While I agree with you that dealing with lawyers who are on both sides of the fence on this and other issues I want to add another complicating factor here.
The UofT administration is tied tightly into the political and economic power structure of Canada even if their tenured professors and other teachers and researchers aren't.
So it doesn't surprise me that the UofT would sign a deal that commits other universities in English Canada to a horrible, expensive set of payments and rules beyond what copyright actually covers. They're joined at the hip at the administration level to the likes of Access Copyright and others in the IP field by virtue of their being publishers themselves. As well as other levels of "The Establishment" as it's also considered "The Establishment's School" in Ontario and beyond and the administrators of the University want to keep it that way.
So it's not just the lawyer who handled that who is in a real or perceived conflict of interest it's the University administration and Board of Regents.
You may want to go back to the reasons the concept of patent law, as with copyright, came into existence. While you are partially right the over-riding concern was for the "people" and the economy for patents and the spread of education and information with copyright.
Neither was created for the benefit on non-producing agencies, patent and copyright trolls or to create permanent walled gardens.
There's one important point left out in the article even though the ruling seems to cover it. It does effect the ITC's knee jerk injunction response to complaints of patent infringement.
It's not just that open source development of product from software to hardware and complete devices is an American or North American network of inputs. In fact it's trans-national or a supra-national set of developers. The code or, hardware, the propose could be patent free where they are from but covered by patents in North America. Then what they write about kicks in as project leaders do not have the time or resources to check up on this situation and while the contribution may be minor but vital in some sense which isn't that uncommon in large projects like the Linux kernel or Apache.
Keep in mind as well that the open source community in the broad sense and the FOSS community in a specific sense gathered together to oppose SCO, backed the case, fed information to the defense attorneys and, where it counted, defeated SCO where many thought that would be impossible.
There are good defense lawyers who are familiar with open source, technology and who know who to call as expert witnesses in the world of open source to make their case to a judge.
That said, the US Supreme Court Ruling makes it crystal clear just what has to be taken into account when a lower court or entity is coming to a decision, without exception. The ruling leaves no wiggle room that I could read.
the Court held that permanent injunctions in patent law are governed by the same equitable four-part test as injunctions in other areas of law.
A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
.
It's only at point 4 where the judge needs a full and complete "education" in open source development and even there it's at what the public interest is poorly served by a permanent injunction if the allegation of infringement passes the previous three tests.
The only tech group cited in the blog was the Electronic Frontier Foundation who, the blog says, denounced TPP as over reaching.
Rather the groups cited are the same ones who supported ACTA/PIPA and who support ACTA.
Put the right kind of feed into one end of a bull and never ending bullshit does, indeed, come out the other. Even in The Hill's blog about technology.
Ancient Greece simply collapsed in on itself and Alexander's empire fell into differing, sometimes warring states given how it was divided up after his death.
One might say Ancient Rome just wore itself out. At least the Western Empire did. The Eastern Empire (Byzantium) continued on for 1000 years after Rome fell.
The French Revolution had little or nothing to do with shedding Empire it was a led by idealists and quickly descended into a crazed blood bath.
Republican France never has lost its taste for Empire. While their colonial empire, as did the British, became unaffordable after two world wars drained their treasuries there wasn't much in the way of revolution in the disappearance of either except in the colonies that sensed that they could rebel and revolt.
Tsarist Russia fell victim to a revolution aided by Germany. It was certainly ripe for it though. Lenin and Stalin then set up a fascist state as defined by the list discussed elsewhere in this thread; proving that fascism exists in states both left and right -- nominally capitalist or Marxist or socialist or mercantile.
Should Canada and/or the United States go or drift into revolution it would be interesting. Neither are nation states by the classic definition both are multi-national immigrant empires where the aboriginal peoples have been displaced and marginalized in those empires.
Civilizations rise and fall, empires rise and fall. Such is the nature of these things. Revolutions almost always fail in imperial structures like Canada and the United States if they are carried out for "higher" ideals such as those that motivated the leaders of the American Revolution though all succeed in the break up of that kind of Empire.
Some will be fascist as described on the list. Some will be democracies in the congressional or Westminster sense, one or two may become monarchies, some dictatorships and some will.....
