Does anyone realize that the sculptor who is the Plaintiff in this case actually lost the original suit, and that this story is about his appeal?
So the guy who said
"The man created it. it's his. he has a reasonable right to decide what use is made of it. "transformative" is not valid excuse for misappropriation of someone his work. stop trying to convince us that theft is accapetable. if you don't like the law change it."
And the other guy who said:
"Mike, this article just made me remove techdirt from my google home page. Your opinion is just plain wrong, and this is the latest of your dumb articles.
Someone still CREATED the artwork, therefore OWNS the artwork. So what if it's publicly displayed? That doesn't allow OTHERS to use the artwork publicly without prior consent.
Please stop your propaganda."
aren't arguing against Mike's 'opinion', but against the court's original verdict.
No wonder you people post anonymously. Who would want to be publicly associated with such foolish verbiage?
"Yeah, I could go an buy this dvd, or I could just download it and not pay for it because it's easier."
Thanks for highlighting the asshole factor in this debate. This attitude is a large part of the problem and one block to finding a reasonable solution.
But what do you do about it?
I regularly tell the kids that I work with who swap mp3s that they didn't pay for that what they are doing is illegal. I even try to look stern while I say it. They just look at me like I'm some sort of circus freak.
These aren't obnoxious little rug rats, either. Some of them are honor students. Some go to Catholic schools and come off like something out of Little House on the Prairie. Most of them are already preparing to go to college, and have been raised in stable homes with both parents. None of them would ever steal anyone's money or bicycle. They are the future solid citizens of our community.
And yet, every single one of them looks at me like a circus freak when I suggest that what they are doing is wrong. And I am an adult that they actually know and respect.
What do we do? Fine them all into a life of debt? Make public service announcements that they will laugh at? What exactly can anyone do when an entire generation thinks there is nothing wrong with doing this stuff?
"So, yeah, they're downsizing. But they are cash positive, and eventually they will stabilize..."
So in other words, they are failing, but because they still have so much money from their glory days it's going to take a while.
"...and they will still be a fucking huge company."
Does that give you a boner or something?
McDonald's is a much bigger company, does that mean that their food is good? Because last time I checked it was just about impossible to swallow unless you are drunk.
And does the fact that they don't have, say, tiramisu mean that tiramisu isn't good, while those apple pie thingies are?
"A "legal battle with any kind of intellectual integrity." No idea what this means, but it sounds like a scenario, where "intellectual integrity" really means something like "with an outcome I agree with." The fact is there are regular and sometimes epic legal battles to distinguish these things exactly, and have been for many generations. Are they overwrought, expensive and sometimes engaged in slicing shades of gray, and occasionally unfair? Yes. But slicing shades of gray is one of the primary uses and purposes of the modern legal system the world over, whether it's an IP question, the question of intent as it relates to crimes, etc., etc. Does "legal integrity" equate to "intellectual integrity?" Perhaps not in all cases, but it's legal integrity that actually matters on an applied basis. I'm all for reforming the legal system to be more equitable, modern and realistic (which I guess, collectively, would swerve toward improved "intellectual integrity"), but the law and the legal system are what we have to work with and through. Everything else is pretty much a hypothetical battle of religion, philosophy and theory, otherwise termed a TechDirt pseduo-reality."
I like how you spend so many words disagreeing with your own interpretation of two words in my post.
'Intellectual integrity' means not knowingly equivocating to get you way. Pretty cut and dried, really. Outcomes have nothing to do with it.
No one wants to discuss the Holinshed example? No?? Why not?
"Amazingly, despite all the inherent fuzziness and ambiguity of the issue, most people can distinguish between something "original," something inspired by other things, and a blatant ripoff. Unfortunately, they likely cannot provide the exact algorithm by which they make this distinction, but they make it nonetheless."
I'm sorry, but I am not convinced of this at all. Much less am I convinced that this ability to distinguish between such things will survive a legal battle with any kind of intellectual integrity.
And the Shakespeare example that no one ever takes up is quite accurate and damning. Shakespeare did 'infringe' of the works of Holinshed and others. If Sony had owned Holinshed's work, and Tudor England had had our copyright laws, Shakespeare would have been sued for copyright infringement.
"Maybe if people weren't so frigging obsessed with music, the music industry wouldn't be able to pull this crap."
