I've never understood why the authorities seem to think that the goal of the terrorists is to put an end to aviation.
It's large gatherings of people, not flight itself that they are after.
"I had a friend once who released a tape. Another artist simply took his entire tape, added himself occasionally singing and making noises over it, and released it as a "collaboration" without consent. The "No Derivatives" license is to prevent stuff like that."
The "by" clause takes care of that on it's own.
from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
"Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)."
(emphasis mine)
Calling the derivative version a "collaboration" implies that the original creator has endorsed the remake. The remixer violated the terms of the licence. The additional "nd" is unnecessary.
To me, the one part of cc that really bothers me is the incompatibilities that creep up with the 'sa' clause.
"cc-by-nc-sa", "cc-by-nd-sa" and "cc-by-sa" don't play nice together.
You can't force artists with semi-free work to relax their rights further than they originally wanted just because someone else remixed it with stuff that is more free.
Part of me thinks that a good way to go would be to err on the side of restriction.
eg. If someone combines "cc-by-sa" stuff with "cc-by-nc-sa" stuff, rather than being 'not allowed' it should be cc-by-nc-sa.
But what happens if those greater freedoms are part of the point of the cc-by-sa material?
And it's too easy to defeat that idea with a slippery slope argument..."you can err on the side of greater restriction all the way back to full blown copyright!"
It reminds me of the BSD vs. GPL debate, where the former is objectively "more free", while the latter is more of a political statement, it is concerned with keeping things free.
This is why I use the "sa" clause rather than just releasing things "cc-by-nc" I know that I am making my work less free by doing so, but I do this because I hope that it will inspire others to build upon it in a way that might someday lead to a cultural commons everyone can draw from.
I agree completely with concerns over the no-derivatives clause on the creative commons. I have never released anything with the 'nd' because I feel that it makes my content useless to anyone who might want to use it.
The non-commercial clause, however, doesn't bother me at all. (disclaimer: I use cc-by-nc-sa for nearly everything I release.)
Even Richard Stallman has pointed out the distinction between creative cultural works like art/music, and objects/tools like coffee tables and software.
To be perfectly honest, it would piss me off if someone else made more money off my work than I did.
I might not be in a position to monetize my content right now, but I might have plans for the future. I can keep all my content to myself, locked away for years until I want to sell it, but I believe that harms culture far more than a 'non-commercial' license that is attached to media that gets released right now.
Copyright does go on for far too long (25 years from date of first publication is what I believe to be ideal)
Creative commons isn't really a solution, but it is a system of harm-reduction that I think makes copyright less worse.
Why shouldn't newspapers die?
Why would that be a bad thing?
The horse-and-buggy and gas-lamp industries took a pretty big hit with the introduction of automobiles and electric lightbulbs, but the world kept on spinning.
The internet does news delivery faster and cheaper, with no real physical limits on article length forcing important details to be edited out, and it wastes less paper and ink.
What reason is their to believe that things will be worse off if progress kills newspapers?
I don't know about overall numbers, but digital has opened up a few new opportunities to profit where film had little potential.
One such area is cameras themselves.
With film based photography, the actual camera is little more than a 'film box', something that holds the lens and the film, and that's it. And they cost a few hundred. The money was in the glass, not the cameras.
Digital cameras on the other hand, are expensive, and every year something new comes out to replace the old ones.
In the film days, a pro could spend $500 on a body, and $3000 on a lens. Now a pro has to spend $7000 + $3000, 7k for a high-end DSLR, and 3k for a good lens.
And don't forget about camera batteries and memory cards. Newer cameras make bigger files, requiring newer and bigger memory cards.
My old SLR has one tiny watch battery for the light meter, and it's still going strong, and I bought it used in the late 90's. I could still use that camera today. My DSLR's battery has had to be replaced after a few years, and these are proprietary designs per camera, not standard watch batteries. And the DSLR is so old, some of it's limitations are now clearly apparent. I kinda need to upgrade. and I've only had this one for a few years now.
I haven't read 'cognitive surplus' yet, but I think the general idea behind the book applies to this article.
