No one is saying that techs *should* snoop, or that they are *allowed* to snoop, we're saying they probably will, and you should *expect* it.
That means, if there is anything on your computer you wouldn't want them to find, encrypt it or remove it. Truecrypt is so easy a PC user can do it. (I keed, I keed!)
For all we know, this perv's idea of "hiding" it was renaming it to funnyYouTubeVideo.avi, so the techs, making sure the codecs were all installed, thought to play a seemingly harmless video, only to find kiddie porn.
Oh, in that case, you're right. I mean, because their songs are about god, it's not *real* music, anyway, amirite? God-inspired music is doomed to fail, that's why you'd never hear a song about living on, I dunno, a prayer.
/sarcasm
I hate to break this to you, but I can listen to *any* music I want to, I'm not just locked into one genre. So, while there may be relatively few so-called christian bands out there, they are still fighting for my ear time as much as the rest.
Unless his checks come direct from god, I don't see how his religion or the content of his music (they *can* be different, ya know) has to do with his opinion on the future of music.
Paying too much attention to details that don't really matter is why you don't seem to get many of the stories on techdirt, I imagine. :)
I freely admit to not knowing exactly what to call a "shared perception of imaginary events/persons/places based on a common experience of a fictional work" in the context of legal protections.
A limited monolpoly over the power to determine who may or may not copy your creation is quite often referred to as a "copyright". I'd suggest calling it that.
"Inspired by" implies that the new work is significantly different from the original.
Citation please, because I've always thought "inspired by" meant that it meant "thoughts, feelings or ideas were triggered by" in which case, while reading CitR, this guy came up with an idea for a sequel.
I didn't relate charging for a product to the quality of that product either.
You *did* say that works based on another author's works could possibly harm the reputation of the original work, and then you say it's all good if it's done for no profit. I just was pointing out that if it's crappy and it's free doesn't prevent this. So which is the concern? That the original author's works may be tarnished, or that someone has the audacity to make money from someone else's fantasy world?
I guess we fundamentally disagree in that I think someone should be able to get paid for work they did, as well as for work they are doing.
Salinger is doing *zero* work. This other guy did all the work. Making up characters is relatively easy compared to setting them up in a story that is desirable to readers. Regardless, the question I want to know is how does this sequel *hurt* Salinger? He isn't writing anything, and I'd bet a good deal of money that he just wants a cut from this book, not to stop it. So he wants more money for doing zero extra work. Explain this to me.
again I ask your help in naming it if the term "intellectual property" offends you
It doesn't offend me, it is a confusing term. Try using "copyrights" or "patents" or "trademarks" instead of lumping things with different rules into one category. It's NOT property. The very closest is a lease, but even that will lead to people believing it is actually a lease. It is a government granted monopoly to encourage creative people to create. Salinger is not creating, he is using the copyright system as a welfare system, which it is not. If he was using it properly, he'd still be writing, because I assume he likes to make money.
Should it be so sweeping that it covers things that are similar? Probably not, but that is for the courts to decide depending on how close the new work is to the orignial.
Why is everything "for the courts to decide"? We're all mostly adults here.. do we really need the government to tell us what we can and can't, should and shouldn't do? It's absolutely clear that Salinger believes he is entitled for money for work he did in the past, while doing no extra work. That's welfare, when you expect money for no work. The copyright system is not welfare. If it's not pushing writers to pump out book after book (or enabling them to write one good book and leech off it for the rest of their life, their children's life, and into their grandchildren's life!), then it is broken. End of story.
but not all people who pirate music go to concerts or buy t-shirts or contribute in any way to their favorite artists' living.
You are stuck thinking of music as the product, so of course you'd think that way. Let's say I download a song from a band I've never heard of illegally. I don't like it enough to go see them. What *harm* have I done to that artist? If I had been forced to *buy* it before listening, I'd be far more likely to speak badly about them, which results in a net loss for the band, as my negative words may convince someone else to not to listen to them at all.
Now, let's say I download illegally, and like it, but don't have the funds or want to go see them live, but I still tell people how great they sound. I have now potentially given them more money than they had before, by spreading their fan base.
It boils down to this: The only musicians who should fear the current "pirate" climate are the ones who have no talent and can only thrive is this artifical monopoly. Good artists will be able to use filesharing as a tool to exponentially increase their fan base, as their music will be recommended and spread-- while the talentless artist will make nothing, because no one will be tricked into buying their shitty music with false hype.
but I don't see hordes of pirates sending money directly to artists either.