The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils;
The motions of his spirit are dull as night
And his affections dark as Erebus:
Let no such man be trusted.
This will in fact stop file sharing. All of you freetards are finished.
It's just like how the federal government stopped people from using drugs. Since the war on drugs was announced, who gets high anymore? That's right: NO ONE!
There is no problem in the world that can't be solved by fining people, putting them in jail, or both.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to use iTunes if they could avoid it. Gawd how I hate iTunes. It was like having an alien parasite in my computer while I had it.
Now I just use Foobar2000 and the foo_dop ipod client plugin. The whole things is a breeze to use. Easy and obvious click and drag functionality that doesn't automatically do anything unless you explicitly tell it to. It has right click menus with obvious commands like 'send to ipod', 'remove from ipod' and so on, in addition to the normal toolbar commands. If you get the vst_wrapper plugin, it even lets you use vst plugins, so your equalizer can be a world class parametric if you want it be.
herodotus, do you understand the difference between streaming a few songs and giving away an entire album for free download. If every was giving everything away for free, this discussion wouldn't be happening.
Yes, I understand. Sadly, the statement that you made wasn't nuanced at all. What you wrote was:
"Yes, it's everybody who is not giving away their movie or music for free.
Try to follow along. When there is a story of a major band giving away their music for free, it is a story because it is the exception. Most major bands are not doing this. Able to follow that?"
I don't see anything about whole albums in this statement. No, you made a fatuous unqualified generalization and were rude while you were doing it. You were called on it and were rude again.
Here's a thought: maybe, when people can't follow your train of thought, it isn't because they are slow, it's because you are inarticulate.
"Try to follow along. When there is a story of a major band giving away their music for free, it is a story because it is the exception. Most major bands are not doing this. Able to follow that?"
Every major band I have looked for on MySpace has had a page with free music streaming from it.
Lots and lots of successful bands also have pages at Last FM. Again, free music streaming.
Anyone who thinks that the world of today is in any way socially inferior to the world of 1900 is either an unrepentant oligarch or is just plain ignorant of history.
The only class of people who are worse off now than they were then are hereditary aristocrats. Every other class of people has more educational opportunities, more and cheaper and safer food, cheaper clothing, and much better sanitation.
There is a reason that Communism and Anarchism became so popular in the late 19th century: life sucked for almost everyone.
"There is a reason musicians haven't connected with artists in the past, and have others do it for them. It isn't practical on a large scale, if you are a truly successful artist, you have too many fans to contact."
OK, first off, why do things need to be 'large scale'? Seriously, why? Why do so many people use the 'rock star' as a synecdoche for all musicians?
Why not use jazz and blues musicians? Because they almost never have so many fans that they haven't time to talk them all (or rather, time to talk to the tiny percentage of fans who are interested in talking).
And what about 'classical' musicians? What about the ones who don't just want to be sidekicks for Yo Yo Ma? The ones who also, say, compose music?
What about the 'weird' classical musicians? You know, the ones who make strange and 'difficult' music and get about .5% of the funding that the 'Mostly Mozart' festivals get?
What about the weird non-classical musicians who have never gotten any resources at all other than the occasional consignment of weird audio equipment that no one else could figure out how to use?
And what about, say, the early music consorts who are recording and selling the classics of, say, the Renaissance, in many cases for the first time?
Because these people are all musicians, too. Many of them have devoted countless hours to developing their skills. Far more time, with far more concentration, than many if not most rock stars. And having 'too many fans' to have time to talk to them all is definitely not a problem for most of them. THEY are all having a much better go of it now than in the past.
Of course, I realize that this is all drivel, and that the 'real' music is all made by cute young celebrities, but still....
"Sure you can update your myspace & twitter, but I'm talking about the sort of connection people are expecting now, like personal internet responses. Also the allure of artists is that they seem larger than life, not that they are ordinary people. The novelty of them coming across as ordinary people wears off quickly..."
Yes, what good are celebrities that are just...people (shudder)
Just keep piling on all that stuff you expect artists to manage and do by themselves, besides writing, performing, and recording their music... then what you have isn't people who make the best music, but people who are good at all the other crap.
Is this addressed to reality? Like 'world, how dare you be so unfair!'? Something like that?