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!"
To some extent MS has been forced into being less egregious than before, in many cases only by a matter of degree. They have largely failed in their attempts to control corporate networking to that upstart Linux and completely failed when it comes to MS servers on the Internet as a whole. This isn't to say they're not still a power to be reckoned with in either but that they failed in their goal on monopolizing them.
They've also had some failures in the market. Big ones.
The Zune MP3 player never did make it off the ground trying to take on the iPod.
They're a poor also ran in a world of Apple, Android (Linux) and Blackberry in the most important portable computing device today --- the one we call the smart phone. Win7 was supposed to improve that and now the hopes are on Win8.
A similar situation is emerging on Pads. The clear winner is the iPad with Android (Linux) emerging at the major competitor there as well. Again, hopes are pinned on Win8.
This isn't to be taken that they can't compete in areas where their OS isn't preinstalled. It's fair to say that, for now, the X-Box is the premier game machine. It's also fair to say that no one is really making money in that field and that includes MS.
Win8 has lots of fans out there and hopes riding on it. (I'm not one of them. The Windows desktop is the Windows desktop, functional but with plenty of unneeded and unasked for "improvements" that make it more difficult to use that it need be and still insecure at that. Win8 is good looking and shiny but it's still Windows no matter what its cheerleaders at ZDNet and CNET say. It's not going to be the magic elixir that suddenly thrusts MS to the top on Pads or Smart Phones because, like the Zune, MS doesn't seem to understand those markets.
Apple has been able to fly under the radar for so long because MS was seen as the big bad bully, chairs flying out office windows and temper tantrums galore. Under the techie black turtlenecks and physical design brilliance of Apple they've always been a bit of a bully themselves. With Steve Jobs gone people seem less tolerant of Bully Apple and are recognizing that the big bad bully on the block now isn't MS any more it's Apple.
Heck to get press these days the annual rumour of a merger between Adobe and MS has to start to circulate again.
So for now, Apple is throwing patent lawsuits about like confetti, taking credit for work others have done before them (as always), and slapping DRM on everything they can find. Oh, and robbing open source and particularly Linux blind.
Apple products have always been too expensive for me but on top of that now you can add the corporate attitude. Actually you could have before Jobs died.
Now that he's gone, there is really something foul about the smell of them.
In many respects that's what this is. One could argue that government sanctioned monopolies are mercantilism by another name, that particular rose smelling just as awful.
I'd argue as well that any company that is "too big to fail", at least by government standards and statements is already at the mercantile level. If, by that, you're thinking of certain bailed out banks you'd be right. That, of course, leads to a longer discussion of the banking deregulation fad of the 1990s and early part of this century which isn't exactly on topic. ;-) Not too far off but not quite there.
TPP is facing a lot of resistance not just because it's a bad deal for everyone outside of the United States, Britain, France and Germany but by who ISN'T there. Canada, bless us, wasn't even invited. Brazil and India are but like ACTA they'll ignore what they don't find advantageous and use it as a stick on others while China isn't at all interested.
Negotiating a trade deal in this decade without China present and actively taking part is on the same level of idiocy as trying to do the same in the 1970s without Japan present. Even if, at the end of the day some kind of mercantile heaven is reached.
The country closest to that now, and doing very well by it, is China. They're not interested in others joining thier club of one particularly when the membership in the club means rules the Chinese find don't fit them. Worse, if China comes to believe (understand would be closer to the truth) that TPP is a weapon to use against them by trying to cement certain market players and states in place in ways hostile to Chinese development.
Before we start into "Big" copyright we'd do well to remember that it's copyright that enables the licensing that keeps open source open and creative commons licenses valid.
That said, some parts of ACTA and, I'd assume, TPP would seem to threaten those licenses though I can't say for sure. Some of the legal mumbo jumbo appears to read that way. As both appear to be failing I'm thinking no one need panic about any of it. The only ones who need panic should ACTA and TPP fail are copyright trolling lawyers and corporations. (Hello there SCO!)
Let's not add to this insulting ads promoting the razor and blades features a bunch of wild camera people and idiotic "reporter" busting into a change room where guys are in various states of undress without all of them getting whacks in the side of the head or in the nuts.
