Re: Re: Wouldn't reform make each less accountable to the other?
I'm not necessarily advocating that exact system -- just pointing out that "copyright reform" can mean a lot of things
True, but I am assuming no one on Techdirt wants copyright to be more restrictive, so I was addressing the concept of how screwed up copyright is and whether it needs to be reformed. Reforming it so that it is less restrictive wouldn't protect Coulton, I assume. Reforming it so that he has a bigger legal claim seems to be heading in a direction different that what Techdirt seems to advocate.
There's a really weird question here as to whether you can infringe on something that's unauthorized
Which means that it is Fox, not Coulton, through its actions is actually allowing a liberal interpretation of copyright law. If it is in Fox's best interests to discourage copyright from extending to unauthorized recordings, then ultimately that benefits others who do the same thing. The goal, then, isn't to make sure Coulton is protected, but to make sure others can do what Fox has done.
Wouldn't reform make each less accountable to the other?
Wouldn't copyright reform just reduce the need for either Fox or Coulton to have to buy licenses from or give credit to anyone involved from beginning to end?
In other words, let's say there's copyright reform. It wouldn't help Coulton in any way in this particular dispute, would it? All it would do is eliminate the money that goes to the current copyright holders.
I'm still having trouble grasping why Coulton thinks he's been a victim here any more than anyone else who thinks their ideas have been copied or mimicked.
I just saw this. Following the money does make for interesting reading.
ReadWrite – Did YouTube Buy Fake VEVO Video Views? "His original views bot was so successful, spk claims, that Google approached him and asked him to bot videos for VEVO back when the music conglomerate first started putting content on YouTube.
"... spk alleged he was originally hired as a coding and system maintenance employee for YouTube in 2007, but in 2009 was told to bot VEVO videos.
"... YouTube declined to comment on spk's claims of employment or botting, but a company representative did confirm that spk received a large monetary sum from Google for identifying a security risk. And spk, whose real name has been redacted upon his request, is listed on the Google Hall of Fame security site."
What else do we have? Communism has been tried many places and in many versions and failed every time. The moderate socialism in place in some parts of Europe has some improvements, but other detriments.
There's so much I could point you to, but it would overwhelm this conversation. But here's a good place to start.
Four scenarios for the inevitable P2P Future: "P2P and networked technologies are here to stay, are expanding, and will become the dominant technological format. Yet, that doesn’t mean at all that the future is a foregone conclusion. Around these technologies we will see political and social struggles that will involve ownership and governance (control), and also their mobilization by social forces having their own worldviews, interests and agenda."
Think about this a bit. It's been portrayed as a battle between good Google and bad Hollywood. So maybe you inherently trust a company funded by Google, only to find that the company is offering you a contract just like Hollywood used to offer.
That's been my overriding point in most of what I post here. It's not really about good tech versus bad Hollywood. The bigger issue is big versus small. I think big, public corporations inherently seek control as they can get it. As Hollywood's clout declines that doesn't mean the problems go away. These same issues then shift to other industries that have become the new establishment.
I'm not sure I need to look much farther. This alone would seem to explain why some people thought working with Machinima was a foot in the door.
Google Invests In Machinima YouTube Gamer Channel - Peter Kafka - Media - AllThingsD: "But the move has significant symbolism, because it’s the first time Google has openly backed a content company by taking an equity stake. YouTube is spending more than $100 million on its much-publicized channel program, but it is writing those checks as loans to content makers, and it recoups the money via ad sales."
That's a good question and I think I'll check out the coverage about them from last year. Here's something that is relevant. (My emphasis in the excerpt below.)
"Machinima Prime is part of YouTube’s strategy, started a year ago, to lure television viewers and advertisers with higher-quality videos, even if aimed at niche interests.
"YouTube invested about $100 million in the overall effort — Machinima received an undisclosed portion — and in recent weeks YouTube began evaluating which channels had done well enough to receive a second round of financing."
If you've followed my comments on Techdirt, you'll probably notice that they skew towards an Occupy Wall Street mentality. I'm often trying to poke holes into the tech-versus-Hollywood arguments because I don't consider replacing one big industry power block with another big industry power block to be progress.
I think the issues we confront today involve global economics and require us to look at new solutions. Tweaking one part of it without asking how we can radically transform ownership and power structures strikes me as just prolonging inequality and dodging some of the issues we, as a global economy, need to address.
I continually tell people to look at the P2P Foundation because there's a wealth of research/info/brainstorming about what we might be able to do with new technology. But the goal isn't to create more big companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and the like. It's to make them unnecessary. YouTube is a great resource, and likely needed Google's deep pockets to survive. But will it one day be possible to have a YouTube-like endeavor run as a collective, without corporate ownership/involvement?