Tell that to the people packed into a venue to see their favorite artist. Or do they require you to show proof that you bought their music before you can buy a ticket?
Fair price to make a copy is zero, because that's how much it costs me to do it myself, just as good as they can.
If you put the cost to a dime or less per song, it becomes a money losing operation to make music.
No, it makes it a money losing operation to SELL *just* music.
Now, if you used the up-front cost of making music to gather a larger fan base to drive more people to see your live show, you can make a profit. Much like commercials (Which aren't free) are made and given away to as many people as possible in the hopes that some of those people will go out and buy the product.
Making something an MMO costs *way* more money than selling a plastic disc with a copy of something you paid a team of people to make (once) and get to keep reselling it, over and over, with no extra cost, for $50.
Re: biggest mistaske of all is buying an iphone - old news
Straying off-topic: I've owned a good number of phones (I go through them very quickly) and the iPhone (jailbroken) is an amazing device. Not perfect, of course, but each generation it gets closer.
Of course, it never *will* get perfect, because that would require, IMHO, the software to all be open source, and Apple will never do that.
My gf has a Storm, a few of my friends have G1s, guys at work all have the BB Curve.. and I wow them with what the iPhone can do.
I normally agree with you with Apple and their gear, but in this case, you've let your bias against Apple blind you to an very nice device.
Making up new phrases doesn't make you right. Also, it's not property. It's a *limited* monolpoly. Limited not only in tenure, but also in scope. Pretending it is property is foolish, and only leads to people trying to staple on actual property rights to something that never was and is *not* property.
Unlike a reproduced song, an intellectual property can in fact be damaged (or enhanced) by misuse. If the sequel writer wants to write fan-fiction and not profit from it, then that is one thing.
The act of charging (or not) does not determine if the story is good or bad. Therefore, stating that it is somehow better if the artist does not charge for his work is misleading, and only shows that you are the type of person who views copyrights as a "right to get paid". It is *not* a right to get paid, but the *limited* monopoly over one's works. While trademark laws seem to often trump this, I can't see how copyright does.
Also, you've gone and showed my eariler point, that using the word "property" where it does not belong only causes confusion: Your *limited* monopoly cannot be damaged. It can be taken away, or enforced.
But to decide as a writer that you are too lazy to create your own characters, and references and/or your own original back story when you want to produce a *for-profit* creative work, to me that demonstrates a clear LACK of innovation, and creativity, and contribution to the public body or pool of what I guess we should call virtual value.
You really think that works are created in a vacuum? That nothing inspires creation? You clearly have never created anything, then. How many times have musicians given interviews where they say that they were inspired by another artist? Just because something is *based* on something else does not mean it is not creative. If it wasn't creative, then anyone could do it. It would be commonplace-- we'd be tripping over all the CitR sequels there'd be so many.
As for contribution to the public *domain*: (That's the word you're looking for, btw) Since CitR is clearly *not* there, then Salinger also hasn't contributed to public, right?
Again, making up phrases like "virtual value" doesn't make you right. (or easier to understand)
Sometimes this site has the attitude that nobody should profit from anything they create beyond live performances. That's bullsh^% ok?
This site usually has the attitude that people should get paid for work they do, not work they did, and that using copyright to prevent the creation of new works, even remixes, is going against the purpose of the law, which is a gross misuse of the law, and needs to be safeguarded against to allow for more creative works to be created.
Case in point: There is no sequel to CitR, but clearly there is a perceived demand for one, and as Salinger hasn't bothered to create anything new (ironically, using the system designed to spur creation as welfare) then someone else has decided to fill that need, and is now being prevented from doing so. (Ironically, using the system designed to spur creation as a way to stifle it.)
Because they feel that every person who downloads for free would have paid if they couldn't download for free. Therefore, the sale was lost due to 'piracy'.
Furthermore, they think, if 'piracy' were gone they'd have made $20 off of you, but since 'piracy' is a viable option, they are making $0 off of you. So you "stole" $20 from them.
Even worse, because you didn't pay them the $20 you would have paid them had the internet never been created you owe them $150,000.
Per song.
It's horribly flawed to the point of insanity, but that's their story and they're sticking to it.
Re: Since when is it illegal for me to carry a camera into a theater?
It's not illegal, but they can deny you service. They usually find people bringing in candy during these searches, and they make the customer bring it out to their car before they allow them access. Candy isn't illegal either, ya know. :)
Never forget that the theater is private property, they could deny you access because they don't like your shoes.