Its not simply a black at it's a previously unknown or unrecognized species of carpenter ant which is what makes the photo so valuable as basic knowledge in Wild's field. And yeah ants are among the most successful species on the planet AND most of them are black. From that perspective so what?!
Wild has said in his piece that he wouldn't have withheld permission in any event which removed the triple damages threat.
While the drawing is a copy of the ant from the the photo it's also transformative. Wild says as much and leaves us with the question of is this fair without acknowledgement? Copyright or no copyright. Wild also says this goes on a great deal of the time where artists in other fields take a photo and build, say, a drawing from it. And does this cross the murky line. Fair enough because the line IS murky. And then he goes on to say that photographers and other visual artist ought to be finding a way to re-enforce each other rather than get into this kind of counter productive spat. Wild is right there as well. If for no other reason than someone how does line art illustration may see things in a photo that the photographer doesn't and bring them to light to the benefit of all.
This is the sort of instance where IP purists would insist on ownership as the be all and end all rather than admit that there IS something that an illustrator can bring to a photo that the person who took it can't see which adds to the body of knowledge about the subject of the photo.
Beautiful though that isn't the case here the drawing itself is beautiful in how it highlights colours and lighting not present in the photo. And the the transformative lettering and fonts add to the photo rather than take away from it. Wild thinks it crossed the murky line where credit is required and I agree. I'd have given it in the same way one does in a bibliography. If I'd been the LA Times or the artist I'd have cussed the day the *AA's talked law courts and legislators into triple liability for all situations including academic and reporting purposes. It's just plain silly.
Personally I'd have credited the photo and Wild but that's just me.
Superstars tend to create themselves, often despite labels. To retell a very old story Polygram has to be dragged almost kicking and screaming to sign The Beatles after insisting that the days of guitar bands were over.
Of course, the Beatles had a huge following already from endless playing in playing bars, basements and any other locations they could find or Brian Epstein could find to stuff them into. the social networking of the day.
The major contribution of the label was to put them in touch with George Martin to produce them, an artist as talented and open minded as Lennon/McCartney were.
Beatlemania exploded on its own. The label essentially leaned back and raked in the cash. Underpaying the band as they went. (See George Harrison's "Only A Northern Song".) Until the day he died Brian Epstein remained fully in control of promotion, marketing and bookings of "his" band. Not to mention demanding and getting a much better deal from the label.
You're over estimating the influence of labels where true superstars are concerned. That popularity is the result of the artist themselves.
At least you know, then, that mountains are moved one shovelful at a time.
As I said in my post there's this attraction between we techie types and musicians. So if you're a techie add to the list of things you've put down, all valid, offer to help out the band on their web site, getting videos onto YouTube and a hots of other things we techies know how to do.
We have our own connections elsewhere too, say to highly skilled amateur and professional artists and videographers so we can help them to build their team, fans at first willing to do their little bit for free. Creative people helping other creative people, which goes on all the time. Maybe paid later on but we're not doing it as much for money as a chance to help out. Creative play, if you would, one step away from the things we must do to earn a living, but something we feel passionately about. This new band we've discovered.
The band members would need to do social networking themselves other wise it would all look so fake and, well, RIAA like. Luckily there's a whole generation of kids and band members to whom social networking comes as naturally as breathing.
Nothing's a perfect fit for everyone. Not every band or act succeeds any more than any of the rest of us gets to score a goal on a breakaway in a game 7 of the Stanley Cup playoffs.
What IP maximalists fail to understand, at times, is that creativity is a shared experience not a solo one. Sharing and participating in the creative process, even outside our area of specialty, makes us more creative as well. Even in our "day" jobs. Imagine, for a moment, if gardeners didn't share with other gardeners and neighbours their secrets and knowledge. What an incredibly dull world we'd live in.
Techies and musicians seem to have a bond despite the appearance of doing vastly different kinds of work. Most tech work is, by it's nature creative and music is clearly creative. Add to that the truism that people inside the tech industry can actually play one or more instruments and the reason for the bond becomes clearer.