How do we eliminate the need for privately run studios, offering bad contracts, feeding into YouTube? Why, in this day of DIY, did they fulfill an unmet need in the first place?
so it is all right to have a deficit since the other guy (Bush) did it first?
And not only have a deficit, but have one that is four times as large?
No. It just shows that even when the Republicans run Washington, they don't get rid of the deficit. Therefore, there's no reason to assume they are the solution.
If we eliminated all government jobs, contracts, and transfer payments, the economy would crash. That would likely be good for the environment because consumption would decline significantly, but I doubt any politician would support such drastic measures.
Here's a bit more about the site. I didn't know about it until today. I was doing some research on trademark bullying and saw the articles about it.
New Trademarkia Feature Exposes Biggest Trademark Bullies; Apple, Zynga Among Top Five | TechCrunch: "... it’s been difficult to find out which companies are just standing up for their rights and which companies are actively bullying. Trademarkia’s searchable database goes some of the way towards improving this, letting users view plaintiffs and defendants within each category, and to quickly browse prosecution history and trademark details.
"This allows users to get a better sense of the bullies vs fair opposition problem, and more easily make ourselves aware of when Facebook sues a company because they have 'book' in their name or 'face' — or Apple claims it owns 'Pad' or bullying users of 'app' and 'pod' — for example. (And, in its defense, Facebook has often found itself on the victim’s end as well.)"
That said, I agree that big tech companies can be pretty bad about their bullying, and we've written stories about all three companies you named and their overreach on trademarks.
Could you point me to them? I did a search of Techdirt and only found one entry on Apple and trademarks. Nothing about either Google or Facebook, but maybe I didn't search correctly.
This post is more what I expect from people skeptical about claims of copying. That's why the whole brouhaha over Coulton's umbrage seemed a bit out of character for the tech community. Copying is going to happen. Not everyone is going to get credit. That's the way things are headed. At some point people won't even be discussing this stuff.
Re: Re: What if the program had been developed for stock trading or gambling?
And I just saw this article. A great piece. It talks about how change can play out, either in a good way, by allowing lots of people to enjoy the rewards of not having to work, or in a bad way, by having lots of people with no jobs and no income. The open source movement can be quite revolutionary when you envision where it can go.
America Has Hit “Peak Jobs” | TechCrunch: "... in the coming decades you can expect a self-perpetuating privileged elite to accrue more and more of the wealth generated by software and robots, telling themselves that they’re carrying the entire world on their backs, Ayn Rand heroes come to life, while all the lazy jobless 'takers' live off the fruits of their labor. Meanwhile, as the unemployed masses grow ever more frustrated and resentful, the Occupy protests will be a mere candle flame next to the conflagrations to come. It’s hard to see how that turns into a post-scarcity society. Something big will need to change."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does Glee really have to credit an arranger?
That could be a great idea, but the person they're copying should be in the know.
I have many friends in creative fields (and I have been a professional writer myself in some capacity for more than 30 years), so I can understand the annoyance when a work is copied without credit.
However, I think there's been a bit of a double standard for Coulton because he has friends in the tech community. Other people who have said their ideas have been "ripped off" haven't gotten equal support on the issue. He was no more or less ripped off than other people whose ideas are copied or mimicked. I think rampant copying is where we're headed and we all need to adjust accordingly.
It is about changing the world, making software available for non-political campaigners in the USA and political parties in the civilised world, just as nationbuilder.com is open for everyone to use (although with technology that is state-of-the-art in 2008).
According to this article, the value of the technology was in how to reach the right people in the right ways. It was about maximizing resources.
Is that something that you think is part of changing the world?
I'm just tossing that out there for discussion. Is this technology important for non-political campaigners, either to counterbalance what the political campaigners are doing, or to allow them to use the same techniques as political campaigners? What about big data that companies like Google and Facebook and others might be collecting? Would it be useful to put that into the public domain? Should they? What is open source and what is proprietary?
The Real Story Behind Obama's Election Victory: "Persuasion models tackle a particularly intricate form of prediction. Beyond identifying voters who will come out for Obama if contacted, these models had to distinguish those voters who would come out for Obama in any case (sure things) – as well as those who in fact were at risk of being turned off by campaign contact and switching over to vote for Mitt Romney."
Did Glee have to tell people, "We're copying Judy and Barbra" or did they figure fans would already know or word-of-mouth would do the job for them? Perhaps shows like Glee won't bother identifying the inspiration and it's up to the fans to figure it out themselves. Kind of a game.
Again I'm not saying how things should or shouldn't be. I'm just pointing out that when people can copy, they will copy, and for various reasons the source of the idea may or may not be identified.
On the post: Broken Copyright: Jonathan Coulton Is Actually Infringing Copyright, But Glee Is Not
Re: Re: Wouldn't reform make each less accountable to the other?
