You seem to have it backwards. If you uses my work, why would you have a copyright claim against me (and need to waive it)? It seems to me I'm the one with the claim.
I think Jesse's talking about a more complicated scenario where Person B creates a derivative work based on Person A's work, and then Person A wants to go and use Person B's derivative in some way. That's the "upstream" issue.
First, let me say I'm largely in agreement with you. I doubt Gillis would sue someone for putting his music on a blog, and this is a huge step in the right direction. I know I'm being kind of picky here. I'm just curious why he, of all artists, would hesitate going all the way.
In the comments below, I've already highlighted the fact that association with a corporation or another product can't be prevented if it's fair use, and that preventing that sort of association isn't the purpose of copyright.
But, further, Creative Commons licenses (at least both BY-SA and BY-NC-SA) contain a clause in the attribution part that would give the licensor some power here. It says:
You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties.
The source must be attributed, but not in a way that implies an endorsement. Therefore, noncommercial or not, if Honda was to be found implying an endorsement or something, that would still be in violation of the license.
All true, except some of the clips Girl Talk uses are definitely in the 30-60 seconds category, but let's say it's fair use for the sake of argument.
You can clearly identify the songs that he's using, and he's doing so without the artists permission. What if he mixes a Christian rock songs with some rather vulgar or offensive lyrics? There's a scenario where the Christian artist would likely be offended and not want their music associated in that way.
Yet, if it's fair use, that artist would have no claim. [1]
The purpose of copyright is not to control what your work is associated with. (What about when it enters the public domain?) The purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive to artists to create by granting them an artificial monopoly for a limited time.
So, though it may be a concern for an artist, this is beyond the scope of copyright and the CC license won't stop any fair use association anyways.
[1] Moral rights aside -- I don't think the U.S. has moral rights, and they're largely waived in Creative Commons licenses anyways.
Well, I'm not sure it's really artificial scarcity, certainly not in the same way that something like DRM is. Yes, he could create more copies, but it takes effort to create those copies (as opposed to a case like DRM where extra effort is required not stop copies from being created).
The good in question here is by nature scarce (it's physical). This isn't scarcity being imposed on an infinite good (on the digital audio files).
I'm thinking out loud here a bit...
It seems to be like a passive/active difference. With limited edition albums, the physical goods are scarce and the limit is opposed through a lack of action -- Reznor is only going to create so many and therefore the natural scarcity is left in place after a certain point. With artificial scarcity being imposed on infinite goods, it must be active; by nature, the goods are abundant, but effort must be actively exerted in an attempt to curtail that abundance and prevent additional copies.
Hmm... I'm not aware of a license that does that specifically (waive the right to make copyright claims), but copyleft licenses like CC BY-SA or the GNU GPL do something similar, if I understand your main idea correctly.
These licenses allow for derivative works and commercial use, so long as that same freedom is preserved (e.g. works are released under the same license). So, in effect, "by using someone else's work... you also share your work with the author" because any works based on the original must be released under the same terms and are therefore available for the original author to make use of as well. If that makes sense...
I think that's the sort of thing you're suggesting?
He's basically saying "other musicians and creative people can use the music as much as they want to create new art, but don't use it as free advertising for your unrelated product".
I think that's what he's trying to say, yes, but that's not what the license actually says.
If a musician wants to use the music to create new art, they would need to claim it's fair use if they wanted to actually profit from it. Otherwise, derivative works of art are subject to the noncommercial clause, putting up a barrier for those trying to make a living from that art.
Yes, but some uses which could be beneficial are not permitted (e.g. a blog with ads couldn't include a song in a post). Plus, you often need deep pockets just to defend your fair use. In theory, it's allowed, but in practice, it's not always so easy.
True, I think it's a reasonable concern, but there are other considerations to balance out too. If you require Honda to ask permission, you also require every Joe Smith with a blog that has ads to ask permission. There's no way to distinguish between a large corporation and another musician.
Playing devil's advocate a bit... what's the harm of the song appearing in a Honda commercial? Sure, that could be a source of income, but it's also got promotional value (especially with the Attribution clause of Creative Commons licenses). Maybe being available royalty-free for corporations like Honda to use would actually increase the likelihood that it'd be used, thus reaching a wider audience.
There may be some lost opportunities by waiving royalties and requiring permission for commercial use, but there are some benefits that need to be weighed out as well.