Being good at music has always been tangential to extra-musical forces in determining musical celebrity. If the Beatles hadn't been cute and been given a makeover so that they looked just the right amount of 'mod' they never would have gotten all the opportunities that they had to use the new machinery of recording to make their breakthrough albums. The 'cute' part was a necessary condition.
The sad part is that in the vast majority of cases, it is a sufficient condition.
"Is is not bigger of a lie than saying that widespread downloading / file sharing / infringement / copyright violation / (some say theft of services) isn't causing any hard either.
it's a match between two groups lying through their teeth. It's too bad that only one side is getting spanked on techdirt."
No one I have seen representing techdirt has said that downloading isn't causing any harm. The point being made again and again is that nothing can really stop it, and that therefore people in the content industries should try to find a way to adapt to these circumstances.
I mean, does saying 'drugs are wrong' over and over again make people stop doing them? No. So why do so many people spend so much time and money doing just that?
It's the same situation with widespread infringement. Until the content industries achieve big-brother like powers (which, lets face it, they just don't have the money for) they will never be able to stop it. In any case, trying to stop it is like trying to get pee out of swimming pool.
"Who is the burden on? People who want to take an existing work, modify it slightly, and push it onto the public as their own. They should be burdened, the rap and r&b acts that survive on the backs of other's works are the "parasitic organizations" here, not the people who wrote and performed the original songs, and not the people who work to protect their rights."
So you actually believe that the RIAA protects artists rights?
Real musicians make music because they love doing it.
Many of the great composers of the past 100 odd years (Schoenberg, Webern, Varese, Ives, Bartok, Nancarrow, Partch, etc....) never made a penny of of their compositions. Or if they did, it was less than enough to live off by a good deal.
Schoenberg taught theory; Webern made arrangements of cabaret music; Bartok played concert tours and still nearly starved in the end; Partch was a hobo; Ives sold insurance.
And they all wrote a hell of a lot more music than any but the most prolific contemporary recording artists. And this music is still around.
The time of the recording-artist-as-career-possibility is coming to a close. It's not a matter of good versus evil. It's just how it is. Talking about how much that sucks for the John Mayers and Sheryl Crows of the world completely sidesteps the fact that these people are an absurdly tiny percentage of the community of musicians.
All of the controversy surrounding file sharing and the RIAA and the big 4 and whatnot is just a small part of the digital audio revolution. As a musician I can definitely assert that the expressive possibilities opened by this revolution are vast beyond the dreams of previous generations. These expressive possibilities are the happy flip side of the nobody-wants-to-buy-music-anymore bitch fest. Because today:
I can get numerous high quality multitrack recorder applications for free.
I can get numerous high quality midi sequencer applications for free.
I can get numerous samplers, all of which dwarf the capabilities of a Fairlight (the first digital sampler, which cost 20,000 British pounds in 1980) for free.
I can get compressors and equalizers and synthesizers and filters and ring modulators, all for free.
I can get untold millions of audio samples, from drums to pianos to sound effects to complete orchestras.
All for free.
Real musicians are excited by this stuff. They are using it to make music. Anyone who isn't using all of this stuff to make music because of how sad they are that they might never get to be as famous as Bono aren't worth listening to.
"But then I found a pattern. He lets people talk when they aren't blowing smoke, but as soon as they start to drift, he stops them. I guess that pisses a lot of people off, but since his is the highest rated program on Fox News and regularly beats every other news channel in his time slot, I guess a lot of people have figured him out and enjoy what he's doing."
He was consistently rude to Jacob Sullum when he was on his show talking about drug legalization. He didn't let him finish a single statement and ended the interview by warning him to 'Stay away from my children'. As if anyone depraved enough to think that the WOD is a waste must be a child molester.
The man is an embarrassment.
"I've been watching now for about 5 years, and I don't agree with everything he says and does, but for the most part, he reflects my social and fiscal conservative leanings. Funny, but the only people I can find who absolutely don't like him are liberal loons who only want to hear that Obambi is the savior, abortion is a good and noble practice, illegal aliens should be granted full and complete amnesty and citizenship, and appeasing terrorists will protect us."
I don't like our current president any more than the last one, and I supported the war in Iraq. And I still think that O'Reilly is an embarrassment.
