So let's just push public betas with unknown code.
You pretty much have to do that with open source software. Otherwise, how is the community going to know what is in the code that they're helping to write?
So the programmers that release the software should not be liable to not auditing their code.
As pointed out by silverscarcat, they do audit the code. They do not, however, audit the nightly builds - which (if it's like most open-source build tools) is automatically generated nightly from the working code base.
If you have user submitted code, it is your duty to audit it before releasing it.
If it's an open source project, "you" is often "the users." More specifically, the community of programmers that is actually writing and using the code. The beauty of open source is that if someone submits code that is questionable, it is almost immediately spotted and fixed - since otherwise, it wouldn't be useful to that community.
Moreover, "you" won't be the only one releasing it. Open source means that any user can branch the code, and release their version of it themselves. (Provided, of course, that they also release the source code, and allow others to do the same.)
What else is there in the code? Trojans? Malware? Who knows, we just get the binary, and they don't audit until they get sued...
If it's open source, then by definition, you also get the source code. If there are trojans, malware, or whatever, then either you or one of the thousands of programmers who look at the code will be able to tell.
It's the primary reason that open source code is generally more secure than closed source code.
As someone who has used, and contributed to, open source software, I can tell you flat out that your concerns are a fantasy. Your scenarios have never, once, happened with any open source software that I'm aware of.
Google monopolizes the internet via search and uploadable video?
If Google had the exclusive right to link to the web sites that come up in their search results, you would have a point.
If Google had the exclusive right to display the videos that are uploaded to YouTube (such that they couldn't legally be displayed on, say, Vimeo), you would have a point.
But neither is true, so you don't have any point at all.
Sorry, haven't checked this thread in a while. I'm going to just reply to a couple of things, because I think that they will cover the rest of what you said.
I guess what you're saying is YouTube (and Pandora/Spotify etc,) pay a higher percentage of what they CLAIM is their ad income.
No. If you use YouTube's ContentID, they split the profits with the copyright holder, 50-50. That's mainly ad revenue. But with Pandora and Spotify, they pay the majority of their total revenue (not just "ad income") to copyright holders. Pandora pays 54% of its revenue. Spotify pays 70% of its revenue. If you want to know why the artists aren't seeing that, here's a hint: they're paying the copyright holders, not the artists - and the copyright holders are usually major labels.
Which brings me to the next reply:
I don't know who Chris Castle is but please feel free to tell me what lies you think Lowery is posting , it's good to get information and fact check.
Chris Castle is the person behind the Music Technology Policy blog. He is an anti-Google and anti-tech copyright attorney (ironic, since he originally represented Napster), and former VP of business affairs at both Sony and A&M. Trichordist often quotes his biased rants.
But since you know who Lowery is, I'll focus on him instead. And, boy, where to start. The guy lies about pretty much everything.
I first heard of him when Techdirt ran a story about a Facebook post that mirrored some talking points in a speech he gave. In response, Lowery showed up in the comments, saying things like "if i wanted to fucking sue you i could" and "I expect a retraction and an apology. fuckface."
Lowery is a douchebag. He exploited the tragic deaths of two music artists to advance his anti-tech agenda. He quite literally claimed (without one shred of evidence) that without piracy, Vic Chesnutt and Mark Linkous would still be alive.
This is shameful propaganda in the extreme, and it is utterly disrespectful to Chesnutt and Linkous. It shows just how little Lowery respects his musician "friends."
He also wrote a misleading story about "YouTube contracts", and I pointed out that he lied in this comment, namely that they're contracts with Machinima, not YouTube. It should also be noted that the post at Trichordist linked back (negatively) to Techdirt, with the bogus and overused claim that Techdirt's sole music business model is "selling t-shirts and touring." (I should hope that you already know it's not.)
He's also lied multiple times about Spotify and Pandora not paying artists, which I already debunked above.
I'm sure there is more - lots more. But, frankly, if I had to debunk all the lies on Trichordist, it'd be a full-time job. I hope the aforementioned is enough to convince you that at the very least, the site shouldn't be trusted.
Also, digging into the numbers I posted (in the comments I linked to) will probably give you some idea of how I would reply to the rest of your post. I've included links where I could, so feel free to fact-check.
I guess that never came to my attention because when we talk about copyright here it usually deals with copies and rarely stuff like sculptures.
Right. It wouldn't apply to this case, or any of the other cases Techdirt deals with, because it doesn't apply to things like fair use, and it couldn't possibly apply to things like secondary liability or the Internet (the favorite bugaboos of copyright defenders).