Sure, it would be bad business sense to do so, but that hasn't stopped them yet.
So, it's not like they'll call the cops (or the Mounties?) on you, but they can give you your money back and tell you to have a *great* day if you insist on bringing your camera into the theater.
I'm not saying it's a smart move, but they are within their rights.
The theaters have to inform people their bags will be searched *before* they buy the tickets, and theater employees can't put their hands inside your bags.
If you reject their search outright and leave they'll think they've foiled an evil pirate plot.
Let them search you to determine you're a normal, paying customer, and THEN tell them you're going to need your money back for being called a criminal.
You are obviously confusing bit torrent with Limewire. :P
Bit Torrent has never let me down when it comes to TV shows, and, during those rare times I use a public site, if I take the time to read the comments, I can avoid all the fake movies.
All you really need is a bit torrent client that can play well with an RSS feed (uTorrent would be the best bet) and a way to get it to your TV. I have had success with a D-Link Media Server, which just streams shared network media to your TV, though it might be more than you're willing to pay (~$250USD) but it streams in HD, so I don't even have to worry about poor quality.
Now, if I could convince my girlfriend that we don't need cable anymore.. some people just resist new things. :P
On the post: Supreme Court Won't Hear Case Over Computer Tech's Right To Search Your Computer
Re: Snooping should be a Crime
No one is saying that techs *should* snoop, or that they are *allowed* to snoop, we're saying they probably will, and you should *expect* it.
That means, if there is anything on your computer you wouldn't want them to find, encrypt it or remove it. Truecrypt is so easy a PC user can do it. (I keed, I keed!)
For all we know, this perv's idea of "hiding" it was renaming it to funnyYouTubeVideo.avi, so the techs, making sure the codecs were all installed, thought to play a seemingly harmless video, only to find kiddie porn.
On the post: The Key To Being A Successful Musician: Focus On Fan Relationships... Not Industry Relationships
Re:
Why people are too lazy to type a name, even a fake one, is beyond me. Too cool for school, I imagine.
On the post: Newspapers' Plan For Survival: Charge Money, Beat Up On Craigslist And Keep Repeating To Ourselves That We're Needed
Re: Re: Re:
You could say the same thing about the internet in general, so I assume you're ready to pull the plug on that as well.
There's a phrase about a baby and some bathwater that you should probably google. It applies to your thinking.
On the post: The Key To Being A Successful Musician: Focus On Fan Relationships... Not Industry Relationships
Re:
/sarcasm
I hate to break this to you, but I can listen to *any* music I want to, I'm not just locked into one genre. So, while there may be relatively few so-called christian bands out there, they are still fighting for my ear time as much as the rest.
Unless his checks come direct from god, I don't see how his religion or the content of his music (they *can* be different, ya know) has to do with his opinion on the future of music.
Paying too much attention to details that don't really matter is why you don't seem to get many of the stories on techdirt, I imagine. :)
On the post: Apple's Rejection Of EFF RSS Reader App Sort Of Proves EFF's Point About Arbitrary App Rejections
Re: You wow them?
I can also control my computers at home through it, start and stop downloads, reboot machines, change router settings.
I have wifi.
I can watch youtube and get an incoming call and *not* miss it due to 30 seconds of lag. (My gf's biggest complaint, by far.)
I can stream music and video to my iphone through the cell network. I can tether my phone without paying $20/month to do so. (or whatever it costs)
I stand by my statement, a jailbroken iphone is amazing, and hands down better than any phone yet. (The pre does seem cool, though.)
Still, don't get me wrong, I was hoping that the G1 would be google's gift to nerds.. then it was locked down. Very disappointing.
On the post: JD Salinger Sues Author For Writing A Sequel To 'The Catcher In The Rye'
Re: Re: Re:
A limited monolpoly over the power to determine who may or may not copy your creation is quite often referred to as a "copyright". I'd suggest calling it that.
"Inspired by" implies that the new work is significantly different from the original.
Citation please, because I've always thought "inspired by" meant that it meant "thoughts, feelings or ideas were triggered by" in which case, while reading CitR, this guy came up with an idea for a sequel.
I didn't relate charging for a product to the quality of that product either.
You *did* say that works based on another author's works could possibly harm the reputation of the original work, and then you say it's all good if it's done for no profit. I just was pointing out that if it's crappy and it's free doesn't prevent this. So which is the concern? That the original author's works may be tarnished, or that someone has the audacity to make money from someone else's fantasy world?