If people only commit 5 minutes during their entire lives to producing something, with nearly 7 billion people on earth, that's roughly 560 000 000 man-hours of free labour.
Even with participation as low as one percent, thats still A LOT of free man hours, and a lot of potential ability to get stuff done.
even if the vast majority don't want to work for free, some people do, and its enough to make a big difference.
If anything, I would see the abandoned twitter and blog accounts as a good thing. the casual users are dropping, but the dedicated people hold out and keep on producing. Shouldn't that result in a better signal to noise ratio in the content that is out there?
As for Wikipedia stalling, with 3,374,590 million English articles, the problem could just as easily be a lack of material that meets their notability guidelines.
"Canada admitted it because the people were complaining too much and because it is obvious that they were..."
Are you saying The Conservatives listened to the people of Canada? Ha! I haven't LOLed that hard in years.
Have you looked up the results from last years consultations?
6000 vs 60. They ignored the 6000 and listened to the 60.
Or the change to the Census rules. Again, ignoring the people.
The Conservative party has never been about listening to the voices of the people of Canada during my lifetime.
I think they are a bit like Apple, they have a nice shiny exterior that appeals to a lot of people, but deep down, they think that they know best, and the users/voters shall have no say on anything.
Just tell Rogers exactly what the competition is offering.
Then ask them to beat that offer.
Tell them that you will happily switch back when they can offer superior service at a better price.
Then, if you want to have some fun, point out that company x's 3mbps is so much faster in actual real-world usage than Rogers' 3mbps service. Ask them about that.
My Rogers contract is up this month, I'm looking into teksavvy at the moment.
If they want to eliminate the social incentive to purchase media legitimately to avoid the feeling of guilt for ripping off an artist, that's fine with me.
When I know the artist already got paid because I bought a piece of levied blank media, that only motivates me to download more to make sure that I get my money's worth out of it. They assume I'm guilty, so I'm going to do it. And there will be no guilty feelings.
The moral argument that, "artists should get paid for their work" is dead because of levies. Artists are getting paid.
Has anyone thought about an optional levy on ISP's?
Why not introduce something like an optional $5/month levied service that protects your privacy absolutely (no records are kept), and protects you from any potential infringement lawsuits? Are their major flaws with that idea?
While you are partly right, teachers do need to be engaging to get through to their students, turning teachers from educators into entertainers is not a great solution.
A lot of the time, teachers don't have much choice in the matter, the school sets the policy, and they have to enforce it weather they agree with it or not. And Curriculum's, which must be followed, don't always leave a lot of room for teachers to make something engaging and interesting.
When I did the overseas ESL thing, the school policy was, I think, a fair and reasonable one. If students were caught using something during class time, it was confiscated 'till Friday. Good behaviour meant they got it back sooner.
It was technology-neutral, it applied to anything they were mis-using during class time, and it left room for teachers to interpret and decide -"oh, he's using his phone as a dictionary, I'll let it slide this time."
Blanket policies, bans and zero-tolerance rules are just the school's way of saying "we don't trust our teachers to make their own decisions".
In my school days, I releaved my boredom by doodling in my sketch book incessantly. Now I'm a working artist.
Who knows what windows of opportunity schools are closing on these students by not letting them tinker in class.
"They cannot reconcile the truth and reality that the landscape is irrevocably changed... so they come up with preposterous and flat out wrong-headed arguments."
I'm reminded of a quote by Al Gore:
It’s hard to make someone believe something when their paycheque depends on them not believing it.
For these people, it's not a matter of accepting the reality that technology erodes markets, it's not about common sense or the infinite supply of digital goods.
They only care about protecting their own livelihood and their own personal interests; yet they are too short sighted or lazy to realize that they are heading down a dead-end street.
Rather than head back, hit reset and start again from zero, they are trying to extend that dead-end road just long enough for them to retire.
Typically, putting something under the umbrella of "Art" keeps you safe from these sorts of things.
some examples: I once attended an art exhibit with computers and CD burners on display, where people were invited to download mp3s, burn them to disk, and take the CDs with them. The show was intended to be a commentary on how people consume music in the digital era.