It's normally brought up (as here) when commenters confuse "moral rights" with "ethics," in an attempt to show that file sharing is "evil." It's usually a red herring. Still, best to be informed.
So you're saying that if it's possible to do a mash up that it means that one song was "copied" from another?
Nope. Just that listening to the mash-up makes it more obvious.
But, of course you knew this. It's telling that the only things you have to offer here are lies and insults. It means that you have neither facts nor convincing arguments on your side.
Moral rights are NOT covered by copyright laws in the US. Period. Full stop.
That's not quite true, There are "moral rights" on a very limited number of works (visual arts, e.g. sculptures). The original artists (regardless of whether they are the copyright holders) have the right to prevent the modification or mutilation of the original artworks (it does not apply to copies), and to get credit for those works (and refuse credit for works that they did not create).
Object? What exactly does that mean? They retain the right to say "I don't like that!"? Or does it mean that they maintain control of their works EVEN AFTER THE TRANSFER OF THE SAID RIGHTS (as quoted by you).
FYI: The "moral rights" (droit d'auteur) in Europe are very limited in scope, and very different than the "economic rights" that exist both in Europe and here in the States.
For example, "moral rights" cannot be transferred while "economic rights" can, and in many countries, the term lengths are different.
They are usually limited to the right to get credit for the work, as well as the right to remove their name from works they don't approve of. They usually do not have the right to outright block the works on "moral rights" grounds (though they do as part of their "economic rights," as we do in the States).
Beasties didn't "copy" the Isley Brothers, you musically retarded buffoon.
They certainly did, at least as much as Goldieblox "copied" the Beastie Boys. Listen to "Shout" and "Girls" back-to-back: they're a different arrangement of the same song, with different lyrics.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
Culture has nothing to do with quality.
Very true, but you can still criticize the role of "art" as nothing more than a consumer product, and the monopolization of that "product." That's what the A.C. was getting at, I think.
Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
I know I've actually made a good point when you show up, doing nothing but sling ad homs around. It's like a litmus test.
Funny, that's what the Beasties ORIGINALLY DID.
Not, it certainly isn't. To recap:
1. A lawyer sends Goldieblox a threat letter (or, at least, something that they perceive as a threat letter).
2. Goldieblox freaks out about being sued out of business, and files for declarative judgement.
3. The Beasties, themselves, wrote an open letter explaining why they didn't want the music used, and clarifying that it wasn't a threat letter.
4. Goldieblox essentially said, "Oh, that's what's going on? OK, then," and pulled the ad.
All I'm suggesting is that the Beasties should have bypassed Step 1, and gone straight to Step 3. Had they done that, Step 4 would have happened a lot sooner.
And for that, you do nothing but scream "bullshit" at me (and this mythical "Masnick" straw man), calling me "full of shit" and "a complete fucking idiot."
Why are you so angry about it? There is simply no reason to froth at the mouth when I (or anyone else) calls it what it is: a win for everyone.
...Unless, of course, you have some sort of agenda where you want people to jump straight to legal enforcement. Regardless of whether it helps anyone, artists included.
Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
See, told you that they wouldn't win the case - that's why they dropped it.
This is complete bullshit. There's every indication that they would have won if they'd have pressed for declaratory judgement. They dropped the suit because it wasn't worth going against the wishes of the band - regardless of whether they had a legal right to do so.
If anything, this disproves a lot of the myths that have been bandied about, here and elsewhere:
1. The myth that copyright's purpose (or effect) is "benefiting musicians."
2. The myth that the legal system is the best venue for fighting copyright disputes.
3. The myth that people who use others' artworks (Goldieblox in this case) are just "grifters" who want to "fuck over musicians."
It shows that, in many situations, people (even corporate "people") will stop using artists' work simply by asking nicely and clearly presenting your reasons. Because those people are often your fans, and want to follow your wishes.
This may have been a "win" for the Beastie Boys, but it was also a "win" for Goldieblox. More to the point, it was a win for common sense.
Then you would have even less of an excuse for the fucking-over of musicians celebrated on this tech-apologist blog.
Let's get two things straight.
1. This "blog" does not, and never did, excuse "the fucking-over of musicians."
2. The "tech" industry (YouTube, Spotify, Pandora, Kickstarter, TuneCore, and so forth) has helped more musicians, and given them more of their income, than any legacy music corporation ever did. In fact, the only thing the legacy players ever did was attempt "the fucking-over of musicians" at every opportunity that they could.
And you know this, because you've been spreading lies on this site for years. News flash: nobody is buying them. Not the people here, not the majority of artists, and certainly not the general public.
