh, wait...
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
B: Alot of people disagree with you because you say crazy, illogical things.
C: What misinformation? Like insisting that ASCAP & Co. aren't stopping artists from performing? That is information, by anyone's definition.
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: I don't understand the prism through which you view the world,
(Because it's not about the money. It's about the art.)
Or Nina Paley, who wants you to copy and distribute her movie?
(Because obscurity is way worse than piracy.)
Like Doctorow, who allows, and has always allowed, his works to be copied for free?
(Because free ebooks sell print books. Because he copied his ass off when he was 17 and grew up to spend practically every discretionary cent he has on books when he became an adult. Because he thinks that the idea that he'd get dyspeptic over people -- readers -- celebrating what he writes is goddamned bizarre.*)
Or a soulless pirate like you, who illegally distributes the music of other artists.?
You're right, Techno, it is about power... But not your power, as an artist, but our power, as American citizens. Respect for the law includes respect for the citizens who use their legal power to grant you your limited copyright. It does not include respect for some sort of fairy-land idea of copyright as a natural right.
You see, you're part of a dangerous group of anti-copyright activists, not me. You pose a clear and present danger to the future of authors, publishing, music, art, and science, not me.
You have no respect for property or laws, and your abhorrent views are backed by organizations that are powerful and organized, and have the ears of lawmakers and the press.
People like you don't believe in copyright law. Copyright law says that when you buy a book, an mp3, or a piece of art, you own it. You can give it away, you can lend it, you can pass it on to your descendants or donate it to the local homeless shelter. Owning books has been around for longer than publishing books has. Copyright law has always recognized your right to own your books. When copyright laws are made -- by elected officials, acting for the public good -- they always safeguard this right.
But you don't respect copyright law, and you don't believe in my right to own property. Instead, you abuse my legal ownership with bullshit talk about 'licensing' and 'power', and the copyright law that you claim to want to protect is superseded by the thousands of farcical, abusive words in the license agreement you click through on the way to sealing the deal.
So which one of us doesn't respect the law, and artists again?
*Shamelessly paraphrasing Doctorow for most of this... :)
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
Once again, not true. Most Americans aren't doing either of those things; they're just flat-out ignoring the law.
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising.....Yes, that would be correct if most copyright proponents were basing their actions on logic. .
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
Regardless, people do what they want, and that's bad for everyone, because it weakens all laws.
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
As much media as I want is there for the watching, listening, and entertaining. I realize that the CD industry is dying, and musicians are probably breaking the law when they create but that doesn't stop them from creating and it doesn't stop me from consuming.
Amazing artists like Amanda Palmer and Nina Paley are blazing new paths, and to hell with the dinosaurs whom are getting left behind. You see, while they're having conniptions, we're having fun. :)
In other words, it doesn't matter whether or not the law changes anytime soon, because the people and markets have already changed. And in history, the law always goes slower than the people. It will follow, in time, probably after the dinos are bankrupt (which won't be too much longer...).
So, did you mean a plan to change the law, or some other sort of plan?
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re:
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
Not surprising.
On the post: Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
You're (probably deliberately) ignoring an entire third section of music. There are covers, there is completely original music, and there is derivative music. The law doesn't allow derivative music, and that's a problem, especially in jazz.
You see the same problems in art, such as the Damien Hurst issue, you see it in films, and you definitely see it in science.
In other words, the problem that you're carefully ignoring is everywhere.
On the post: More Casinos Succeeding With The 'That Jackpot You Won Was Really A Computer Glitch' Claim
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Next >>