Finally, reporters skew the news systematically in a thousand ways that have nothing to do with anything as simple as 'liberal bias'. Daniel Boorstin's 'The Image' is still as relevant in this respect as it was when it was written.
On the post: Sculptor Sues Postal Service Over Stamp With Photo Of His Sculpture
So the guy who said
"The man created it. it's his. he has a reasonable right to decide what use is made of it. "transformative" is not valid excuse for misappropriation of someone his work. stop trying to convince us that theft is accapetable. if you don't like the law change it."
And the other guy who said:
"Mike, this article just made me remove techdirt from my google home page. Your opinion is just plain wrong, and this is the latest of your dumb articles.
Someone still CREATED the artwork, therefore OWNS the artwork. So what if it's publicly displayed? That doesn't allow OTHERS to use the artwork publicly without prior consent.
Please stop your propaganda."
aren't arguing against Mike's 'opinion', but against the court's original verdict.
No wonder you people post anonymously. Who would want to be publicly associated with such foolish verbiage?
On the post: Apple Does As Many Expected: Kills Palm Pre iTunes Syncing
Foobar2000 and the foo_dop ipod client plugin.
Ugly, but with lots of cool functionality and plenty of convenient right click features.
Plus, there is a VST adapter that allows you to use any of the many great free vst plugins for eq and compression.
On the post: Stephen Fry: Time For Politicians To Represent People's Interest On Copyright, Not Corporations
Thanks for highlighting the asshole factor in this debate. This attitude is a large part of the problem and one block to finding a reasonable solution.
But what do you do about it?
I regularly tell the kids that I work with who swap mp3s that they didn't pay for that what they are doing is illegal. I even try to look stern while I say it. They just look at me like I'm some sort of circus freak.
These aren't obnoxious little rug rats, either. Some of them are honor students. Some go to Catholic schools and come off like something out of Little House on the Prairie. Most of them are already preparing to go to college, and have been raised in stable homes with both parents. None of them would ever steal anyone's money or bicycle. They are the future solid citizens of our community.
And yet, every single one of them looks at me like a circus freak when I suggest that what they are doing is wrong. And I am an adult that they actually know and respect.
What do we do? Fine them all into a life of debt? Make public service announcements that they will laugh at? What exactly can anyone do when an entire generation thinks there is nothing wrong with doing this stuff?
How about....let's see.....adapting??
On the post: A Closer Look At How Amanda Palmer Connected With Fans To Become Successful
So in other words, they are failing, but because they still have so much money from their glory days it's going to take a while.
"...and they will still be a fucking huge company."
Does that give you a boner or something?
McDonald's is a much bigger company, does that mean that their food is good? Because last time I checked it was just about impossible to swallow unless you are drunk.
And does the fact that they don't have, say, tiramisu mean that tiramisu isn't good, while those apple pie thingies are?
On the post: The Myth Of Original Creators
I like how you spend so many words disagreeing with your own interpretation of two words in my post.
'Intellectual integrity' means not knowingly equivocating to get you way. Pretty cut and dried, really. Outcomes have nothing to do with it.
No one wants to discuss the Holinshed example? No?? Why not?
On the post: The Myth Of Original Creators
I'm sorry, but I am not convinced of this at all. Much less am I convinced that this ability to distinguish between such things will survive a legal battle with any kind of intellectual integrity.
And the Shakespeare example that no one ever takes up is quite accurate and damning. Shakespeare did 'infringe' of the works of Holinshed and others. If Sony had owned Holinshed's work, and Tudor England had had our copyright laws, Shakespeare would have been sued for copyright infringement.
On the post: Jammie Thomas Not Willing To Settle Yet... Acccording To The RIAA
Actually, that course of study is called 'Logic'.
Law school doesn't teach you how to think, it teaches you how to think like a lawyer, which is quite different.
On the post: Microsoft, Yahoo And Real Sued For Failing To Get All Necessary Licenses For Music Stores
On the post: BPI Admits It Screwed Up Over Napster... But Why Should We Trust It Now?
He has to call you a name, as you won't tell him your real one.
On the post: And Of Course: RIAA Mouthpieces Defend $1.92 Million Judgment
It's just like how the federal government stopped people from using drugs. Since the war on drugs was announced, who gets high anymore? That's right: NO ONE!