You're not a musician. You're a hobbyist maker of noise.
By your very arguments, the real "musicians" are the ones that have the least right to fair use.
After all, you're the one that is arguing that if the music is part of a commercial endeavor, it is not fair use. So, if I'm merely a "hobbyist," then I should have more fair use rights than people who you consider "musicians."
Of course, I don't believe such nonsense, but it's the only thing that is consistent with your position.
Not at all. Karl isn't a musician or songwriter. Ask him for links.
My Techdirt account name has a link to my site in it.
If you don't think I'm a musician, and don't write songs, then you have no idea what you're talking about. My noise music is deliberately composed and arranged (some even have the [in]famous ABACAB form), and some has lyrics that I wrote. Before that, I played in a few rock bands. I can compose orchestral music (I studied music composition my first time through college), and my major instrument was guitar. For a while, I was playing out consistently, including a couple of small U.S. tours, and I have a couple of records out on (very tiny) labels. Also, in my last paying gig, I was contracted to do music, sound design, and write the Android sound engine for a local startup company.
I am not claiming I am anything special. In fact, the majority of the music I love is produced by people in roughly the same boat I am. (Most of whom I know personally.) And nearly all of the musicians who make any money at all - even the mega-stars - did exactly what I did, for many years, before winning the rock-star lottery.
If you think I'm "not a musician," then the only people you think are "musicians" are those who are bankrolled by some trans-national mega-corporation.
Which shows exactly where your loyalties lie. Hint: it's not with anyone who actually creates music.
On the post: German Court Says CEO Of Open Source Company Liable For 'Illegal' Functions Submitted By Community
Re: Re: Re:
You pretty much have to do that with open source software. Otherwise, how is the community going to know what is in the code that they're helping to write?
On the post: German Court Says CEO Of Open Source Company Liable For 'Illegal' Functions Submitted By Community
Re:
As pointed out by silverscarcat, they do audit the code. They do not, however, audit the nightly builds - which (if it's like most open-source build tools) is automatically generated nightly from the working code base.
If you have user submitted code, it is your duty to audit it before releasing it.
If it's an open source project, "you" is often "the users." More specifically, the community of programmers that is actually writing and using the code. The beauty of open source is that if someone submits code that is questionable, it is almost immediately spotted and fixed - since otherwise, it wouldn't be useful to that community.
Moreover, "you" won't be the only one releasing it. Open source means that any user can branch the code, and release their version of it themselves. (Provided, of course, that they also release the source code, and allow others to do the same.)
What else is there in the code? Trojans? Malware? Who knows, we just get the binary, and they don't audit until they get sued...
If it's open source, then by definition, you also get the source code. If there are trojans, malware, or whatever, then either you or one of the thousands of programmers who look at the code will be able to tell.
It's the primary reason that open source code is generally more secure than closed source code.
As someone who has used, and contributed to, open source software, I can tell you flat out that your concerns are a fantasy. Your scenarios have never, once, happened with any open source software that I'm aware of.
On the post: Italy Attempting To Have Copyright Enforced By Regulators, Not Courts
Re: Re:
If Google had the exclusive right to link to the web sites that come up in their search results, you would have a point.
If Google had the exclusive right to display the videos that are uploaded to YouTube (such that they couldn't legally be displayed on, say, Vimeo), you would have a point.
But neither is true, so you don't have any point at all.
On the post: United Airlines Nearly Kills Pet, Aims For Streisand Glory Instead Of Paying Vet Bill
Re: Re:
"Since my dog died of heat stroke, I couldn't blame him for eating my homework."
(...Too soon?)
On the post: Beastie Boys Say They Don't Want Music In Ads, But Fair Use Doesn't Care
Re: Re:PUBLISHING
The giant record companies are almost all gone
No, they're not. They're simply consolidated into fewer multi-national corporations. They still control 70% of the global music market, and 85% of the United States music market. (At least as of 2004; I couldn't find more recent figures.)
I guess what you're saying is YouTube (and Pandora/Spotify etc,) pay a higher percentage of what they CLAIM is their ad income.
No. If you use YouTube's ContentID, they split the profits with the copyright holder, 50-50. That's mainly ad revenue. But with Pandora and Spotify, they pay the majority of their total revenue (not just "ad income") to copyright holders. Pandora pays 54% of its revenue. Spotify pays 70% of its revenue. If you want to know why the artists aren't seeing that, here's a hint: they're paying the copyright holders, not the artists - and the copyright holders are usually major labels.
Which brings me to the next reply:
I don't know who Chris Castle is but please feel free to tell me what lies you think Lowery is posting , it's good to get information and fact check.
