Here's a much more famous example of Glee copying an arrangement. Did Glee ever credit where the inspiration came from? Of course, even if they didn't, it was totally unnecessary because people already knew.
Folks, there are going to be mimics and homages all the time, and credit isn't going to be given in each case. In fact, it may not be given on the assumption that you "get" it. Perhaps Glee thought Coulton was more famous than Coulton views himself.
Re: What if the program had been developed for stock trading or gambling?
Many of my comments on Techdirt are to encourage people to think about a world where everything that can be copied will be copied, and a world where more items are put into the commons to be shared.
Right now the business structure of the world is actually headed the other way, with power/wealth concentrated in fewer hands, facilitated by the rise of multinationals. But at the grassroots level, more people are experimenting with a shareable economy, either because they like playing around with an open source/P2P economy, or out of necessity because they don't have enough money/resources to do otherwise.
We can either see the world owned by more Googles/Facebooks/Apples, or we can see a world where everything is decentralized and no one amasses ownership of anything in significant amounts.
Here's another one of those "disruptive" papers pondering the future.
Cloud Computing as Enclosure | David Bollier: "There are already signs that large corporations like Google, Facebook, Twitter and all the rest will quietly warp the design architecture of the Internet to serve their business interests first. A terrific overview of the troubling issues raised by the Cloud can be found in the essay, 'The Cloud: Boundless Digital Potential or Enclosure 3.0,' by David Lametti, a law professor at McGill University, and published by the Virginia Journal of Law & Technology."
What if the program had been developed for stock trading or gambling?
As I wrote earlier in the comments, my suggestion would be to do a trade: put this software in the commons along with putting more environmental assets into the commons. Everyone gets something in the deal. I'll share when you share.
But actually, perhaps we should look at this in comparison to what might happen if someone developed a trading program that gave a brokerage house an advantage or gave a gambler an advantage. Fairness would suggest that putting code out into the public would be good, but if doing so would eliminate the advantage the original possessor had, would it happen?
Can we eliminate competition around the world with shared code? I know that in Techdirt it has been argued that it is always execution that makes the difference. But what if the goal is to eliminate differences in execution so that there are, at best, only momentary advantages? What if a country develops something that gives it an advantage over another country? Should coders feel an obligation to publish the info to make sure there are no competitive advantages among countries? Similarly, should coders work outside the corporate system so that once they learn how one company excels over another, they feel obligated to teach all potential competitors to eliminate those advantages?
I think the ethics of open source are the driving force behind the P2P Foundation. The goal isn't just to share code, but to share EVERYTHING as much as possible to significantly change marketplace economics. Open source at its most expansive level seeks to limit inequalities and competitive advantages throughout every system.
The German Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe has acknowledged that an Internet connection is indispensable for life in the modern world, and that being cut off for several months deserves monetary compensation per day for the knock-on losses that inevitably causes
The thing is, with some people pushing for privatization of as much as possible, society might actually be headed the other way. If you can't pay for it, you don't get it: health care, food, education, clean water and air, etc.
Discussing what everyone should have access to, even when they don't have the ability to pay, is a great topic for discussion.
They re-elect a guy who spent $1 trillion plus per year in new national deficit while a D controlled Senate never even put forth a budget. At the rate Obama is going the next election won't matter, this country will be sunk.
During the Bush years when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate where was that focus on reducing the deficit? Somehow during those years the country went from a surplus to a deficit. Maybe if someone has said, "You know, if we want to fight these wars, we'd better raise taxes. Or maybe we shouldn't be fighting these wars in the first place."
If you can prevent people from voting and if you can make sure the votes that you do get always add up in your favor, why bother with campaign software?
This came out a few days ago, but I am only now getting around to reading it.
Dotcom: Now I'm After Google | Stuff.co.nz: "'Right now Google is linking to all this content and even though Google is a great company and I love them and their attitude, Google is the largest index of pirated content in the world and they don't pay any licence holder and they are in business and they are doing really well,' he said.
"'So if my software can force companies like Google to pay their little share to content creators, it wouldn't really hurt them.'"