Another example: An artist placed a pile of cocaine in the middle of the gallery, and for the duration of the show, he sat in a corner, blindfolded. people were only allowed to enter one at a time, and if they so wished, they could snort some. I think the show was supposed to be saying something about self-control and surveillance, but I did not attend this show, I only read about it after the fact.
And these shows both went off without a hitch. Under the umbrella of art, these activities were not a problem. The show must go on.
So...snorting coke in a gallery is fine, but using some Louis Vuitton logos in your art is a show stopper.
So, rather than addressing people's concerns, Moore is demonizing all opposition.
Because that's healthy for democracy...
As the Canadian Heritage Minister, if he really wants to be true to his Canadian heritage, he should take off his toque, take a sip of his Tim Horton's coffee, then apologize.
Let's see how many voices our democratically elected leaders can ignore.
The truly sad part is, even if we 'win' this round, and manage to miraculously stop ACTA from being passed, they will just try to pass the same thing a few years later.
It can be shot down a hundred times, while it only has to pass once to count. (See the Canadian DMCA-now in round 3- for a real life example of this.)
Writing letters to our MPs seems kind of useless at this point, considering that last year they had a big copyright consultation, and thousands of Canadians clearly stated what they wanted: expanded fair dealing, a promise to not expand copyright duration, getting rid of crown copyright, and allowing DRM circumvention for any use that falls under fair dealing.
The Conservative government knows what the people want already, and they are choosing to ignore us.
If they pass this law, I want my money from the blank media levy back.
When the Conservatives are finished ruining Canada, which country should I move to? Any suggestions?
On the post: TSA Warns Against Evil Photographers Taking Pictures Of Planes
terrorists and airplanes
It's large gatherings of people, not flight itself that they are after.
On the post: Even 'Free' Culture Supporters Sometimes Have Difficulty Living Up To Their Own Principles
Re: CC
The "by" clause takes care of that on it's own.
from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
"Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)."
(emphasis mine)
Calling the derivative version a "collaboration" implies that the original creator has endorsed the remake. The remixer violated the terms of the licence. The additional "nd" is unnecessary.
On the post: Even 'Free' Culture Supporters Sometimes Have Difficulty Living Up To Their Own Principles
Re: Re: free culture
To me, the one part of cc that really bothers me is the incompatibilities that creep up with the 'sa' clause.
"cc-by-nc-sa", "cc-by-nd-sa" and "cc-by-sa" don't play nice together.
You can't force artists with semi-free work to relax their rights further than they originally wanted just because someone else remixed it with stuff that is more free.
Part of me thinks that a good way to go would be to err on the side of restriction.
eg. If someone combines "cc-by-sa" stuff with "cc-by-nc-sa" stuff, rather than being 'not allowed' it should be cc-by-nc-sa.
But what happens if those greater freedoms are part of the point of the cc-by-sa material?
And it's too easy to defeat that idea with a slippery slope argument..."you can err on the side of greater restriction all the way back to full blown copyright!"
It reminds me of the BSD vs. GPL debate, where the former is objectively "more free", while the latter is more of a political statement, it is concerned with keeping things free.
This is why I use the "sa" clause rather than just releasing things "cc-by-nc" I know that I am making my work less free by doing so, but I do this because I hope that it will inspire others to build upon it in a way that might someday lead to a cultural commons everyone can draw from.
On the post: Even 'Free' Culture Supporters Sometimes Have Difficulty Living Up To Their Own Principles
free culture
The non-commercial clause, however, doesn't bother me at all. (disclaimer: I use cc-by-nc-sa for nearly everything I release.)
Even Richard Stallman has pointed out the distinction between creative cultural works like art/music, and objects/tools like coffee tables and software.
To be perfectly honest, it would piss me off if someone else made more money off my work than I did.
I might not be in a position to monetize my content right now, but I might have plans for the future. I can keep all my content to myself, locked away for years until I want to sell it, but I believe that harms culture far more than a 'non-commercial' license that is attached to media that gets released right now.
Copyright does go on for far too long (25 years from date of first publication is what I believe to be ideal)
Creative commons isn't really a solution, but it is a system of harm-reduction that I think makes copyright less worse.