I guess we fundamentally disagree in that I think someone should be able to get paid for work they did, as well as for work they are doing.
Salinger is doing *zero* work. This other guy did all the work. Making up characters is relatively easy compared to setting them up in a story that is desirable to readers. Regardless, the question I want to know is how does this sequel *hurt* Salinger? He isn't writing anything, and I'd bet a good deal of money that he just wants a cut from this book, not to stop it. So he wants more money for doing zero extra work. Explain this to me.
again I ask your help in naming it if the term "intellectual property" offends you
It doesn't offend me, it is a confusing term. Try using "copyrights" or "patents" or "trademarks" instead of lumping things with different rules into one category. It's NOT property. The very closest is a lease, but even that will lead to people believing it is actually a lease. It is a government granted monopoly to encourage creative people to create. Salinger is not creating, he is using the copyright system as a welfare system, which it is not. If he was using it properly, he'd still be writing, because I assume he likes to make money.
Should it be so sweeping that it covers things that are similar? Probably not, but that is for the courts to decide depending on how close the new work is to the orignial.
Why is everything "for the courts to decide"? We're all mostly adults here.. do we really need the government to tell us what we can and can't, should and shouldn't do? It's absolutely clear that Salinger believes he is entitled for money for work he did in the past, while doing no extra work. That's welfare, when you expect money for no work. The copyright system is not welfare. If it's not pushing writers to pump out book after book (or enabling them to write one good book and leech off it for the rest of their life, their children's life, and into their grandchildren's life!), then it is broken. End of story.
On the post: When You Can Hold Every Song Ever Recorded In Your Pocket... Does $1/Song Still Make Sense?
Re: RE: Something Missing...
You are stuck thinking of music as the product, so of course you'd think that way. Let's say I download a song from a band I've never heard of illegally. I don't like it enough to go see them. What *harm* have I done to that artist? If I had been forced to *buy* it before listening, I'd be far more likely to speak badly about them, which results in a net loss for the band, as my negative words may convince someone else to not to listen to them at all.
Now, let's say I download illegally, and like it, but don't have the funds or want to go see them live, but I still tell people how great they sound. I have now potentially given them more money than they had before, by spreading their fan base.
It boils down to this: The only musicians who should fear the current "pirate" climate are the ones who have no talent and can only thrive is this artifical monopoly. Good artists will be able to use filesharing as a tool to exponentially increase their fan base, as their music will be recommended and spread-- while the talentless artist will make nothing, because no one will be tricked into buying their shitty music with false hype.
On the post: When You Can Hold Every Song Ever Recorded In Your Pocket... Does $1/Song Still Make Sense?
Re: Something missing...
Tell that to the people packed into a venue to see their favorite artist. Or do they require you to show proof that you bought their music before you can buy a ticket?
Fair price to make a copy is zero, because that's how much it costs me to do it myself, just as good as they can.
On the post: When You Can Hold Every Song Ever Recorded In Your Pocket... Does $1/Song Still Make Sense?
Re:
No, it makes it a money losing operation to SELL *just* music.
Now, if you used the up-front cost of making music to gather a larger fan base to drive more people to see your live show, you can make a profit. Much like commercials (Which aren't free) are made and given away to as many people as possible in the hopes that some of those people will go out and buy the product.
Got it now?
On the post: When You Can Hold Every Song Ever Recorded In Your Pocket... Does $1/Song Still Make Sense?
Re: Re: Games
So, of course they won't.
On the post: Apple's Rejection Of EFF RSS Reader App Sort Of Proves EFF's Point About Arbitrary App Rejections
Re: biggest mistaske of all is buying an iphone - old news
Of course, it never *will* get perfect, because that would require, IMHO, the software to all be open source, and Apple will never do that.
My gf has a Storm, a few of my friends have G1s, guys at work all have the BB Curve.. and I wow them with what the iPhone can do.
I normally agree with you with Apple and their gear, but in this case, you've let your bias against Apple blind you to an very nice device.
/off-topic
On the post: Apple's Rejection Of EFF RSS Reader App Sort Of Proves EFF's Point About Arbitrary App Rejections
Re:
aka Jailbreaking.
Which they say is copyright infringement.
See the problem now?