With regard to cyber war, there are plenty of non-government relatively unbiased sources that are saying the same thing.
That's why I put the link to the article about Google seeking help from the US government over China hacking. Private companies are going to be working with the US government when it furthers both of their goals. I doubt that all of that is going to be widely disclosed, but I imagine it will continue to happen.
And private contractors are doing a lot of the security work for the US government anyway, so the line between them can be hard to discern.
Why Does Google Still Reward Content Scraping?: "... BI's stub stories rarely show up in Google and almost never outrank the stories they link to. This is by design: 'We put a note for Google in the post's metadata that tells Google to ignore our post, and give the "juice" to the original story. We do this by noting a canonical link,' says Carlson. 'It would be a lousy user experience to come to our site from Google and see "Click here to read the [publication] story,"' he says, noting more generally that it's just 'a nice way to treat other publishers.'"
Seems like there were be more joint efforts between private companies and government
Court Upholds Google-NSA Relationship Secrecy | Threat Level | Wired.com: "A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the National Security Agency’s decision to withhold from the public documents confirming or denying any relationship it has with Google concerning encryption and cybersecurity.
"That’s despite the fact that Google itself admitted it turned to 'U.S. authorities,' which obviously includes the NSA, after the search giant’s Chinese operation was deeply hacked. Former NSA chief Mike McConnell told the Washington Post that collaboration between the NSA and private companies like Google was 'inevitable.'”
Here. This just came out. My point in all my comments about this is that it will happen far more in the future. Knowing who created what is going to be harder to discern and a lot of people aren't going to bother.
How Twitter’s new embeds will make social media’s copyright issues even weirder: "... when a Tweet is set loose from its network, carrying with it video, photography, false attribution, and questionable copyright, it ceases to be a part of an ongoing, evolving conversation, and the best practices or expectations of that community no longer matter."
In a supposedly "market based" economy, I don't see much value given to artists.
Yes, your art can easily be free if other things are free, too. If you live in a world where you don't have to sell goods/services to survive, then creation for creations' sake is much more doable.
I see the economic crunch continuing. As wealth concentrates in a few hands, everyone else has to figure out how to get by on little, which is going to penalize artists especially because their fans won't have the extra cash to support them.
Suzanne Lainson and others, you are crazy to think that Coulton shouldn't be bothered by this. Coulton did the work to arrange the song. Coulton did the work to play the music. Coulton should not just be happy that Glee is exposing his work tho a bigger audience because we have no evidence that Fox was going to let the audience know that this was Coulton's work.
You've missed what I was saying. I'm saying this is where it is all headed and everyone is going to have to adjust to the new realities. I don't argue for or against copyright because the situation we have now is what we have. Where I have gotten into arguments on Techdirt is when I refuse to buy the idea that getting rid of copyright will be BETTER for artists. No, what I argue is that what will be better for artists is to have an economic system where one doesn't have to sell one's creativity to pay the bills. There are other alternatives to consider. Give away your art, but also get food, health care, housing, etc. for little or no money. I like the discussions over at the P2P Foundation because they look at other options than what we have now.
I, too, an skeptical of the "exposure" argument because it still puts creatives into a position to have to sell something. And as I look at overall economic conditions, I think selling anything that isn't a basic necessity will be hard unless your fans are affluent and have money to spend on what you are selling.
Actually, they did use his sound recording, and dubbed over it.
Let's say they used his recorded music without permission and he can sue for copyright violation. The next question is, should he, or should he even accept in any money from them?
Does it put him in the pro-copyright camp to accept payment? Or should he accept payment and donate it to charity?
I've very big on the demoncratization of creativity. Rather than have a class of creatives and the fans who follow them, I'd rather encourage everyone to tap into their own creativity. (I'm big on the maker and DIY movements. There's satisfaction in doing it yourself rather than paying someone else to do it for you.)
In my ideal economic scenario, we would find ways to provide for everyone's basic needs. Then whatever they want to do with their free time is up to them. They can paint, write songs, perform songs, write books, make stuff, etc. But they don't need to sell any of it to live. So ownership of creativity becomes much less of a factor because you're not depending on selling your creativity. It's there as a common resource. But I am only advocating this vast commons as part of a much larger economic vision.