Right, but I doubt this would solve the problem here. Since DNS lookups are being hijacked, your browser doesn't even know it's doing a "search from the address bar" because your ISP is doing it for you -- whether you want it or not -- before sending the information back to your browser.
One technical note though, for anyone reading this: "Shaw. at least, still returns the 404 error and if they are serving ads there they're wasting their time because I use AdBlockPlus and won't see them."
404 errors are a bit different from a failed DNS lookup.
A 404 error occurs when you are successful in contacting the web server (meaning, amongst other things, the DNS lookup succeeded) but the page you have requested does not exist on the web server. In this case, the protocol is for the web server to return a 404 error page explaining that. The error page comes from the web server you're contacting.
With a failed DNS lookup, you don't get as far as contacting the web server because the domain name you entered cannot be found. The protocol is for the DNS query to return "false", and then your application decides how to handle it (e.g. your web browser says "cannot be found" or something). The error page comes from your browser.
In both cases, ISP interference is troubling, but this is a case of the latter. (The former would be even more troubling, that's the type of thing Rogers was experimenting with using deep packet inspection.)
Your browser is on your machine. It's getting the failed lookup, and deciding how to handle it, just like any other application would (e.g. VPN software). In this case, Rogers is pre-emptively taking control and not returning to your applications the information they would expect or need to handle a failed lookup.
What Internet Explorer does only handles web browser. What Rogers does is at the service provider level, not the application level, so ALL your applications are affected by it.
It's not that there's something inherently or absolutely wrong with redirecting failed DNS lookups, but when you use OpenDNS, that's an opt-in. Rogers changed the behaviour of the DNS accounts on all its home and business accounts without notice, and it's now the default behaviour and they're opt-out is a sham.
If Rogers offered this as an opt-in, it'd be different. Even if they offered a real opt-out, it'd be better. Instead, customers get surprised with the change and have to find their own solution if they want to fix it.
Just because laws against CB are ridiculous doesn't mean that it can't be addressed in other ways. Of course it's a problem, but it shouldn't be a criminal offence.
Teachers can work to combat it, in the same way they work to combat bullying. Parents can teach their children to handle it, just like they do with bullying (it's not as if people stop being jerks when they're adults).
On the post: Rogers Looks For New Ways To Annoy Customers, Hijacks Failed DNS Lookups
Re: Safari whoas and Rogers
You have to setup a (free) account and turn off "typo correction" in order to get normal DNS behaviour again.
I don't know if that's related to your problem or not though.
On the post: Why Doesn't Girl Talk Allow Commercial Use?
Re: Re:
I think Jesse's talking about a more complicated scenario where Person B creates a derivative work based on Person A's work, and then Person A wants to go and use Person B's derivative in some way. That's the "upstream" issue.
On the post: Trent Reznor Gives People A Reason To Buy Latest CD Even Though It's Free Online
Re: Re: Artificial Scarcity
On the post: Why Doesn't Girl Talk Allow Commercial Use?
Re: Re: Re:
In the comments below, I've already highlighted the fact that association with a corporation or another product can't be prevented if it's fair use, and that preventing that sort of association isn't the purpose of copyright.
But, further, Creative Commons licenses (at least both BY-SA and BY-NC-SA) contain a clause in the attribution part that would give the licensor some power here. It says:
The source must be attributed, but not in a way that implies an endorsement. Therefore, noncommercial or not, if Honda was to be found implying an endorsement or something, that would still be in violation of the license.
On the post: Why Doesn't Girl Talk Allow Commercial Use?
Re: Re: Re:
Preventing unwanted association is not the purpose of the noncommercial clause.
On the post: Why Doesn't Girl Talk Allow Commercial Use?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can clearly identify the songs that he's using, and he's doing so without the artists permission. What if he mixes a Christian rock songs with some rather vulgar or offensive lyrics? There's a scenario where the Christian artist would likely be offended and not want their music associated in that way.
Yet, if it's fair use, that artist would have no claim. [1]
The purpose of copyright is not to control what your work is associated with. (What about when it enters the public domain?) The purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive to artists to create by granting them an artificial monopoly for a limited time.
So, though it may be a concern for an artist, this is beyond the scope of copyright and the CC license won't stop any fair use association anyways.
[1] Moral rights aside -- I don't think the U.S. has moral rights, and they're largely waived in Creative Commons licenses anyways.
On the post: Trent Reznor Gives People A Reason To Buy Latest CD Even Though It's Free Online
Re: Re: Re: Recording not music
He means well, he's just stuck on the copyright crutch.