True, but I am assuming no one on Techdirt wants copyright to be more restrictive, so I was addressing the concept of how screwed up copyright is and whether it needs to be reformed. Reforming it so that it is less restrictive wouldn't protect Coulton, I assume. Reforming it so that he has a bigger legal claim seems to be heading in a direction different that what Techdirt seems to advocate.
On the post: Broken Copyright: Jonathan Coulton Is Actually Infringing Copyright, But Glee Is Not
Re: Re: But wouldn't that mean...
Which means that it is Fox, not Coulton, through its actions is actually allowing a liberal interpretation of copyright law. If it is in Fox's best interests to discourage copyright from extending to unauthorized recordings, then ultimately that benefits others who do the same thing. The goal, then, isn't to make sure Coulton is protected, but to make sure others can do what Fox has done.
Just tossing that out there.
On the post: Broken Copyright: Jonathan Coulton Is Actually Infringing Copyright, But Glee Is Not
Wouldn't reform make each less accountable to the other?
In other words, let's say there's copyright reform. It wouldn't help Coulton in any way in this particular dispute, would it? All it would do is eliminate the money that goes to the current copyright holders.
I'm still having trouble grasping why Coulton thinks he's been a victim here any more than anyone else who thinks their ideas have been copied or mimicked.
On the post: YouTube Stars Fighting YouTube Networks Over Their Contracts
Anyone have more info about this?
ReadWrite – Did YouTube Buy Fake VEVO Video Views? "His original views bot was so successful, spk claims, that Google approached him and asked him to bot videos for VEVO back when the music conglomerate first started putting content on YouTube.
"... spk alleged he was originally hired as a coding and system maintenance employee for YouTube in 2007, but in 2009 was told to bot VEVO videos.
"... YouTube declined to comment on spk's claims of employment or botting, but a company representative did confirm that spk received a large monetary sum from Google for identifying a security risk. And spk, whose real name has been redacted upon his request, is listed on the Google Hall of Fame security site."
On the post: YouTube Stars Fighting YouTube Networks Over Their Contracts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Capitalism is the core issue
There's so much I could point you to, but it would overwhelm this conversation. But here's a good place to start.
Four scenarios for the inevitable P2P Future: "P2P and networked technologies are here to stay, are expanding, and will become the dominant technological format. Yet, that doesn’t mean at all that the future is a foregone conclusion. Around these technologies we will see political and social struggles that will involve ownership and governance (control), and also their mobilization by social forces having their own worldviews, interests and agenda."
On the post: YouTube Stars Fighting YouTube Networks Over Their Contracts
Re: Re: Why sign with Machinima?
That's been my overriding point in most of what I post here. It's not really about good tech versus bad Hollywood. The bigger issue is big versus small. I think big, public corporations inherently seek control as they can get it. As Hollywood's clout declines that doesn't mean the problems go away. These same issues then shift to other industries that have become the new establishment.
On the post: YouTube Stars Fighting YouTube Networks Over Their Contracts
Re: Why sign with Machinima?
Google Invests In Machinima YouTube Gamer Channel - Peter Kafka - Media - AllThingsD: "But the move has significant symbolism, because it’s the first time Google has openly backed a content company by taking an equity stake. YouTube is spending more than $100 million on its much-publicized channel program, but it is writing those checks as loans to content makers, and it recoups the money via ad sales."
On the post: YouTube Stars Fighting YouTube Networks Over Their Contracts
Wny sign with Machinima?
Machinima Using Game-Themed Videos to Lure Young Men - NYTimes.com: "The company — with backing from MK Capital, Redpoint Ventures and Google, which owns YouTube — also has a significant presence on mobile devices.
"Machinima Prime is part of YouTube’s strategy, started a year ago, to lure television viewers and advertisers with higher-quality videos, even if aimed at niche interests.
"YouTube invested about $100 million in the overall effort — Machinima received an undisclosed portion — and in recent weeks YouTube began evaluating which channels had done well enough to receive a second round of financing."
On the post: YouTube Stars Fighting YouTube Networks Over Their Contracts
The new system much like the old system
I think the issues we confront today involve global economics and require us to look at new solutions. Tweaking one part of it without asking how we can radically transform ownership and power structures strikes me as just prolonging inequality and dodging some of the issues we, as a global economy, need to address.
I continually tell people to look at the P2P Foundation because there's a wealth of research/info/brainstorming about what we might be able to do with new technology. But the goal isn't to create more big companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and the like. It's to make them unnecessary. YouTube is a great resource, and likely needed Google's deep pockets to survive. But will it one day be possible to have a YouTube-like endeavor run as a collective, without corporate ownership/involvement?
How do we eliminate the need for privately run studios, offering bad contracts, feeding into YouTube? Why, in this day of DIY, did they fulfill an unmet need in the first place?
