Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Releasing to Public Domain
Incidentally, this is precisely the kind of thing that she's trying to avoid have happen to her work. When she was making this movie, those works were in the public domain, but got taken back out.
Sooo.... no. Nothing about copyright is simple and intuitive. Indeed, many of the mistakes people make first getting into creative work come because they think that simple, intuitive ideas such that it should be ok to copy as long as you're not selling it don't apply.
These days, even making copies for your own personal use can be tricky depending on where you were planning on saving them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Releasing to Public Domain
As I said, I understand.
And 60 years from now, when you're dead and gone and the handful of people who ever knew you even had a Twitter account have moved on with their lives or are dead as well, but the copyright in your country is over 100 years, and someone discovers your work, unattributed, and the laws in your country have something to say about orphaned works....
Nina's abandonment of rights would "win the day" precisely because she has so publicly done what she has done.
I don't really want to argue about it. I know all the things you are saying. Without a regsitry though, for works where someone may or may not have supposedly released something into the public domain, you get orphaned works.
There is no way to summarily release you work into the public domain and have it stick. You have to WORK at it, and if you read her post, having to work so hard at it is part of what is irritating her. "Unpaid paperwork".
I'm growing more and more of the opinion that the attribution is the key. I think it is, in actuality, a moral imperative to give credit where it is due, and specifically if you are just copying something as is. I think I would be willing to sue over that. Sadly, my pale, pasty little web site is not something that is currently tempting a lot of people to copy it, but whatever is on there is covered by the attribution only copyright from Creative Commons.
I think really that it is important in the world of "standing on principle" to actually STAND on it, not walk away from it when conflict arises. Though in the defense of you and others like you, I don't have a lot of harsh judgement for your stance.
I'm pretty sure they've done multiple studies of that sort already. It won't work.
The reason it won't work is that, even as any single part of the culture is going to be hard to correlate with individual behavior, it is also impossible to ignore that cultural values impact behavior. Even if you are, like me, one who argues that poverty is correlated with violence, and that human rights and just distribution of the means to sustain one's self would ameliorate much of the violence in any society, you are nevertheless left then with one irrefutable fact.
You are arguing that society's values are motivating certain members of society to behave in specific ways.
Human behavior is complex even when taken one by one. Trying to scientifically analyze all of culture in order to control everyone is almost hopeless.
I have played probably all of the most disgusting video games and watched some of the most vile entertainment there is. Happily, to date, I have not participated in any of the anti social behaviors depicted. Even when watching something that depicts gross immorality as something appealing, rather than using it as a way to tag a specific character as a bad person, I still don't go out and do things that I am aware are wrong. I tend even to avoid doing things OTHER people think are wrong, unless of course I think THEY are wrong to think so.
So sure. Video games don't cause the violence. But people do nevertheless get tired of entertainment that seems to just sort of gratuitously go against the expectations of society. It is a constant drain on the energy of many people to have to deal with it day by day, protect their kids from it, be exposed to it.
Nothing is ever going to make them stop trying to make it go away. Simultaneously, nothing is ever going to stop other people, who rather enjoy all of this stuff, from telling them no.
You may as well get used to it. Society is always going to have its little expectations.
"Oh, you're so paranoid. OUR government would never interfere with the political process. Needing a gun to defend yourself from the government is just paranoid...."
I dunno what flavor political person you are, but I am recently at pains to remind Republicans of how easy it would have been to win the last election.
Your taxes go up this year?
Yeah, yeah they did.....
Maybe campaign on something besides protecting the wealthiest people from a SMALL tax raise when the economy is in the tank and the deficit is mounting up like zombies in a "Resident Evil" movie.
What I'm seeing in that search is that the vast majority of posts on Tech Dirt, even the ones that include the word "gun", aren't about guns. Of the ones that are, I see more stuff that tends to demonize the NRA specifically over the 1st Amendment. Indeed, one of the recent stories that DOES point a finger of blame at Biden has almost no comments. Ther Biden piece, and some others I have skimmed farther into the past, have one thing in common though.
They go out of their way to point at 1st amendment encroachments on both sides.
This one, and the one Yesterday taking aim at the NRA, do not.
On balance, I also see more blasting of the NRA than any comparable gun control group.
I can hope that most of the imbalance comes from the focus on the 1st amendment and its obvious close ties to anything that happens on the internet (communication) coupled with an understandable obsession among techies with video game related issues, but holy cow.