Chris Castle is the person behind the Music Technology Policy blog. He is an anti-Google and anti-tech copyright attorney (ironic, since he originally represented Napster), and former VP of business affairs at both Sony and A&M. Trichordist often quotes his biased rants.
Trichordist also links to, and talks about, Pop Up Pirates, a site which I talk about here.
But since you know who Lowery is, I'll focus on him instead. And, boy, where to start. The guy lies about pretty much everything.
I first heard of him when Techdirt ran a story about a Facebook post that mirrored some talking points in a speech he gave. In response, Lowery showed up in the comments, saying things like "if i wanted to fucking sue you i could" and "I expect a retraction and an apology. fuckface."
I suppose you've read his letter to Emily White. In it, he makes a number of false statements. Techdirt wrote about them here. I debunked them here, in the comments to that story. Jeff Price at TuneCore also debunked them, and I'm sure more people did too. The letter was generally panned by his fellow musicians, including Steve Albini and Gang of Four's Dave Allen.
That wasn't the worst of it, of course. As I said in another comment:
That's just the beginning, naturally. Trichordist has all sorts of factually inaccurate claims (I assume from Lowery, but Trichordist often doesn't explicitly name who writes their stories). I debunk his "Why aren’t more musicians working professionally?" blog post in the comments here. He similarly claimed there are 45% Fewer Professional Working Musicians Since 2002, a claim which I debunked here. This post at JawJawJaw explains how Lowery cooked the statistics by using incompatible sets of BLS numbers. Techdirt also ran a story showing the actual numbers, and I dug deeper into those numbers in a comment on that story.
He also wrote a misleading story about "YouTube contracts", and I pointed out that he lied in this comment, namely that they're contracts with Machinima, not YouTube. It should also be noted that the post at Trichordist linked back (negatively) to Techdirt, with the bogus and overused claim that Techdirt's sole music business model is "selling t-shirts and touring." (I should hope that you already know it's not.)
He's also lied multiple times about Spotify and Pandora not paying artists, which I already debunked above.
I'm sure there is more - lots more. But, frankly, if I had to debunk all the lies on Trichordist, it'd be a full-time job. I hope the aforementioned is enough to convince you that at the very least, the site shouldn't be trusted.
Also, digging into the numbers I posted (in the comments I linked to) will probably give you some idea of how I would reply to the rest of your post. I've included links where I could, so feel free to fact-check.
On the post: Increasing European Moves To Block Access To Websites Accused Of Helping People Infringe Copyrights
Re: Re: But Google!
Probably away from his work computer...
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
Right. It wouldn't apply to this case, or any of the other cases Techdirt deals with, because it doesn't apply to things like fair use, and it couldn't possibly apply to things like secondary liability or the Internet (the favorite bugaboos of copyright defenders).
It's normally brought up (as here) when commenters confuse "moral rights" with "ethics," in an attempt to show that file sharing is "evil." It's usually a red herring. Still, best to be informed.
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
Nope. Just that listening to the mash-up makes it more obvious.
But, of course you knew this. It's telling that the only things you have to offer here are lies and insults. It means that you have neither facts nor convincing arguments on your side.
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
I wouldn't go that far, but even "moral rights" generally wouldn't apply to parodies. So, meaningless in this specific case.
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
That's not quite true, There are "moral rights" on a very limited number of works (visual arts, e.g. sculptures). The original artists (regardless of whether they are the copyright holders) have the right to prevent the modification or mutilation of the original artworks (it does not apply to copies), and to get credit for those works (and refuse credit for works that they did not create).
It's in 17 USC 106A, Rights of Attribution and Integrity.
This statute is generally what "moral rights" are like in Europe as well. They probably wouldn't apply at all to Goldieblox.
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect
FYI: The "moral rights" (droit d'auteur) in Europe are very limited in scope, and very different than the "economic rights" that exist both in Europe and here in the States.
For example, "moral rights" cannot be transferred while "economic rights" can, and in many countries, the term lengths are different.
They are usually limited to the right to get credit for the work, as well as the right to remove their name from works they don't approve of. They usually do not have the right to outright block the works on "moral rights" grounds (though they do as part of their "economic rights," as we do in the States).
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Respect
They certainly did, at least as much as Goldieblox "copied" the Beastie Boys. Listen to "Shout" and "Girls" back-to-back: they're a different arrangement of the same song, with different lyrics.