On the post: Professor Says News Should Get Special 24 Hour Protections So No Aggregator Can Link To It
I've never understood...
Why would that be a bad thing?
The horse-and-buggy and gas-lamp industries took a pretty big hit with the introduction of automobiles and electric lightbulbs, but the world kept on spinning.
The internet does news delivery faster and cheaper, with no real physical limits on article length forcing important details to be edited out, and it wastes less paper and ink.
What reason is their to believe that things will be worse off if progress kills newspapers?
On the post: Why Waiting Until A New Business Model Is Proven Doesn't Work
Re: Creative Destruction
One such area is cameras themselves.
With film based photography, the actual camera is little more than a 'film box', something that holds the lens and the film, and that's it. And they cost a few hundred. The money was in the glass, not the cameras.
Digital cameras on the other hand, are expensive, and every year something new comes out to replace the old ones.
In the film days, a pro could spend $500 on a body, and $3000 on a lens. Now a pro has to spend $7000 + $3000, 7k for a high-end DSLR, and 3k for a good lens.
And don't forget about camera batteries and memory cards. Newer cameras make bigger files, requiring newer and bigger memory cards.
My old SLR has one tiny watch battery for the light meter, and it's still going strong, and I bought it used in the late 90's. I could still use that camera today. My DSLR's battery has had to be replaced after a few years, and these are proprietary designs per camera, not standard watch batteries. And the DSLR is so old, some of it's limitations are now clearly apparent. I kinda need to upgrade. and I've only had this one for a few years now.
On the post: Sun Rises In The Morning, Sets At Night, And Viacom Appeals YouTube Ruling
makes you wonder
On the post: Newsweek Insists People Don't Do Stuff For Free... And Then Shows Why People Do Stuff For Free
If people only commit 5 minutes during their entire lives to producing something, with nearly 7 billion people on earth, that's roughly 560 000 000 man-hours of free labour.
Even with participation as low as one percent, thats still A LOT of free man hours, and a lot of potential ability to get stuff done.
even if the vast majority don't want to work for free, some people do, and its enough to make a big difference.
If anything, I would see the abandoned twitter and blog accounts as a good thing. the casual users are dropping, but the dedicated people hold out and keep on producing. Shouldn't that result in a better signal to noise ratio in the content that is out there?
As for Wikipedia stalling, with 3,374,590 million English articles, the problem could just as easily be a lack of material that meets their notability guidelines.
On the post: Canada More Or Less Admits Its Copyright Reform Plan Is Driven By US, Following DMCA Exemption Rulings
Re: Admitted
Are you saying The Conservatives listened to the people of Canada? Ha! I haven't LOLed that hard in years.
Have you looked up the results from last years consultations?
6000 vs 60. They ignored the 6000 and listened to the 60.
Or the change to the Census rules. Again, ignoring the people.
The Conservative party has never been about listening to the voices of the people of Canada during my lifetime.
I think they are a bit like Apple, they have a nice shiny exterior that appeals to a lot of people, but deep down, they think that they know best, and the users/voters shall have no say on anything.
On the post: Time To Face Facts: Broadband Caps Are Really About Protecting Video Revenue
Re: Re: Re: Bollocks
Just tell Rogers exactly what the competition is offering.
Then ask them to beat that offer.
Tell them that you will happily switch back when they can offer superior service at a better price.
Then, if you want to have some fun, point out that company x's 3mbps is so much faster in actual real-world usage than Rogers' 3mbps service. Ask them about that.
My Rogers contract is up this month, I'm looking into teksavvy at the moment.
On the post: People Aren't Buying Blank CDs Any More, So Collection Agency Demands Media Levy Expanded To Mobile Phones
idea
If they want to eliminate the social incentive to purchase media legitimately to avoid the feeling of guilt for ripping off an artist, that's fine with me.
When I know the artist already got paid because I bought a piece of levied blank media, that only motivates me to download more to make sure that I get my money's worth out of it. They assume I'm guilty, so I'm going to do it. And there will be no guilty feelings.
The moral argument that, "artists should get paid for their work" is dead because of levies. Artists are getting paid.
Has anyone thought about an optional levy on ISP's?