Ideally that would be the case, but legally it is simply not the current practice. There is no "Public Domain" registry. So works that someone at some time said were public domain can later be contested.
If copyright terms were more limited, this might not be a big huge deal, but we are now up to over a century of copyright coverage and more confusion is added all the time.
Her CC-O license effectively IS just donating it to the public domain. I.E. to donate something to the public domain, you just say, "You are free to copy this". That is what the CC-O says. The language of calling it a license is perhaps a little clunky, but this issue is exactly why they created the Creative Commons to begin with. People were having a hard time knowing how to let their works out into the open, so this organization was formed to try to formalize it and publicize it. I think they also wanted to try to build some case law. I don't know how that has been working out.
Guns are not even that hard to make. So called progressives, who tout legalization of almost everything else, somehow don't want to extend their argument that banning things simply creates a black market to their pet project of banning guns.
"For our next trick, we will now childproof the San Andreas Fault."
The default economy for thousands of years has been one based on the forced labor of the majority. Today, read any number of financial "success" books, and you will discover the concept that if you have to work to make money, it is a job.
You only have a business if someone else is doing the work.
This concept, usually wrapped in the colorful garb of "entrepreneurship", is really just the latest manifestation of "Power 101".
Nobody, NOBODY, does enough work or is intelligent enough to organize systems to legitimize their pay being ten, twenty, one hundred times the median average.
The way this is maintained is also quite ancient. First, establish a sense of authority behind your wealth. Second, use that sense of authority to excuse the use of violence to maintain the status quo.
When the sense of authority is threatened, they always, ALWAYS resort to violence to maintain it. What good did the peaceful resistance do for them in China? Or how many decades are we supposed to wait for peaceful resistance to work.
That's why we have Article I Section 8 in the US Constitution, and that's why we have the second amendment. We have the right, and the responsibility, to stop our government, by force if necessary, when it oversteps its bounds.
We are way behind. We do not have a well regulated militia any longer, in no small part because neither the Democratic nor the Republican party represents the people. They represent different portions of our elites, and even more idiotic, they trade off issues every few years because the two parties themselves are nothing but massive institutions bent on self preservation. They literally stand for nothing at all anymore, if indeed ever they did.
So all this nonsense about keeping track of guns really needs to go. If you are serious about transforming this nation and this world, you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these big boys are not going anywhere because of your online petitions. They will reroute, and reroute, and end around, and work and work and work until they get what they want.
Frankly, even if you did away with all IP, they still will get what they want in the end. Ultimately, fairness for artists or anyone else is the last thing on their minds.
If you want justice, you are going to have to start caring about justice, and you are going to have to think in terms of a government whose roots are deeply and firmly grounded in a just population, the vast majority of whom are able and willing to fight for that justice, even to the death if it comes to that.
This is not a new age. It's the same old ancient age of humanity as has always existed. Technology has not changed mankind. It has simply upped the stakes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
No one is ignorant of any of that, Jay. Do you honestly believe people have never heard of the Underground Railroad?
Seriously?
People are pointing out to you that if we had all been equally armed, by default, it would be impossible to oppress anyone.
The second amendment is a twofold concept that is attached to Article I Section 8 of the constitution. It is intended to establish the militia as the baseline armed force with only a small standing army (something we have not had for over a century), and to ensure that all Americans, ALL, have a right to keep and bear arms and be a part of that militia.
Obviously, the southern militias didn't include the people being oppressed. That's the problem. Not that people had guns, but that the people who did were nothing but an extension of the government used against an oppressed class that had no right to be a part of said militia.
No one is arguing that gun ownership automatically fixes all the other problems with our government either. It is just a prerequisite to being able to defend ourselves from someone using our own army and police forces against us.
You have yet to address the legally established foundations of this issue, going back to the Glorious Revolution, I almost believe because despite your supposed intellectual curiosity and deeply informed mind, you really have no idea what I'm talking about. But the whole idea of defending one's self even from an agent of the government goes back much farther even than that.
"Thus, let no one shrink from facing (parcat) a soldier, whom it is fitting to challenge with a weapon (telo), just as it is fitting to challenge a thief (A.D. 391). ix"
Only in your little fantasy land do oppressors and thieves suddenly disappear because, oh wow, it's the year 2013 now and we have banned firearms.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
Your need to multiply words to hide the obvious is showing.