There is no problem in the world that can't be solved by fining people, putting them in jail, or both.
On the post: Apple Warns Palm Pre Users: We're Going To Break Your iTunes Syncing
Now I just use Foobar2000 and the foo_dop ipod client plugin. The whole things is a breeze to use. Easy and obvious click and drag functionality that doesn't automatically do anything unless you explicitly tell it to. It has right click menus with obvious commands like 'send to ipod', 'remove from ipod' and so on, in addition to the normal toolbar commands. If you get the vst_wrapper plugin, it even lets you use vst plugins, so your equalizer can be a world class parametric if you want it be.
Yet another example of the glory of free at work.
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows That Weaker Copyright Benefits Everyone
Yes, I understand. Sadly, the statement that you made wasn't nuanced at all. What you wrote was:
"Yes, it's everybody who is not giving away their movie or music for free.
Try to follow along. When there is a story of a major band giving away their music for free, it is a story because it is the exception. Most major bands are not doing this. Able to follow that?"
I don't see anything about whole albums in this statement. No, you made a fatuous unqualified generalization and were rude while you were doing it. You were called on it and were rude again.
Here's a thought: maybe, when people can't follow your train of thought, it isn't because they are slow, it's because you are inarticulate.
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows That Weaker Copyright Benefits Everyone
Every major band I have looked for on MySpace has had a page with free music streaming from it.
Lots and lots of successful bands also have pages at Last FM. Again, free music streaming.
Free Music, major bands.
Able to follow that?
On the post: Some Quotes Of Note: Politicians Damning New Technologies/Cultural Artifacts
The only class of people who are worse off now than they were then are hereditary aristocrats. Every other class of people has more educational opportunities, more and cheaper and safer food, cheaper clothing, and much better sanitation.
There is a reason that Communism and Anarchism became so popular in the late 19th century: life sucked for almost everyone.
On the post: The Key To Being A Successful Musician: Focus On Fan Relationships... Not Industry Relationships
OK, first off, why do things need to be 'large scale'? Seriously, why? Why do so many people use the 'rock star' as a synecdoche for all musicians?
Why not use jazz and blues musicians? Because they almost never have so many fans that they haven't time to talk them all (or rather, time to talk to the tiny percentage of fans who are interested in talking).
And what about 'classical' musicians? What about the ones who don't just want to be sidekicks for Yo Yo Ma? The ones who also, say, compose music?
What about the 'weird' classical musicians? You know, the ones who make strange and 'difficult' music and get about .5% of the funding that the 'Mostly Mozart' festivals get?
What about the weird non-classical musicians who have never gotten any resources at all other than the occasional consignment of weird audio equipment that no one else could figure out how to use?
And what about, say, the early music consorts who are recording and selling the classics of, say, the Renaissance, in many cases for the first time?
Because these people are all musicians, too. Many of them have devoted countless hours to developing their skills. Far more time, with far more concentration, than many if not most rock stars. And having 'too many fans' to have time to talk to them all is definitely not a problem for most of them. THEY are all having a much better go of it now than in the past.
Of course, I realize that this is all drivel, and that the 'real' music is all made by cute young celebrities, but still....
"Sure you can update your myspace & twitter, but I'm talking about the sort of connection people are expecting now, like personal internet responses. Also the allure of artists is that they seem larger than life, not that they are ordinary people. The novelty of them coming across as ordinary people wears off quickly..."
Yes, what good are celebrities that are just...people (shudder)
Just keep piling on all that stuff you expect artists to manage and do by themselves, besides writing, performing, and recording their music... then what you have isn't people who make the best music, but people who are good at all the other crap.
Is this addressed to reality? Like 'world, how dare you be so unfair!'? Something like that?
Being good at music has always been tangential to extra-musical forces in determining musical celebrity. If the Beatles hadn't been cute and been given a makeover so that they looked just the right amount of 'mod' they never would have gotten all the opportunities that they had to use the new machinery of recording to make their breakthrough albums. The 'cute' part was a necessary condition.
The sad part is that in the vast majority of cases, it is a sufficient condition.
On the post: Bad Science's Ben Goldacre Rips Apart Bogus Study On File Sharing
it's a match between two groups lying through their teeth. It's too bad that only one side is getting spanked on techdirt."