Better yet, listen to a mash-up of the two:
https://soundcloud.com/itshard2bgod/beastie-boys-vs-isley-brothers
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
Very true, but you can still criticize the role of "art" as nothing more than a consumer product, and the monopolization of that "product." That's what the A.C. was getting at, I think.
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
Funny, that's what the Beasties ORIGINALLY DID.
Not, it certainly isn't. To recap:
1. A lawyer sends Goldieblox a threat letter (or, at least, something that they perceive as a threat letter).
2. Goldieblox freaks out about being sued out of business, and files for declarative judgement.
3. The Beasties, themselves, wrote an open letter explaining why they didn't want the music used, and clarifying that it wasn't a threat letter.
4. Goldieblox essentially said, "Oh, that's what's going on? OK, then," and pulled the ad.
All I'm suggesting is that the Beasties should have bypassed Step 1, and gone straight to Step 3. Had they done that, Step 4 would have happened a lot sooner.
And for that, you do nothing but scream "bullshit" at me (and this mythical "Masnick" straw man), calling me "full of shit" and "a complete fucking idiot."
Why are you so angry about it? There is simply no reason to froth at the mouth when I (or anyone else) calls it what it is: a win for everyone.
...Unless, of course, you have some sort of agenda where you want people to jump straight to legal enforcement. Regardless of whether it helps anyone, artists included.
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
Just guessing, but I'm pretty sure he was criticizing the current state of "art," not culture.
On the post: GoldieBlox Pulls Beastie Boys Video, Promises To Drop Legal Dispute
Re: This is a victory for the Beastie Boys and genuine fair use whether you like it or not
This is complete bullshit. There's every indication that they would have won if they'd have pressed for declaratory judgement. They dropped the suit because it wasn't worth going against the wishes of the band - regardless of whether they had a legal right to do so.
If anything, this disproves a lot of the myths that have been bandied about, here and elsewhere:
1. The myth that copyright's purpose (or effect) is "benefiting musicians."
2. The myth that the legal system is the best venue for fighting copyright disputes.
3. The myth that people who use others' artworks (Goldieblox in this case) are just "grifters" who want to "fuck over musicians."
It shows that, in many situations, people (even corporate "people") will stop using artists' work simply by asking nicely and clearly presenting your reasons. Because those people are often your fans, and want to follow your wishes.
This may have been a "win" for the Beastie Boys, but it was also a "win" for Goldieblox. More to the point, it was a win for common sense.
On the post: Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's get two things straight.
1. This "blog" does not, and never did, excuse "the fucking-over of musicians."
2. The "tech" industry (YouTube, Spotify, Pandora, Kickstarter, TuneCore, and so forth) has helped more musicians, and given them more of their income, than any legacy music corporation ever did. In fact, the only thing the legacy players ever did was attempt "the fucking-over of musicians" at every opportunity that they could.
And you know this, because you've been spreading lies on this site for years. News flash: nobody is buying them. Not the people here, not the majority of artists, and certainly not the general public.
On the post: Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By the way, since I doubt you'll believe me, here's something I scored and rendered myself:
http://www.khznoise.com/karlheinz/audio/play/54
Prokofiev it ain't, but I'd like to think it at least proves that I'm a "musician" of some sort.
On the post: Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not a musician. You're a hobbyist maker of noise.
By your very arguments, the real "musicians" are the ones that have the least right to fair use.
After all, you're the one that is arguing that if the music is part of a commercial endeavor, it is not fair use. So, if I'm merely a "hobbyist," then I should have more fair use rights than people who you consider "musicians."
Of course, I don't believe such nonsense, but it's the only thing that is consistent with your position.
On the post: Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My Techdirt account name has a link to my site in it.
If you don't think I'm a musician, and don't write songs, then you have no idea what you're talking about. My noise music is deliberately composed and arranged (some even have the [in]famous ABACAB form), and some has lyrics that I wrote. Before that, I played in a few rock bands. I can compose orchestral music (I studied music composition my first time through college), and my major instrument was guitar. For a while, I was playing out consistently, including a couple of small U.S. tours, and I have a couple of records out on (very tiny) labels. Also, in my last paying gig, I was contracted to do music, sound design, and write the Android sound engine for a local startup company.
I am not claiming I am anything special. In fact, the majority of the music I love is produced by people in roughly the same boat I am. (Most of whom I know personally.) And nearly all of the musicians who make any money at all - even the mega-stars - did exactly what I did, for many years, before winning the rock-star lottery.
If you think I'm "not a musician," then the only people you think are "musicians" are those who are bankrolled by some trans-national mega-corporation.
Which shows exactly where your loyalties lie. Hint: it's not with anyone who actually creates music.
Next >>