Here's a historical fact for you. Nothing has changed all that much. What we see in corporate America right now is the right to own being extended to include the right to force others to do your bidding because you own some resource, therefore they have to do what you want to access it.
This is nothing more than a variation on the theme of feudalism.
We are not some advanced species now. We have cooler, more effective, and deadlier toys is the only difference.
The Arab Spring was "mostly peaceful". What a load of crap. People are being hauled off to jail in Egypt as we speak for no good reason. Syria is still at war. Libya definitely was not a peaceful transfer. Most of the Arab world still lies under despotism.
You're just... wildly, openly, mind bogglingly wrong. And yet you manage to maintain this air of superiority. Amazing...
The Arab Spring is only possible because the opinions of the upper classes have shifted enough due to outside pressure, largely western, that they no longer are willing to just execute rebels wholesale without remorse. That pressure from the west is in no small part military. It should come as no surprise that the Arab Spring followed nearly a decade of the US occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. People got a taste of at least some modicum of freedom, and NOW they feel like maybe, just maybe, they can win the battle.
J curve of expectations... pfft. That explains WHY people revolt, not HOW.
You can't just dedicate something to the public domain, or just "unlicense" it. That's the whole reason for the invention of the Creative Commons licenses.
Part of what you are saying is why she hates copyright to begin with. You are correct that she has at least some power to revoke the license at any time. That's why lawyers continue to harass her for signed papers. Once you have a signed document, you have your backside pretty covered.
If I understand her rightly, and I think I do, her belief is that copyright just in general is a bad thing, and I share that sentiment. There's never been any real reason for it, and it has evolved into a tool that allows a pretty small percentage of people to control a massive amount of communication.
On the post: Ahimsa: Sita Sings The Blues Now CC-0 'Public Domain'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Releasing to Public Domain
Sooo.... no. Nothing about copyright is simple and intuitive. Indeed, many of the mistakes people make first getting into creative work come because they think that simple, intuitive ideas such that it should be ok to copy as long as you're not selling it don't apply.
These days, even making copies for your own personal use can be tricky depending on where you were planning on saving them.
On the post: Ahimsa: Sita Sings The Blues Now CC-0 'Public Domain'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Releasing to Public Domain
And 60 years from now, when you're dead and gone and the handful of people who ever knew you even had a Twitter account have moved on with their lives or are dead as well, but the copyright in your country is over 100 years, and someone discovers your work, unattributed, and the laws in your country have something to say about orphaned works....
On the post: Ahimsa: Sita Sings The Blues Now CC-0 'Public Domain'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Releasing to Public Domain
I don't really want to argue about it. I know all the things you are saying. Without a regsitry though, for works where someone may or may not have supposedly released something into the public domain, you get orphaned works.
There is no way to summarily release you work into the public domain and have it stick. You have to WORK at it, and if you read her post, having to work so hard at it is part of what is irritating her. "Unpaid paperwork".
On the post: New York State Starts Walking Back On Transparency; Grants Gun Owners Exemption From Disclosure Of Public Records
Weirder and weirder
THAT is just bizarre. Busy work.
On the post: Ahimsa: Sita Sings The Blues Now CC-0 'Public Domain'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Releasing to Public Domain
Best wishes.
On the post: Ahimsa: Sita Sings The Blues Now CC-0 'Public Domain'
Re: Thats MORE LIKE IT
I think really that it is important in the world of "standing on principle" to actually STAND on it, not walk away from it when conflict arises. Though in the defense of you and others like you, I don't have a lot of harsh judgement for your stance.
On the post: Another Legislator Hops On Board The 'Violent Video Game' Bandwagon; Introduces Redundant Labeling Bill
Sadly
The reason it won't work is that, even as any single part of the culture is going to be hard to correlate with individual behavior, it is also impossible to ignore that cultural values impact behavior. Even if you are, like me, one who argues that poverty is correlated with violence, and that human rights and just distribution of the means to sustain one's self would ameliorate much of the violence in any society, you are nevertheless left then with one irrefutable fact.
You are arguing that society's values are motivating certain members of society to behave in specific ways.
Human behavior is complex even when taken one by one. Trying to scientifically analyze all of culture in order to control everyone is almost hopeless.