Why not introduce something like an optional $5/month levied service that protects your privacy absolutely (no records are kept), and protects you from any potential infringement lawsuits? Are their major flaws with that idea?
On the post: Removing iPods And Mobile Phones From Students Is 'Discipline Theater'
Re:
A lot of the time, teachers don't have much choice in the matter, the school sets the policy, and they have to enforce it weather they agree with it or not. And Curriculum's, which must be followed, don't always leave a lot of room for teachers to make something engaging and interesting.
When I did the overseas ESL thing, the school policy was, I think, a fair and reasonable one. If students were caught using something during class time, it was confiscated 'till Friday. Good behaviour meant they got it back sooner.
It was technology-neutral, it applied to anything they were mis-using during class time, and it left room for teachers to interpret and decide -"oh, he's using his phone as a dictionary, I'll let it slide this time."
Blanket policies, bans and zero-tolerance rules are just the school's way of saying "we don't trust our teachers to make their own decisions".
In my school days, I releaved my boredom by doodling in my sketch book incessantly. Now I'm a working artist.
Who knows what windows of opportunity schools are closing on these students by not letting them tinker in class.
On the post: MTA Pretends 'Unlimited' Means 90
any limit = not unlimited
In Toronto, with the ridiculous metropass prices, it's ONLY worthwhile getting an unlimited monthly pass if you plan to use it 3 times a day or more.
On the post: Canada Needs To Outlaw Breaking Digital Locks Or Popcorn Vendors Will Starve
I'm reminded of a quote by Al Gore:
It’s hard to make someone believe something when their paycheque depends on them not believing it.
For these people, it's not a matter of accepting the reality that technology erodes markets, it's not about common sense or the infinite supply of digital goods.
They only care about protecting their own livelihood and their own personal interests; yet they are too short sighted or lazy to realize that they are heading down a dead-end street.
Rather than head back, hit reset and start again from zero, they are trying to extend that dead-end road just long enough for them to retire.
On the post: The Only Way To Get Joe Biden To Rethink His Position On Copyright Is To Give Him Money?
I don't understand how campaign contributions is even legal. It's bribery, plain and simple.
On the post: Louis Vuitton Strikes Again: Shuts Down Art Exhibit That Commented On LV Trademarks
Typically, putting something under the umbrella of "Art" keeps you safe from these sorts of things.
some examples: I once attended an art exhibit with computers and CD burners on display, where people were invited to download mp3s, burn them to disk, and take the CDs with them. The show was intended to be a commentary on how people consume music in the digital era.
Another example: An artist placed a pile of cocaine in the middle of the gallery, and for the duration of the show, he sat in a corner, blindfolded. people were only allowed to enter one at a time, and if they so wished, they could snort some. I think the show was supposed to be saying something about self-control and surveillance, but I did not attend this show, I only read about it after the fact.
And these shows both went off without a hitch. Under the umbrella of art, these activities were not a problem. The show must go on.
So...snorting coke in a gallery is fine, but using some Louis Vuitton logos in your art is a show stopper.
On the post: Canadian Heritage Minister Denies Calling His Critics On Copyright Bill 'Extreme Radicals'; Video Proves He Said It
Re:
On the post: Canadian Heritage Minister Says That Those In Favor Of Balanced Copyright Are 'Radical Extremists'
Because that's healthy for democracy...
As the Canadian Heritage Minister, if he really wants to be true to his Canadian heritage, he should take off his toque, take a sip of his Tim Horton's coffee, then apologize.
On the post: Experts Draft Document Critical Of ACTA: Signatures Wanted
let's see...
The truly sad part is, even if we 'win' this round, and manage to miraculously stop ACTA from being passed, they will just try to pass the same thing a few years later.
It can be shot down a hundred times, while it only has to pass once to count. (See the Canadian DMCA-now in round 3- for a real life example of this.)
On the post: It's Baaaaaack: Canadian DMCA Bill Expected Next Month
The Conservative government knows what the people want already, and they are choosing to ignore us.
If they pass this law, I want my money from the blank media levy back.
When the Conservatives are finished ruining Canada, which country should I move to? Any suggestions?
Next >>