My own experience is that people in high tech will freely, as in cost to the emerging musician give their time, design and build web sites, built and support email managers located on their site, and much more. One creative person lending a hand to another.
This reduces the work away from their music and the vital part of person to person contact with fans. It doesn't eliminate it. The musician still makes the calls and no one just starting out is making hundreds of calls a day or composing hundreds of emails. The ones I've worked with have a stock list we've built up of emails that the management software on their web site personalizes and sends out most of which I vet.
At the beginning the team is just two, the artist and me. If they start to have more and more success then that's the time to consider hiring someone for some tasks and perhaps replace me. Though most of the time even then the costs of the team are very low.
Of course there are no hundreds of emails or phone calls at the start, that comes later. Most of the team, as it grows are fans doing it for nothing.
It's far too common to over estimate the cost a this pint in an artist's career of this sort of support. The music is vital, of course, and so is the personal relationship between the artist and their fans which absolutely must be there.
If it all lines up then early on for the artist the cost is very low if not a net zero cost.
Amanda Palmer is far beyond that stage though I'd wager her costs aren't has high as some people imagine.
She loves her work, recognizes that part and the work it takes to be a successful musician either as an indie artist or one signed to a major label must be. In music you damned well better love your work because if you don't you won't survive Internet or no Internet.
Until I retired, following and incident in which I was disabled I loved my work too. And the people I worked with. I did that work very, very well (if my job evaluations and customer feedback can be believed) largely because I enjoyed it and the challenges it brought me.
The things I do well are the things I enjoy. I knew dick all about gardening 6 years ago and fell into it largely because I was bored to tears during recovery from open heart surgery. For some reason I found myself in the garden leaning how to do it, the basics of it, landscaping and a host of other things all of which I still love and enjoy. I do that well because I enjoy it. It's hard work at times, drives me crazy at other times and is immensely rewarding most of the time.
I guess the key is that work, even hard work becomes something more like play when you enjoy and love it. A woman I'm doing some work for was watching me out of the window yesterday as I was clearing a particularly nasty weed out using a weed whacker attachment to my power head, then a pruning attachment cause it worked better and finally a tiller attachment to break up and mess up what was left of the roots all in the pouring rain, great big smile on my face, and having, from per perspective the time of my life out there. She wasn't far wrong.
So I completely reject the notion of work as drudgery. If its drudgery then I don't perform well. If I like or love it then I perform well, learn more and just plain have fun. And yes, play.
And those cute girls taking pictures of themselves on Motherless that the trolls were looking at before coming here to go on the attack. THEM it would work for!
/sarc off
Ya reckon that if Waves dropped the price of their plugs that the number of infringing downloads would drop too?
Ahhh, too, too simple.
Nor does it matter who uses them. The top mix engineers or broke kids. Some of those top mix engineers may even have started as broke kids downloading them against Waves wishes and learned to use them.
For all that people like you attack Dan Bull and others for doing things like that the only one who comes across as feeling they are entitled is YOU. (And Waves)
"Sorry, if I was ever sympathetic to your role as cheerleader for free music, you just lost the last 1% of sympathy I had."
Coming from you I suspect that you had no sympathy at all so 1% of nothing is still nothing so Dan hasn't lost a thing.
That and I'm sure you are a musician and in a position to judge what tools Dan needs to create and mix music as you have done in your post. If not then I'd have to remind you that the only one I'm seeing here feeling entitled is you. As well as judgmental.
Part of me finds you funny. The rest of me knows you're simply jealous and pathetically jealous at that.
P.S. How do you know Dan hasn't bought "legal" copies of the plug-ins by now?
even pre-Web days the internet was largely about file sharing. Part of it's military application was the ability to get files from point A to point Z even if points C, F, G, and Y were down due to the Ruskies dropping nukes on them. File sharing is built into the DNA of the Internet BY DESIGN. The Web simply brings that to the foreground and uses it.
Of course computers themselves are file copying and sharing machines, also by design, so if you network millions of them together you have rampant file sharing and unlimited "piracy" of at least some tiny parts of some files even if left unattended.
