When you respond, rather than calling "hypocrite", I'd suggest simply pointing to the facts and examples of how it works. It makes a more convincing argument, and is more likely to allow real discussion. (Flies and honey and all that.)
First off, you have solid information for anything both people rented.
Second, it might not take a large stretch to figure out which of the two is which based on trends. (For example, someone's profession or hobby might make it easy to pick out the one renting all the music documentaries.)
Lastly, it could still leave a situation where you know someone rented either A or B, where both A and B might both be selections the person wouldn't want publicized.
The ease of identification increases the more of an outlier you are in your community. While a student on a college campus would be very hard to identify, that same student in a small suburban neighbourhood could be uniquely identified without any other info.
(Btw, I have no idea where the RIAA would factor into this.)
Saying new artists need to fund themselves to make a record, but can't because their music is downloaded freely is contradictory. How did they make the music that is being downloaded if they can't fund it?
Does nobody understand how to live without credit (which is basically what a record label offers) anymore? You earn money and save up for the next piece of equipment or studio time or whatever else. If you aren't making the money by music alone, then you do something else to supplement your income. You build your band like you would any other business.
The easily debatable answers? The only post she responded to in that thread was mine, which basically made the same claims Mike makes here. Her logic that "the record label pays", and thus hurting the labels hurts the whole chain is flawed, but I give her credit for at least addressing it.
(I instantly recognized the format as a Techdirt post, but didn't notice she missed crediting it, or I would've asked.)
The biggest problem with taxing internet usage is you'll be charging people for legitimate, legal usage as well. Downloading from iTunes would cost as much extra as downloading an illegal file. Plus, telling people they're "paying for" the content through the tax would make people feel justified in "pirating" the files, so they'd have to give up any "legit" sales model. I'm not at all knowledgeable about economics, but that basic fact was covered in the first chapter of Freakanomics, for goodness sakes.
I'm shocked that someone as big into conspiracy theories as Matt Bellamy wants the government to do more to control the public.
Given that copyright automatically restricts more than many CC licenses allow, it's fair to say CC licenses are granting permissions. It might not be as many as if you just say "public domain", but not everybody wants that.
To branch out into the main discussion again -- aren't CC license essentially votes for what rights many creative people do and don't want to see? I don't know how they would be tallied, but I know I see lots of licenses that basically say "do what you want with this, as long as you acknowledge my efforts and aren't profiting off them."
I almost cited Harry Potter, as there have been lawsuits for and from JK Rowling on that one. "Kids going to magic school" doesn't seems like a premise, not a copyrightable expression. Is a kid fighting a dragon then running through a maze after a cup though?
What about the general idea of quiddage? That's clearly JK's invention, but can she own people making up stories about other characters playing it?
I didn't mean solely word replacement, or the bare mechanics to go beyond that. I know you have to step beyond that. I know a "hero's journey" isn't protected either. The lines (possibly) drawn in the sand are where my questions lie.
I guess I should search for info about "SAP copyright". Thank you for the terminology.
I'm curious what the boundaries are of plagiarism and/or copyright infringement. It's been mentioned several times that you can't copyright an idea, only the expression. Does that mean I can legally take the plot of a book/movie/whatever and rewrite it in my own words?
I'm not questioning the ethics, just the legality. I know people get sued for stuff all the time, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a case for it.
On the post: Lily Allen Distributing Tons Of Copyrighted Music; Blows Way Past Three Strikes
Re: Re: FYI, Lily responded
(And now I'll stop updating you.)
On the post: Lily Allen Distributing Tons Of Copyrighted Music; Blows Way Past Three Strikes
Re: FYI, Lily responded
"hello, there is a meeting today in london where artists are meeting to discuss Piracy. my job done."
Multiple requests to answer the questions in the other thread have been made my different people, myself included.
On the post: Lily Allen Distributing Tons Of Copyrighted Music; Blows Way Past Three Strikes
FYI, Lily responded
When you respond, rather than calling "hypocrite", I'd suggest simply pointing to the facts and examples of how it works. It makes a more convincing argument, and is more likely to allow real discussion. (Flies and honey and all that.)
On the post: Eminem's Misguided Lawsuit Against Apple Over iTunes Set To Start
On the post: Did Pencils Make Us Dumber?
Re:
On the post: Netflix $1 Million Award Shows The Value Of Collaboration... But Kicks Up New Privacy Questions
Re:
First off, you have solid information for anything both people rented.
Second, it might not take a large stretch to figure out which of the two is which based on trends. (For example, someone's profession or hobby might make it easy to pick out the one renting all the music documentaries.)
Lastly, it could still leave a situation where you know someone rented either A or B, where both A and B might both be selections the person wouldn't want publicized.
The ease of identification increases the more of an outlier you are in your community. While a student on a college campus would be very hard to identify, that same student in a small suburban neighbourhood could be uniquely identified without any other info.
(Btw, I have no idea where the RIAA would factor into this.)
On the post: Following Your GPS Over A Cliff Is No Excuse For Bad Driving
(Someone might get that.)
On the post: If File Sharing Is Killing The UK Music Industry... Why Is The UK Music Industry Growing?
Re:
Does nobody understand how to live without credit (which is basically what a record label offers) anymore? You earn money and save up for the next piece of equipment or studio time or whatever else. If you aren't making the money by music alone, then you do something else to supplement your income. You build your band like you would any other business.
On the post: Lily Allen: Copying Isn't Alright... Unless It's Done By Lily Allen
Re: Re:
(I instantly recognized the format as a Techdirt post, but didn't notice she missed crediting it, or I would've asked.)
On the post: More UK Artists Speak Out About File Sharing, Pro & Con
Taxing internet usage
I'm shocked that someone as big into conspiracy theories as Matt Bellamy wants the government to do more to control the public.
On the post: Alumnus Sues NYU Over Logo That The School Asked Her To Design
Re: Re: Gray area, maybe, depending...
- What did she assume they were going to use it for?
- If she was only paid "to pick up dirty towels", then why was she spending their time creating new logos?
This could've been leveraged into a career. Instead, it might make people hesitant to hire her.
On the post: Anti-bullying Laws Don't Work Offline; Why Do Politicians Think They'll Work Online?
On the post: Satriani And Coldplay Settle Lawsuit Over Melody... Which Is Really Too Bad
Re: Permutations of 13
On the post: Elderly Classic Rock Musicians Don't Like Music Video Games
Re: Encoraging not to learn
On the post: Disney Sued For Selling The Pixar Lamp... And The Lawsuit Makes Sense
Re: Profits all around.
On the post: Is Creative Commons Bad For Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: CC is like DRM
To branch out into the main discussion again -- aren't CC license essentially votes for what rights many creative people do and don't want to see? I don't know how they would be tallied, but I know I see lots of licenses that basically say "do what you want with this, as long as you acknowledge my efforts and aren't profiting off them."
On the post: A&E Goes To Court To Defend Fair Use Of 12 Second Clip Of Music
On the post: Can You Plagiarize An Idea?
Re: Re: What are the boundaries?
What about the general idea of quiddage? That's clearly JK's invention, but can she own people making up stories about other characters playing it?
On the post: Can You Plagiarize An Idea?
Re: Re: What are the boundaries?
I guess I should search for info about "SAP copyright". Thank you for the terminology.
On the post: Can You Plagiarize An Idea?
What are the boundaries?
I'm not questioning the ethics, just the legality. I know people get sued for stuff all the time, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a case for it.
Next >>