To Mr. Henley et al. this is about money, however you you and I it is not. To me this is about our culture and our "world". As a work becomes more well known it becomes more and more pervasive, more a PART OF who we are, not just a picture, or sound or string of words. The adds referenced in this article, in fact MANY MANY ads and slogans have meaning NOT because an artist created then but because we are so familiar with them they are part of who we are.
We can (and SHOULD) be grateful to the artists among us for giving us these touchstones. But once the works have touched so many lives they can no longer be owned by anyone ... no matter what any law attempts to dictate. Rule and laws meant to contain ownership of ideas will never be effective or just.
To the artists I say thank you for your contributions to our world, I look forward to your next one.
The erosion of rights and liberties in response to so-called threats is in itself a far bigger threat
Precisely! And that agenda is being moved forward almost exclusively because of real and implied terrorist threats. The continual erosion of liberty around the world is a reaction to fear of terrorist actions. People do not give up liberty easily or willingly, they do it only in the face of fear. Yes there are people capitalising on and actively trying to make people more fearful. But they are only opportunists, they have no interest in the outcome, only profits. The problem is extremist and totalitarian behavior and beliefs ... on all sides.
Justice for vengeance is one thing (and probably not a good thing), but what is truly damaging to society is dropping freedom for the illusion of security.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. --Benjamin Franklin
You need to drop the toddler-speak, it greatly damages your credibility. It makes every bit of sense to be beside-yourself with anger, but if you cannot continue to communicate in an even-tempered and articulate manner no one will listen to you.
I am guessing that you (and others,) are making the assumption that because the photographer owned the camera he owns the photo. Why would that be the case? The photo in question is an image created through an organic automated process. No human input was used, no one composed or designed the shot, no one even initiated the shot. No Human (or other "legal" entity) was involved. How can there be ownership?
I am looking for an actual (factual) answer please.
I am guessing that you (and others,) are making the assumption that because the photographer owned the camera he owns the photo. Why would that be the case? The photo in question is an image created through an organic automated process. No human input was used, no one composed or designed the shot, no one even initiated the shot. No Human (or other "legal" entity) was involved. How can there be ownership?
I am looking for an actual (factual) answer please.
I do not intend that point as an anti-racism argument. A person's genetic ethnicity is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT. There are many cultural and societal differences among people, such as religious or financial background, access to education or relative learning ability (etc.), that may have strong bearing on a given situation. But to say that any of those cultural or societal differences are the strict result that a person is a member of any general genetic grouping is patently false.
"It's not the color of a man's skin it's the man inside that you must know." -- Someone Said
"the voting habits of congress shows they are probably being controlled"
I think this statement is just a bit paranoid and conspiratory. I do agree that congress members behavior is highly influenced, but that influence is money. And it is largely self-inflicted influence. It may be possible to influence your representative with financial stimulus, but it is FAR easier to find out what they're looking for and use that.
Put another way, it is easier to influence someone who is looking to be influenced!
If you truly want to expose the conspiracy follow the money.
I completely agree with your comments here. Your statements are concise and well presented. I would very much like for SOMEONE to present the counter to your arguments (whether that presenter believes that position or not.) I know that They seem to be incapable of making a rational counter argument, They keep trying to use "talking points" as an argument, and They seem to have the opinion that they should not need to defend themselves.
The implication that the value of one person's speech is made greater simply by spending a greater number of dollars is a nasty falsehood perpetuated by insecure small people who found they can bully others with their money. It is the same argument as saying that the person who's voice is loudest is right. I'm not saying it doesn't work I'm saying it is wrong and immoral. True "free speech" is minted in a coin of equal value wielded by any person who can speak with string character and integrity. Qualities that are severely lacking on our society.
Except that everyone who trots out Rand's Objectivist philosophy conveniently omits the fact that the companies in that "reality" would be a vehemently opposed to laws favoring a given business model as they would any regulatory oversight.
I know the game of politics is to cherry-pick the "facts", but that doesn't make them factual!