If you believe the RIAA, MPAA and BPI these unattended machines download entire movies and CDs and other copyrighted material into the temp directories then share them all night long deleting them just as you turn the monitor on in the morning and click the mouse to turn the screen back alive again. Everyone is a mini Pirate Bay and we didn't even know that. Computers are EVIL, dammit, EVIL and they should be banned, dammit, BANNED. Let's roll the world back to 1910 when it was safe for copyright holders!!!
On the post: University Of Toronto's Lawyer In Access Copyright Deal Also Advised Access Copyright On Related Legislation
Re: Re:
The UofT administration is tied tightly into the political and economic power structure of Canada even if their tenured professors and other teachers and researchers aren't.
So it doesn't surprise me that the UofT would sign a deal that commits other universities in English Canada to a horrible, expensive set of payments and rules beyond what copyright actually covers. They're joined at the hip at the administration level to the likes of Access Copyright and others in the IP field by virtue of their being publishers themselves. As well as other levels of "The Establishment" as it's also considered "The Establishment's School" in Ontario and beyond and the administrators of the University want to keep it that way.
So it's not just the lawyer who handled that who is in a real or perceived conflict of interest it's the University administration and Board of Regents.
On the post: Why Patent Injunctions Are Even Worse For Open Source
Re:
Neither was created for the benefit on non-producing agencies, patent and copyright trolls or to create permanent walled gardens.
On the post: Why Patent Injunctions Are Even Worse For Open Source
It's not just that open source development of product from software to hardware and complete devices is an American or North American network of inputs. In fact it's trans-national or a supra-national set of developers. The code or, hardware, the propose could be patent free where they are from but covered by patents in North America. Then what they write about kicks in as project leaders do not have the time or resources to check up on this situation and while the contribution may be minor but vital in some sense which isn't that uncommon in large projects like the Linux kernel or Apache.
Keep in mind as well that the open source community in the broad sense and the FOSS community in a specific sense gathered together to oppose SCO, backed the case, fed information to the defense attorneys and, where it counted, defeated SCO where many thought that would be impossible.
There are good defense lawyers who are familiar with open source, technology and who know who to call as expert witnesses in the world of open source to make their case to a judge.
That said, the US Supreme Court Ruling makes it crystal clear just what has to be taken into account when a lower court or entity is coming to a decision, without exception. The ruling leaves no wiggle room that I could read.
.
It's only at point 4 where the judge needs a full and complete "education" in open source development and even there it's at what the public interest is poorly served by a permanent injunction if the allegation of infringement passes the previous three tests.
On the post: USTR Insults The Intelligence Of Legal Scholars After They Challenge Him On Lack Of TPP Transparency
Re: The bullshit never ends
Rather the groups cited are the same ones who supported ACTA/PIPA and who support ACTA.
Put the right kind of feed into one end of a bull and never ending bullshit does, indeed, come out the other. Even in The Hill's blog about technology.
On the post: RIAA Tries To Downplay Its Role In The Feds' Unjustifiable Censorship Of Dajaz1
Re: Re: To recap:
One might say Ancient Rome just wore itself out. At least the Western Empire did. The Eastern Empire (Byzantium) continued on for 1000 years after Rome fell.
The French Revolution had little or nothing to do with shedding Empire it was a led by idealists and quickly descended into a crazed blood bath.
Republican France never has lost its taste for Empire. While their colonial empire, as did the British, became unaffordable after two world wars drained their treasuries there wasn't much in the way of revolution in the disappearance of either except in the colonies that sensed that they could rebel and revolt.
Tsarist Russia fell victim to a revolution aided by Germany. It was certainly ripe for it though. Lenin and Stalin then set up a fascist state as defined by the list discussed elsewhere in this thread; proving that fascism exists in states both left and right -- nominally capitalist or Marxist or socialist or mercantile.
Should Canada and/or the United States go or drift into revolution it would be interesting. Neither are nation states by the classic definition both are multi-national immigrant empires where the aboriginal peoples have been displaced and marginalized in those empires.
Civilizations rise and fall, empires rise and fall. Such is the nature of these things. Revolutions almost always fail in imperial structures like Canada and the United States if they are carried out for "higher" ideals such as those that motivated the leaders of the American Revolution though all succeed in the break up of that kind of Empire.