On the post: JD Salinger Sues Author For Writing A Sequel To 'The Catcher In The Rye'
Re:
Making up new phrases doesn't make you right. Also, it's not property. It's a *limited* monolpoly. Limited not only in tenure, but also in scope. Pretending it is property is foolish, and only leads to people trying to staple on actual property rights to something that never was and is *not* property.
Unlike a reproduced song, an intellectual property can in fact be damaged (or enhanced) by misuse. If the sequel writer wants to write fan-fiction and not profit from it, then that is one thing.
The act of charging (or not) does not determine if the story is good or bad. Therefore, stating that it is somehow better if the artist does not charge for his work is misleading, and only shows that you are the type of person who views copyrights as a "right to get paid". It is *not* a right to get paid, but the *limited* monopoly over one's works. While trademark laws seem to often trump this, I can't see how copyright does.
Also, you've gone and showed my eariler point, that using the word "property" where it does not belong only causes confusion: Your *limited* monopoly cannot be damaged. It can be taken away, or enforced.
But to decide as a writer that you are too lazy to create your own characters, and references and/or your own original back story when you want to produce a *for-profit* creative work, to me that demonstrates a clear LACK of innovation, and creativity, and contribution to the public body or pool of what I guess we should call virtual value.
You really think that works are created in a vacuum? That nothing inspires creation? You clearly have never created anything, then. How many times have musicians given interviews where they say that they were inspired by another artist? Just because something is *based* on something else does not mean it is not creative. If it wasn't creative, then anyone could do it. It would be commonplace-- we'd be tripping over all the CitR sequels there'd be so many.
As for contribution to the public *domain*: (That's the word you're looking for, btw) Since CitR is clearly *not* there, then Salinger also hasn't contributed to public, right?
Again, making up phrases like "virtual value" doesn't make you right. (or easier to understand)
Sometimes this site has the attitude that nobody should profit from anything they create beyond live performances. That's bullsh^% ok?
This site usually has the attitude that people should get paid for work they do, not work they did, and that using copyright to prevent the creation of new works, even remixes, is going against the purpose of the law, which is a gross misuse of the law, and needs to be safeguarded against to allow for more creative works to be created.
Case in point: There is no sequel to CitR, but clearly there is a perceived demand for one, and as Salinger hasn't bothered to create anything new (ironically, using the system designed to spur creation as welfare) then someone else has decided to fill that need, and is now being prevented from doing so. (Ironically, using the system designed to spur creation as a way to stifle it.)
On the post: Another Court Ruling In Spain Finds Personal File Sharing To Be Legal
Re:
Furthermore, they think, if 'piracy' were gone they'd have made $20 off of you, but since 'piracy' is a viable option, they are making $0 off of you. So you "stole" $20 from them.
Even worse, because you didn't pay them the $20 you would have paid them had the internet never been created you owe them $150,000.
Per song.
It's horribly flawed to the point of insanity, but that's their story and they're sticking to it.
On the post: Theater Ordered To Pay $10,000 For Searching Customers
Re: Since when is it illegal for me to carry a camera into a theater?
Never forget that the theater is private property, they could deny you access because they don't like your shoes.
Sure, it would be bad business sense to do so, but that hasn't stopped them yet.
So, it's not like they'll call the cops (or the Mounties?) on you, but they can give you your money back and tell you to have a *great* day if you insist on bringing your camera into the theater.
I'm not saying it's a smart move, but they are within their rights.
On the post: Theater Ordered To Pay $10,000 For Searching Customers
Re: People are Idiots
On the post: Theater Ordered To Pay $10,000 For Searching Customers
Re:
They did both.
On the post: Theater Ordered To Pay $10,000 For Searching Customers
Re: Its about time
If you reject their search outright and leave they'll think they've foiled an evil pirate plot.
Let them search you to determine you're a normal, paying customer, and THEN tell them you're going to need your money back for being called a criminal.
That should spell it out for them.
On the post: Cable Companies Aren't Immune From The Economy As More People Go Online-Only For TV
Re: Re: Re: My two cents
Bit Torrent has never let me down when it comes to TV shows, and, during those rare times I use a public site, if I take the time to read the comments, I can avoid all the fake movies.
All you really need is a bit torrent client that can play well with an RSS feed (uTorrent would be the best bet) and a way to get it to your TV. I have had success with a D-Link Media Server, which just streams shared network media to your TV, though it might be more than you're willing to pay (~$250USD) but it streams in HD, so I don't even have to worry about poor quality.
Now, if I could convince my girlfriend that we don't need cable anymore.. some people just resist new things. :P
Next >>