No one I have seen representing techdirt has said that downloading isn't causing any harm. The point being made again and again is that nothing can really stop it, and that therefore people in the content industries should try to find a way to adapt to these circumstances.
I mean, does saying 'drugs are wrong' over and over again make people stop doing them? No. So why do so many people spend so much time and money doing just that?
It's the same situation with widespread infringement. Until the content industries achieve big-brother like powers (which, lets face it, they just don't have the money for) they will never be able to stop it. In any case, trying to stop it is like trying to get pee out of swimming pool.
On the post: Dear Free Haters: No One Has Said 'Everything' Is Free
So you actually believe that the RIAA protects artists rights?
Enjoy your Koolaid.
On the post: Dear Free Haters: No One Has Said 'Everything' Is Free
Many of the great composers of the past 100 odd years (Schoenberg, Webern, Varese, Ives, Bartok, Nancarrow, Partch, etc....) never made a penny of of their compositions. Or if they did, it was less than enough to live off by a good deal.
Schoenberg taught theory; Webern made arrangements of cabaret music; Bartok played concert tours and still nearly starved in the end; Partch was a hobo; Ives sold insurance.
And they all wrote a hell of a lot more music than any but the most prolific contemporary recording artists. And this music is still around.
The time of the recording-artist-as-career-possibility is coming to a close. It's not a matter of good versus evil. It's just how it is. Talking about how much that sucks for the John Mayers and Sheryl Crows of the world completely sidesteps the fact that these people are an absurdly tiny percentage of the community of musicians.
All of the controversy surrounding file sharing and the RIAA and the big 4 and whatnot is just a small part of the digital audio revolution. As a musician I can definitely assert that the expressive possibilities opened by this revolution are vast beyond the dreams of previous generations. These expressive possibilities are the happy flip side of the nobody-wants-to-buy-music-anymore bitch fest. Because today:
I can get numerous high quality multitrack recorder applications for free.
I can get numerous high quality midi sequencer applications for free.
I can get numerous samplers, all of which dwarf the capabilities of a Fairlight (the first digital sampler, which cost 20,000 British pounds in 1980) for free.
I can get compressors and equalizers and synthesizers and filters and ring modulators, all for free.
I can get untold millions of audio samples, from drums to pianos to sound effects to complete orchestras.
All for free.
Real musicians are excited by this stuff. They are using it to make music. Anyone who isn't using all of this stuff to make music because of how sad they are that they might never get to be as famous as Bono aren't worth listening to.
On the post: Is It Really So Wrong For A Reporter To Have An Opinion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: reporters opinions
"But then I found a pattern. He lets people talk when they aren't blowing smoke, but as soon as they start to drift, he stops them. I guess that pisses a lot of people off, but since his is the highest rated program on Fox News and regularly beats every other news channel in his time slot, I guess a lot of people have figured him out and enjoy what he's doing."
He was consistently rude to Jacob Sullum when he was on his show talking about drug legalization. He didn't let him finish a single statement and ended the interview by warning him to 'Stay away from my children'. As if anyone depraved enough to think that the WOD is a waste must be a child molester.
The man is an embarrassment.
"I've been watching now for about 5 years, and I don't agree with everything he says and does, but for the most part, he reflects my social and fiscal conservative leanings. Funny, but the only people I can find who absolutely don't like him are liberal loons who only want to hear that Obambi is the savior, abortion is a good and noble practice, illegal aliens should be granted full and complete amnesty and citizenship, and appeasing terrorists will protect us."
I don't like our current president any more than the last one, and I supported the war in Iraq. And I still think that O'Reilly is an embarrassment.
Finally, reporters skew the news systematically in a thousand ways that have nothing to do with anything as simple as 'liberal bias'. Daniel Boorstin's 'The Image' is still as relevant in this respect as it was when it was written.
On the post: Did No One At eMusic Think About PR Impact Of Raising Prices At The Same Time Sony Signed?
Excuse me?
I was drunk at 8 pm not 6 pm.
Not everyone lives in California.
But seriously, I'm going to check out your tunes at least. I figure supporting musicians who actually ENTER the discussion is a good thing.
Thanks.
More can be found on our Taxi page.
Next >>