Some will be fascist as described on the list. Some will be democracies in the congressional or Westminster sense, one or two may become monarchies, some dictatorships and some will.....
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!"
On the post: Apple & Samsung's Patent Nuclear War: 50 Lawsuits In 10 Countries In 1 Year
Re: Re:
They've also had some failures in the market. Big ones.
The Zune MP3 player never did make it off the ground trying to take on the iPod.
They're a poor also ran in a world of Apple, Android (Linux) and Blackberry in the most important portable computing device today --- the one we call the smart phone. Win7 was supposed to improve that and now the hopes are on Win8.
A similar situation is emerging on Pads. The clear winner is the iPad with Android (Linux) emerging at the major competitor there as well. Again, hopes are pinned on Win8.
This isn't to be taken that they can't compete in areas where their OS isn't preinstalled. It's fair to say that, for now, the X-Box is the premier game machine. It's also fair to say that no one is really making money in that field and that includes MS.
Win8 has lots of fans out there and hopes riding on it. (I'm not one of them. The Windows desktop is the Windows desktop, functional but with plenty of unneeded and unasked for "improvements" that make it more difficult to use that it need be and still insecure at that. Win8 is good looking and shiny but it's still Windows no matter what its cheerleaders at ZDNet and CNET say. It's not going to be the magic elixir that suddenly thrusts MS to the top on Pads or Smart Phones because, like the Zune, MS doesn't seem to understand those markets.
Apple has been able to fly under the radar for so long because MS was seen as the big bad bully, chairs flying out office windows and temper tantrums galore. Under the techie black turtlenecks and physical design brilliance of Apple they've always been a bit of a bully themselves. With Steve Jobs gone people seem less tolerant of Bully Apple and are recognizing that the big bad bully on the block now isn't MS any more it's Apple.
Heck to get press these days the annual rumour of a merger between Adobe and MS has to start to circulate again.
So for now, Apple is throwing patent lawsuits about like confetti, taking credit for work others have done before them (as always), and slapping DRM on everything they can find. Oh, and robbing open source and particularly Linux blind.
Apple products have always been too expensive for me but on top of that now you can add the corporate attitude. Actually you could have before Jobs died.
Now that he's gone, there is really something foul about the smell of them.
On the post: After SOPA And ACTA, Now TPP Starts To Fall Apart
Re: The ugly face of Mercantilism
I'd argue as well that any company that is "too big to fail", at least by government standards and statements is already at the mercantile level. If, by that, you're thinking of certain bailed out banks you'd be right. That, of course, leads to a longer discussion of the banking deregulation fad of the 1990s and early part of this century which isn't exactly on topic. ;-) Not too far off but not quite there.
TPP is facing a lot of resistance not just because it's a bad deal for everyone outside of the United States, Britain, France and Germany but by who ISN'T there. Canada, bless us, wasn't even invited. Brazil and India are but like ACTA they'll ignore what they don't find advantageous and use it as a stick on others while China isn't at all interested.
Negotiating a trade deal in this decade without China present and actively taking part is on the same level of idiocy as trying to do the same in the 1970s without Japan present. Even if, at the end of the day some kind of mercantile heaven is reached.
The country closest to that now, and doing very well by it, is China. They're not interested in others joining thier club of one particularly when the membership in the club means rules the Chinese find don't fit them. Worse, if China comes to believe (understand would be closer to the truth) that TPP is a weapon to use against them by trying to cement certain market players and states in place in ways hostile to Chinese development.
On the post: After SOPA And ACTA, Now TPP Starts To Fall Apart
Re: TPP deserves to fail
That said, some parts of ACTA and, I'd assume, TPP would seem to threaten those licenses though I can't say for sure. Some of the legal mumbo jumbo appears to read that way. As both appear to be failing I'm thinking no one need panic about any of it. The only ones who need panic should ACTA and TPP fail are copyright trolling lawyers and corporations. (Hello there SCO!)
On the post: Do You Owe Your Crappy Shave To Patents?
Re: stop changing things!
Bye, bye Gillette!
On the post: Do You Owe Your Crappy Shave To Patents?