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
Re: Re: Re: D's amaze me
And not only have a deficit, but have one that is four times as large?
No. It just shows that even when the Republicans run Washington, they don't get rid of the deficit. Therefore, there's no reason to assume they are the solution.
If we eliminated all government jobs, contracts, and transfer payments, the economy would crash. That would likely be good for the environment because consumption would decline significantly, but I doubt any politician would support such drastic measures.
On the post: Drink Up: Power Hour Trademark Bully Loses; Musician Plans Victory Tour
Re: This site is interesting
New Trademarkia Feature Exposes Biggest Trademark Bullies; Apple, Zynga Among Top Five | TechCrunch: "... it’s been difficult to find out which companies are just standing up for their rights and which companies are actively bullying. Trademarkia’s searchable database goes some of the way towards improving this, letting users view plaintiffs and defendants within each category, and to quickly browse prosecution history and trademark details.
"This allows users to get a better sense of the bullies vs fair opposition problem, and more easily make ourselves aware of when Facebook sues a company because they have 'book' in their name or 'face' — or Apple claims it owns 'Pad' or bullying users of 'app' and 'pod' — for example. (And, in its defense, Facebook has often found itself on the victim’s end as well.)"
On the post: Drink Up: Power Hour Trademark Bully Loses; Musician Plans Victory Tour
Re: Re: Re: This site is interesting
Google Sending Cease And Desist Letters Just For Using Google Logo | Techdirt
On the post: Drink Up: Power Hour Trademark Bully Loses; Musician Plans Victory Tour
Re: Re: This site is interesting
Could you point me to them? I did a search of Techdirt and only found one entry on Apple and trademarks. Nothing about either Google or Facebook, but maybe I didn't search correctly.
On the post: OXO Shows The Right Way To Respond To Bogus 'Outrage' Over 'Copied' Product
But of course if it were Coulton :-)
On the post: Drink Up: Power Hour Trademark Bully Loses; Musician Plans Victory Tour
This site is interesting
Trademarkia
There are some familiar tech names. Facebook is on the list of the top bullies in all categories.
Google and Apple are on the list in Advertising, Business, and Retail Services.
I haven't gone through everything, but if one wants to explore trademark bullying, this might be a good resource.
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
Re: Re: What if the program had been developed for stock trading or gambling?
America Has Hit “Peak Jobs” | TechCrunch: "... in the coming decades you can expect a self-perpetuating privileged elite to accrue more and more of the wealth generated by software and robots, telling themselves that they’re carrying the entire world on their backs, Ayn Rand heroes come to life, while all the lazy jobless 'takers' live off the fruits of their labor. Meanwhile, as the unemployed masses grow ever more frustrated and resentful, the Occupy protests will be a mere candle flame next to the conflagrations to come. It’s hard to see how that turns into a post-scarcity society. Something big will need to change."
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does Glee really have to credit an arranger?
I have many friends in creative fields (and I have been a professional writer myself in some capacity for more than 30 years), so I can understand the annoyance when a work is copied without credit.
However, I think there's been a bit of a double standard for Coulton because he has friends in the tech community. Other people who have said their ideas have been "ripped off" haven't gotten equal support on the issue. He was no more or less ripped off than other people whose ideas are copied or mimicked. I think rampant copying is where we're headed and we all need to adjust accordingly.
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
Re: Overseas use
According to this article, the value of the technology was in how to reach the right people in the right ways. It was about maximizing resources.
Is that something that you think is part of changing the world?
I'm just tossing that out there for discussion. Is this technology important for non-political campaigners, either to counterbalance what the political campaigners are doing, or to allow them to use the same techniques as political campaigners? What about big data that companies like Google and Facebook and others might be collecting? Would it be useful to put that into the public domain? Should they? What is open source and what is proprietary?
The Real Story Behind Obama's Election Victory: "Persuasion models tackle a particularly intricate form of prediction. Beyond identifying voters who will come out for Obama if contacted, these models had to distinguish those voters who would come out for Obama in any case (sure things) – as well as those who in fact were at risk of being turned off by campaign contact and switching over to vote for Mitt Romney."
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
Re: Re: Re: Does Glee really have to credit an arranger?
Get Happy & Happy Days Are Here Again - Glee's Kurt & Rachel w/ Barbra & Judy - YouTube
Did Glee have to tell people, "We're copying Judy and Barbra" or did they figure fans would already know or word-of-mouth would do the job for them? Perhaps shows like Glee won't bother identifying the inspiration and it's up to the fans to figure it out themselves. Kind of a game.
Again I'm not saying how things should or shouldn't be. I'm just pointing out that when people can copy, they will copy, and for various reasons the source of the idea may or may not be identified.
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
Re: Re: Does Glee really have to credit an arranger?
► get happy / happy days are here again (glee cast) || full performance - YouTube
Next >>