I have played probably all of the most disgusting video games and watched some of the most vile entertainment there is. Happily, to date, I have not participated in any of the anti social behaviors depicted. Even when watching something that depicts gross immorality as something appealing, rather than using it as a way to tag a specific character as a bad person, I still don't go out and do things that I am aware are wrong. I tend even to avoid doing things OTHER people think are wrong, unless of course I think THEY are wrong to think so.
So sure. Video games don't cause the violence. But people do nevertheless get tired of entertainment that seems to just sort of gratuitously go against the expectations of society. It is a constant drain on the energy of many people to have to deal with it day by day, protect their kids from it, be exposed to it.
Nothing is ever going to make them stop trying to make it go away. Simultaneously, nothing is ever going to stop other people, who rather enjoy all of this stuff, from telling them no.
You may as well get used to it. Society is always going to have its little expectations.
On the post: New York State Starts Walking Back On Transparency; Grants Gun Owners Exemption From Disclosure Of Public Records
West Point Think Tank Comes Out Against Republican Party
:-S
"Oh, you're so paranoid. OUR government would never interfere with the political process. Needing a gun to defend yourself from the government is just paranoid...."
Pfft
On the post: New York State Starts Walking Back On Transparency; Grants Gun Owners Exemption From Disclosure Of Public Records
Re: Re: democracy?
Your taxes go up this year?
Yeah, yeah they did.....
Maybe campaign on something besides protecting the wealthiest people from a SMALL tax raise when the economy is in the tank and the deficit is mounting up like zombies in a "Resident Evil" movie.
On the post: New York State Starts Walking Back On Transparency; Grants Gun Owners Exemption From Disclosure Of Public Records
Mostly Not About Guns
They go out of their way to point at 1st amendment encroachments on both sides.
This one, and the one Yesterday taking aim at the NRA, do not.
On balance, I also see more blasting of the NRA than any comparable gun control group.
I can hope that most of the imbalance comes from the focus on the 1st amendment and its obvious close ties to anything that happens on the internet (communication) coupled with an understandable obsession among techies with video game related issues, but holy cow.
I sure am sick of it for the last two days.
On the post: New York State Starts Walking Back On Transparency; Grants Gun Owners Exemption From Disclosure Of Public Records
Re: Re: Tech Dirt a Leftist Pro Intrusive Government Blog? WTF???
Let me use the Tech Dirt search tool. Maybe I am just blinded by the recent firestorm in the media. But I don't think so....
On the post: Ahimsa: Sita Sings The Blues Now CC-0 'Public Domain'
Re: Re: Releasing to Public Domain
If copyright terms were more limited, this might not be a big huge deal, but we are now up to over a century of copyright coverage and more confusion is added all the time.
Her CC-O license effectively IS just donating it to the public domain. I.E. to donate something to the public domain, you just say, "You are free to copy this". That is what the CC-O says. The language of calling it a license is perhaps a little clunky, but this issue is exactly why they created the Creative Commons to begin with. People were having a hard time knowing how to let their works out into the open, so this organization was formed to try to formalize it and publicize it. I think they also wanted to try to build some case law. I don't know how that has been working out.
On the post: Ahimsa: Sita Sings The Blues Now CC-0 'Public Domain'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New York State Starts Walking Back On Transparency; Grants Gun Owners Exemption From Disclosure Of Public Records
Re: Re:
"For our next trick, we will now childproof the San Andreas Fault."
On the post: New York State Starts Walking Back On Transparency; Grants Gun Owners Exemption From Disclosure Of Public Records
A new age?
You only have a business if someone else is doing the work.
This concept, usually wrapped in the colorful garb of "entrepreneurship", is really just the latest manifestation of "Power 101".
Nobody, NOBODY, does enough work or is intelligent enough to organize systems to legitimize their pay being ten, twenty, one hundred times the median average.
The way this is maintained is also quite ancient. First, establish a sense of authority behind your wealth. Second, use that sense of authority to excuse the use of violence to maintain the status quo.
When the sense of authority is threatened, they always, ALWAYS resort to violence to maintain it. What good did the peaceful resistance do for them in China? Or how many decades are we supposed to wait for peaceful resistance to work.
That's why we have Article I Section 8 in the US Constitution, and that's why we have the second amendment. We have the right, and the responsibility, to stop our government, by force if necessary, when it oversteps its bounds.