Re:
On the post: FAA Warns Guy Who Filmed Birds Striking Plane Engine
Re: I leave my laptop on and ready
On the post: Sometimes Photos Are Just Facts, And Copying Is To Be Expected
Re: Seriously?
Wild has said in his piece that he wouldn't have withheld permission in any event which removed the triple damages threat.
While the drawing is a copy of the ant from the the photo it's also transformative. Wild says as much and leaves us with the question of is this fair without acknowledgement? Copyright or no copyright. Wild also says this goes on a great deal of the time where artists in other fields take a photo and build, say, a drawing from it. And does this cross the murky line. Fair enough because the line IS murky. And then he goes on to say that photographers and other visual artist ought to be finding a way to re-enforce each other rather than get into this kind of counter productive spat. Wild is right there as well. If for no other reason than someone how does line art illustration may see things in a photo that the photographer doesn't and bring them to light to the benefit of all.
This is the sort of instance where IP purists would insist on ownership as the be all and end all rather than admit that there IS something that an illustrator can bring to a photo that the person who took it can't see which adds to the body of knowledge about the subject of the photo.
Beautiful though that isn't the case here the drawing itself is beautiful in how it highlights colours and lighting not present in the photo. And the the transformative lettering and fonts add to the photo rather than take away from it. Wild thinks it crossed the murky line where credit is required and I agree. I'd have given it in the same way one does in a bibliography. If I'd been the LA Times or the artist I'd have cussed the day the *AA's talked law courts and legislators into triple liability for all situations including academic and reporting purposes. It's just plain silly.
Personally I'd have credited the photo and Wild but that's just me.
On the post: How Amanda Palmer Built An Army Of Supporters: Connecting Each And Every Day, Person By Person
Re:
Of course, the Beatles had a huge following already from endless playing in playing bars, basements and any other locations they could find or Brian Epstein could find to stuff them into. the social networking of the day.
The major contribution of the label was to put them in touch with George Martin to produce them, an artist as talented and open minded as Lennon/McCartney were.
Beatlemania exploded on its own. The label essentially leaned back and raked in the cash. Underpaying the band as they went. (See George Harrison's "Only A Northern Song".) Until the day he died Brian Epstein remained fully in control of promotion, marketing and bookings of "his" band. Not to mention demanding and getting a much better deal from the label.
You're over estimating the influence of labels where true superstars are concerned. That popularity is the result of the artist themselves.
On the post: How Amanda Palmer Built An Army Of Supporters: Connecting Each And Every Day, Person By Person
Re: Re: Cost of hiring a team?
As I said in my post there's this attraction between we techie types and musicians. So if you're a techie add to the list of things you've put down, all valid, offer to help out the band on their web site, getting videos onto YouTube and a hots of other things we techies know how to do.
We have our own connections elsewhere too, say to highly skilled amateur and professional artists and videographers so we can help them to build their team, fans at first willing to do their little bit for free. Creative people helping other creative people, which goes on all the time. Maybe paid later on but we're not doing it as much for money as a chance to help out. Creative play, if you would, one step away from the things we must do to earn a living, but something we feel passionately about. This new band we've discovered.
The band members would need to do social networking themselves other wise it would all look so fake and, well, RIAA like. Luckily there's a whole generation of kids and band members to whom social networking comes as naturally as breathing.
Nothing's a perfect fit for everyone. Not every band or act succeeds any more than any of the rest of us gets to score a goal on a breakaway in a game 7 of the Stanley Cup playoffs.
What IP maximalists fail to understand, at times, is that creativity is a shared experience not a solo one. Sharing and participating in the creative process, even outside our area of specialty, makes us more creative as well. Even in our "day" jobs. Imagine, for a moment, if gardeners didn't share with other gardeners and neighbours their secrets and knowledge. What an incredibly dull world we'd live in.
On the post: How Amanda Palmer Built An Army Of Supporters: Connecting Each And Every Day, Person By Person
Re: Cost of hiring a team?
My own experience is that people in high tech will freely, as in cost to the emerging musician give their time, design and build web sites, built and support email managers located on their site, and much more. One creative person lending a hand to another.