On the post: Trent Reznor Gives People A Reason To Buy Latest CD Even Though It's Free Online
Re: Artificial Scarcity
The good in question here is by nature scarce (it's physical). This isn't scarcity being imposed on an infinite good (on the digital audio files).
I'm thinking out loud here a bit...
It seems to be like a passive/active difference. With limited edition albums, the physical goods are scarce and the limit is opposed through a lack of action -- Reznor is only going to create so many and therefore the natural scarcity is left in place after a certain point. With artificial scarcity being imposed on infinite goods, it must be active; by nature, the goods are abundant, but effort must be actively exerted in an attempt to curtail that abundance and prevent additional copies.
On the post: Why Doesn't Girl Talk Allow Commercial Use?
Re:
These licenses allow for derivative works and commercial use, so long as that same freedom is preserved (e.g. works are released under the same license). So, in effect, "by using someone else's work... you also share your work with the author" because any works based on the original must be released under the same terms and are therefore available for the original author to make use of as well. If that makes sense...
I think that's the sort of thing you're suggesting?
On the post: Why Doesn't Girl Talk Allow Commercial Use?
Re: Re:
I think that's what he's trying to say, yes, but that's not what the license actually says.
If a musician wants to use the music to create new art, they would need to claim it's fair use if they wanted to actually profit from it. Otherwise, derivative works of art are subject to the noncommercial clause, putting up a barrier for those trying to make a living from that art.
On the post: Why Doesn't Girl Talk Allow Commercial Use?
Re: no problem....
On the post: Why Doesn't Girl Talk Allow Commercial Use?
Re:
Playing devil's advocate a bit... what's the harm of the song appearing in a Honda commercial? Sure, that could be a source of income, but it's also got promotional value (especially with the Attribution clause of Creative Commons licenses). Maybe being available royalty-free for corporations like Honda to use would actually increase the likelihood that it'd be used, thus reaching a wider audience.
There may be some lost opportunities by waiving royalties and requiring permission for commercial use, but there are some benefits that need to be weighed out as well.
On the post: Rogers Looks For New Ways To Annoy Customers, Hijacks Failed DNS Lookups
Re: Re: Re: Re: Internet Explorer
On the post: Rogers Looks For New Ways To Annoy Customers, Hijacks Failed DNS Lookups
Re: Here we go again
One technical note though, for anyone reading this: "Shaw. at least, still returns the 404 error and if they are serving ads there they're wasting their time because I use AdBlockPlus and won't see them."
404 errors are a bit different from a failed DNS lookup.
A 404 error occurs when you are successful in contacting the web server (meaning, amongst other things, the DNS lookup succeeded) but the page you have requested does not exist on the web server. In this case, the protocol is for the web server to return a 404 error page explaining that. The error page comes from the web server you're contacting.
With a failed DNS lookup, you don't get as far as contacting the web server because the domain name you entered cannot be found. The protocol is for the DNS query to return "false", and then your application decides how to handle it (e.g. your web browser says "cannot be found" or something). The error page comes from your browser.
In both cases, ISP interference is troubling, but this is a case of the latter. (The former would be even more troubling, that's the type of thing Rogers was experimenting with using deep packet inspection.)
On the post: Trent Reznor Gives People A Reason To Buy Latest CD Even Though It's Free Online
Re: Re: Filling the need
On the post: Rogers Looks For New Ways To Annoy Customers, Hijacks Failed DNS Lookups
Re: Internet Explorer
What Internet Explorer does only handles web browser. What Rogers does is at the service provider level, not the application level, so ALL your applications are affected by it.
On the post: DNS Flaw Is A Serious Security Threat
And Exploits Start Showing Up
On the post: Rogers Looks For New Ways To Annoy Customers, Hijacks Failed DNS Lookups
Re: Is it really surprising?
If Rogers offered this as an opt-in, it'd be different. Even if they offered a real opt-out, it'd be better. Instead, customers get surprised with the change and have to find their own solution if they want to fix it.
On the post: Rogers Looks For New Ways To Annoy Customers, Hijacks Failed DNS Lookups
Re: Re: Sucks to be us...
Really? They're not much better. I'd argue, in some ways, worse.
On the post: Now Canadian Teachers Want Cyberbullying To Be A Criminal Offense
Re:
Teachers can work to combat it, in the same way they work to combat bullying. Parents can teach their children to handle it, just like they do with bullying (it's not as if people stop being jerks when they're adults).
Everything that causes harm shouldn't be illegal.
Next >>