We are way behind. We do not have a well regulated militia any longer, in no small part because neither the Democratic nor the Republican party represents the people. They represent different portions of our elites, and even more idiotic, they trade off issues every few years because the two parties themselves are nothing but massive institutions bent on self preservation. They literally stand for nothing at all anymore, if indeed ever they did.
So all this nonsense about keeping track of guns really needs to go. If you are serious about transforming this nation and this world, you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these big boys are not going anywhere because of your online petitions. They will reroute, and reroute, and end around, and work and work and work until they get what they want.
Frankly, even if you did away with all IP, they still will get what they want in the end. Ultimately, fairness for artists or anyone else is the last thing on their minds.
If you want justice, you are going to have to start caring about justice, and you are going to have to think in terms of a government whose roots are deeply and firmly grounded in a just population, the vast majority of whom are able and willing to fight for that justice, even to the death if it comes to that.
This is not a new age. It's the same old ancient age of humanity as has always existed. Technology has not changed mankind. It has simply upped the stakes.
On the post: New York State Starts Walking Back On Transparency; Grants Gun Owners Exemption From Disclosure Of Public Records
Re: There is a simple solution to this problem
I swear, you'd think to read this blog lately that someone had invented the end of physical conflict in Silicon Valley.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
Seriously?
People are pointing out to you that if we had all been equally armed, by default, it would be impossible to oppress anyone.
The second amendment is a twofold concept that is attached to Article I Section 8 of the constitution. It is intended to establish the militia as the baseline armed force with only a small standing army (something we have not had for over a century), and to ensure that all Americans, ALL, have a right to keep and bear arms and be a part of that militia.
Obviously, the southern militias didn't include the people being oppressed. That's the problem. Not that people had guns, but that the people who did were nothing but an extension of the government used against an oppressed class that had no right to be a part of said militia.
No one is arguing that gun ownership automatically fixes all the other problems with our government either. It is just a prerequisite to being able to defend ourselves from someone using our own army and police forces against us.
You have yet to address the legally established foundations of this issue, going back to the Glorious Revolution, I almost believe because despite your supposed intellectual curiosity and deeply informed mind, you really have no idea what I'm talking about. But the whole idea of defending one's self even from an agent of the government goes back much farther even than that.
http://www.saf.org/journal/16/theromanlegaltreatmentofselfdefenseandtheprivatepossessionofw eaponsinthecodexjustinianus.pdf
"Thus, let no one shrink from facing (parcat) a soldier, whom it is fitting to challenge with a weapon (telo), just as it is fitting to challenge a thief (A.D. 391). ix"
Only in your little fantasy land do oppressors and thieves suddenly disappear because, oh wow, it's the year 2013 now and we have banned firearms.
On the post: NRA: Games To Blame For Violence! Also, Here's A Shooting Game For 4-Year-Olds!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This blog amazes me
Here's a historical fact for you. Nothing has changed all that much. What we see in corporate America right now is the right to own being extended to include the right to force others to do your bidding because you own some resource, therefore they have to do what you want to access it.
This is nothing more than a variation on the theme of feudalism.
We are not some advanced species now. We have cooler, more effective, and deadlier toys is the only difference.
The Arab Spring was "mostly peaceful". What a load of crap. People are being hauled off to jail in Egypt as we speak for no good reason. Syria is still at war. Libya definitely was not a peaceful transfer. Most of the Arab world still lies under despotism.
You're just... wildly, openly, mind bogglingly wrong. And yet you manage to maintain this air of superiority. Amazing...
The Arab Spring is only possible because the opinions of the upper classes have shifted enough due to outside pressure, largely western, that they no longer are willing to just execute rebels wholesale without remorse. That pressure from the west is in no small part military. It should come as no surprise that the Arab Spring followed nearly a decade of the US occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. People got a taste of at least some modicum of freedom, and NOW they feel like maybe, just maybe, they can win the battle.
J curve of expectations... pfft. That explains WHY people revolt, not HOW.
On the post: Ahimsa: Sita Sings The Blues Now CC-0 'Public Domain'
Releasing to Public Domain
You can't get there from here.
On the post: Ahimsa: Sita Sings The Blues Now CC-0 'Public Domain'
Re: Re: Re:
If I understand her rightly, and I think I do, her belief is that copyright just in general is a bad thing, and I share that sentiment. There's never been any real reason for it, and it has evolved into a tool that allows a pretty small percentage of people to control a massive amount of communication.
Next >>