There's really a lot to explore in all of this. Is your identity tied up in what you create (in which case you want to stay linked to it) or is your identify tied up in the process of creating, in which case after you have finished, you let it go, share it, invite modification, or whatever?
People who are trying to make a living at creation want to remain linked to the creation for that reason. They want credit. However, if creation isn't the way one pays the bills, then the financial rewards don't matter and it becomes a matter of identity/ego. How much do we need/want to be recognized for what we create? Can we do it and let it go? Or, even more so, can we create and encourage people to make it their own for the greater good? How selfless is art/creation?
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
Re: Does Glee really have to credit an arranger?
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
Does Glee really have to credit an arranger?
Folks, there are going to be mimics and homages all the time, and credit isn't going to be given in each case. In fact, it may not be given on the assumption that you "get" it. Perhaps Glee thought Coulton was more famous than Coulton views himself.
Streisand/Garland Duet and The Glee Reprise Rachel/Kurt | BillRisser.com
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
Re: What if the program had been developed for stock trading or gambling?
Right now the business structure of the world is actually headed the other way, with power/wealth concentrated in fewer hands, facilitated by the rise of multinationals. But at the grassroots level, more people are experimenting with a shareable economy, either because they like playing around with an open source/P2P economy, or out of necessity because they don't have enough money/resources to do otherwise.
We can either see the world owned by more Googles/Facebooks/Apples, or we can see a world where everything is decentralized and no one amasses ownership of anything in significant amounts.
Here's another one of those "disruptive" papers pondering the future.
Cloud Computing as Enclosure | David Bollier: "There are already signs that large corporations like Google, Facebook, Twitter and all the rest will quietly warp the design architecture of the Internet to serve their business interests first. A terrific overview of the troubling issues raised by the Cloud can be found in the essay, 'The Cloud: Boundless Digital Potential or Enclosure 3.0,' by David Lametti, a law professor at McGill University, and published by the Virginia Journal of Law & Technology."
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
What if the program had been developed for stock trading or gambling?
But actually, perhaps we should look at this in comparison to what might happen if someone developed a trading program that gave a brokerage house an advantage or gave a gambler an advantage. Fairness would suggest that putting code out into the public would be good, but if doing so would eliminate the advantage the original possessor had, would it happen?
Can we eliminate competition around the world with shared code? I know that in Techdirt it has been argued that it is always execution that makes the difference. But what if the goal is to eliminate differences in execution so that there are, at best, only momentary advantages? What if a country develops something that gives it an advantage over another country? Should coders feel an obligation to publish the info to make sure there are no competitive advantages among countries? Similarly, should coders work outside the corporate system so that once they learn how one company excels over another, they feel obligated to teach all potential competitors to eliminate those advantages?
I think the ethics of open source are the driving force behind the P2P Foundation. The goal isn't just to share code, but to share EVERYTHING as much as possible to significantly change marketplace economics. Open source at its most expansive level seeks to limit inequalities and competitive advantages throughout every system.
On the post: German Court Recognizes That An Internet Connection Is Now Indispensable For Modern Life
Let's expand to other things, too
The thing is, with some people pushing for privatization of as much as possible, society might actually be headed the other way. If you can't pay for it, you don't get it: health care, food, education, clean water and air, etc.
Discussing what everyone should have access to, even when they don't have the ability to pay, is a great topic for discussion.
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
Re: D's amaze me
During the Bush years when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate where was that focus on reducing the deficit? Somehow during those years the country went from a surplus to a deficit. Maybe if someone has said, "You know, if we want to fight these wars, we'd better raise taxes. Or maybe we shouldn't be fighting these wars in the first place."
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
They probably don't need it
We did the math: how the GOP will gerrymander its way back to the White House — MSNBC
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
Re: Re: Re:
Presidential Election 2012 To Play Out On New Campaign Finance Field: "The 2012 contest will be the first since 1972 in which neither major-party candidate will accept presidential matching funds in the general election."