This reduces the work away from their music and the vital part of person to person contact with fans. It doesn't eliminate it. The musician still makes the calls and no one just starting out is making hundreds of calls a day or composing hundreds of emails. The ones I've worked with have a stock list we've built up of emails that the management software on their web site personalizes and sends out most of which I vet.
At the beginning the team is just two, the artist and me. If they start to have more and more success then that's the time to consider hiring someone for some tasks and perhaps replace me. Though most of the time even then the costs of the team are very low.
Of course there are no hundreds of emails or phone calls at the start, that comes later. Most of the team, as it grows are fans doing it for nothing.
It's far too common to over estimate the cost a this pint in an artist's career of this sort of support. The music is vital, of course, and so is the personal relationship between the artist and their fans which absolutely must be there.
If it all lines up then early on for the artist the cost is very low if not a net zero cost.
Amanda Palmer is far beyond that stage though I'd wager her costs aren't has high as some people imagine.
On the post: How Amanda Palmer Built An Army Of Supporters: Connecting Each And Every Day, Person By Person
Re: Re: Yes, but...
Until I retired, following and incident in which I was disabled I loved my work too. And the people I worked with. I did that work very, very well (if my job evaluations and customer feedback can be believed) largely because I enjoyed it and the challenges it brought me.
The things I do well are the things I enjoy. I knew dick all about gardening 6 years ago and fell into it largely because I was bored to tears during recovery from open heart surgery. For some reason I found myself in the garden leaning how to do it, the basics of it, landscaping and a host of other things all of which I still love and enjoy. I do that well because I enjoy it. It's hard work at times, drives me crazy at other times and is immensely rewarding most of the time.
I guess the key is that work, even hard work becomes something more like play when you enjoy and love it. A woman I'm doing some work for was watching me out of the window yesterday as I was clearing a particularly nasty weed out using a weed whacker attachment to my power head, then a pruning attachment cause it worked better and finally a tiller attachment to break up and mess up what was left of the roots all in the pouring rain, great big smile on my face, and having, from per perspective the time of my life out there. She wasn't far wrong.
So I completely reject the notion of work as drudgery. If its drudgery then I don't perform well. If I like or love it then I perform well, learn more and just plain have fun. And yes, play.
On the post: Paulo Coelho Ebook Sales Jump Way Up Thanks To $0.99 Sale
Re: Re:
/sarc off
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re: Entitled?
Ahhh, too, too simple.
Nor does it matter who uses them. The top mix engineers or broke kids. Some of those top mix engineers may even have started as broke kids downloading them against Waves wishes and learned to use them.
For all that people like you attack Dan Bull and others for doing things like that the only one who comes across as feeling they are entitled is YOU. (And Waves)
"Sorry, if I was ever sympathetic to your role as cheerleader for free music, you just lost the last 1% of sympathy I had."
Coming from you I suspect that you had no sympathy at all so 1% of nothing is still nothing so Dan hasn't lost a thing.
That and I'm sure you are a musician and in a position to judge what tools Dan needs to create and mix music as you have done in your post. If not then I'd have to remind you that the only one I'm seeing here feeling entitled is you. As well as judgmental.
Part of me finds you funny. The rest of me knows you're simply jealous and pathetically jealous at that.
P.S. How do you know Dan hasn't bought "legal" copies of the plug-ins by now?
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re: 'The Internet IS filesharing'
Of course computers themselves are file copying and sharing machines, also by design, so if you network millions of them together you have rampant file sharing and unlimited "piracy" of at least some tiny parts of some files even if left unattended.
If you believe the RIAA, MPAA and BPI these unattended machines download entire movies and CDs and other copyrighted material into the temp directories then share them all night long deleting them just as you turn the monitor on in the morning and click the mouse to turn the screen back alive again. Everyone is a mini Pirate Bay and we didn't even know that. Computers are EVIL, dammit, EVIL and they should be banned, dammit, BANNED. Let's roll the world back to 1910 when it was safe for copyright holders!!!
On the post: B&N Removes Magazine From Nook Store Due To Feature Article On 'Hacking'
Re: Four Ways to Abuse a Hammer
Next >>