On the post: White House Admits That It Still Supports Parts Of SOPA: Wants To Make Streaming A Felony
Re: youtube isn't public performance...
On the post: Don Henley Sues Clothing Retailer Over Its Use Of Common English Words
This is not about money.
We can (and SHOULD) be grateful to the artists among us for giving us these touchstones. But once the works have touched so many lives they can no longer be owned by anyone ... no matter what any law attempts to dictate. Rule and laws meant to contain ownership of ideas will never be effective or just.
To the artists I say thank you for your contributions to our world, I look forward to your next one.
On the post: Everything You've Wanted To Know About Net Neutrality But Were Afraid To Ask
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: their customer ....
On the post: Everything You've Wanted To Know About Net Neutrality But Were Afraid To Ask
Re: Re: their customer ....
Their customers are advertisers and companies who sell advertising.
And the services of course is the bandwidth.
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re: far bigger threat
Precisely! And that agenda is being moved forward almost exclusively because of real and implied terrorist threats. The continual erosion of liberty around the world is a reaction to fear of terrorist actions. People do not give up liberty easily or willingly, they do it only in the face of fear. Yes there are people capitalising on and actively trying to make people more fearful. But they are only opportunists, they have no interest in the outcome, only profits. The problem is extremist and totalitarian behavior and beliefs ... on all sides.
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re: throw away justice for vengeance.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. --Benjamin Franklin
On the post: The James Foley Beheading Video And How Americans Conceptualize Their Enemies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Stick
On the post: Ron Wyden: It's Time To Kill The Third Party Doctrine And Go Back To Respecting Privacy
Re: ^^^ YES ^^^
On the post: How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'
Re: The photographer owns the photo
The photo in question is an image created through an organic automated process. No human input was used, no one composed or designed the shot, no one even initiated the shot. No Human (or other "legal" entity) was involved. How can there be ownership?
I am looking for an actual (factual) answer please.
On the post: How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'
Re: RE: The photographer owns the photo.
On the post: How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'
RE: The photographer owns the photo.
The photo in question is an image created through an organic automated process. No human input was used, no one composed or designed the shot, no one even initiated the shot. No Human (or other "legal" entity) was involved. How can there be ownership?
I am looking for an actual (factual) answer please.
On the post: Why Was The DOJ So Fearful Of Its Terrorist Watchlist Guidelines Being Made Public?
Re: race
I do not intend that point as an anti-racism argument. A person's genetic ethnicity is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT. There are many cultural and societal differences among people, such as religious or financial background, access to education or relative learning ability (etc.), that may have strong bearing on a given situation. But to say that any of those cultural or societal differences are the strict result that a person is a member of any general genetic grouping is patently false.
"It's not the color of a man's skin it's the man inside that you must know." -- Someone Said
On the post: The Intercept Reveals The US Government's Guidebook For Declaring You're A Terrorist Or Putting You On The No Fly List
Re: Hyperbole
I think this statement is just a bit paranoid and conspiratory. I do agree that congress members behavior is highly influenced, but that influence is money. And it is largely self-inflicted influence. It may be possible to influence your representative with financial stimulus, but it is FAR easier to find out what they're looking for and use that.
Put another way, it is easier to influence someone who is looking to be influenced!
If you truly want to expose the conspiracy follow the money.
On the post: Italy's Public Prosecutor 'Seizes' Giant Webmail Provider And Cloud Storage Provider, Because Copyright
Re: They ....
SOMEONE PLEASE enlighten us!
On the post: Snowden Says NSA Employees 'Routinely' Passed Around Naked Photos That Had Been Intercepted
TITS OR GTFO!
On the post: Copyright Office To Aereo: Quack All You Want, We Don't Think You're A Cable Service
Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Spending money IS considered speech
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: "string" character
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: "spending half your annual income ...."
On the post: Entrepreneurs Explain How The End Of Net Neutrality Would Mean Their Startups Don't Exist
Ayn Rand vs. Modern 'free' Capitalism
I know the game of politics is to cherry-pick the "facts", but that doesn't make them factual!
Next >>