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
Re: How about this?
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
How about this?
On the post: Mega's Security Appears To Be Surprisingly Bad
Re: Re: Google Driving Piracy
Dotcom: Now I'm After Google | Stuff.co.nz: "'Right now Google is linking to all this content and even though Google is a great company and I love them and their attitude, Google is the largest index of pirated content in the world and they don't pay any licence holder and they are in business and they are doing really well,' he said.
"'So if my software can force companies like Google to pay their little share to content creators, it wouldn't really hurt them.'"
On the post: Cyber War: A One-Sided Battle Against A Trumped Up Enemy
Re: You're making a common mistake
That's why I put the link to the article about Google seeking help from the US government over China hacking. Private companies are going to be working with the US government when it furthers both of their goals. I doubt that all of that is going to be widely disclosed, but I imagine it will continue to happen.
And private contractors are doing a lot of the security work for the US government anyway, so the line between them can be hard to discern.
On the post: Dear HuffPo: Feel Free To Send Techdirt Traffic
One solution
On the post: Cyber War: A One-Sided Battle Against A Trumped Up Enemy
Seems like there were be more joint efforts between private companies and government
"That’s despite the fact that Google itself admitted it turned to 'U.S. authorities,' which obviously includes the NSA, after the search giant’s Chinese operation was deeply hacked. Former NSA chief Mike McConnell told the Washington Post that collaboration between the NSA and private companies like Google was 'inevitable.'”
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
Crediting people will get blurred
How Twitter’s new embeds will make social media’s copyright issues even weirder: "... when a Tweet is set loose from its network, carrying with it video, photography, false attribution, and questionable copyright, it ceases to be a part of an ongoing, evolving conversation, and the best practices or expectations of that community no longer matter."
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
Re: Re: Re: Work for pay
Yes, your art can easily be free if other things are free, too. If you live in a world where you don't have to sell goods/services to survive, then creation for creations' sake is much more doable.
I see the economic crunch continuing. As wealth concentrates in a few hands, everyone else has to figure out how to get by on little, which is going to penalize artists especially because their fans won't have the extra cash to support them.
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
Re: Work for pay
You've missed what I was saying. I'm saying this is where it is all headed and everyone is going to have to adjust to the new realities. I don't argue for or against copyright because the situation we have now is what we have. Where I have gotten into arguments on Techdirt is when I refuse to buy the idea that getting rid of copyright will be BETTER for artists. No, what I argue is that what will be better for artists is to have an economic system where one doesn't have to sell one's creativity to pay the bills. There are other alternatives to consider. Give away your art, but also get food, health care, housing, etc. for little or no money. I like the discussions over at the P2P Foundation because they look at other options than what we have now.
I, too, an skeptical of the "exposure" argument because it still puts creatives into a position to have to sell something. And as I look at overall economic conditions, I think selling anything that isn't a basic necessity will be hard unless your fans are affluent and have money to spend on what you are selling.
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
Re: Re:
Let's say they used his recorded music without permission and he can sue for copyright violation. The next question is, should he, or should he even accept in any money from them?
Does it put him in the pro-copyright camp to accept payment? Or should he accept payment and donate it to charity?
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
Re: Re: The exact replicas are coming
In my ideal economic scenario, we would find ways to provide for everyone's basic needs. Then whatever they want to do with their free time is up to them. They can paint, write songs, perform songs, write books, make stuff, etc. But they don't need to sell any of it to live. So ownership of creativity becomes much less of a factor because you're not depending on selling your creativity. It's there as a common resource. But I am only advocating this vast commons as part of a much larger economic vision.
On the post: Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
Re: The exact replicas are coming
People who are trying to make a living at creation want to remain linked to the creation for that reason. They want credit. However, if creation isn't the way one pays the bills, then the financial rewards don't matter and it becomes a matter of identity/ego. How much do we need/want to be recognized for what we create? Can we do it and let it go? Or, even more so, can we create and encourage people to make it their own for the greater good? How selfless is art/creation?
Next >>