"When it is no longer economically viable to produce the content you are all pirating, you will be left with little."
Funny, the amount of new work being released under open licenses like the creative commons seems to be growing steadily.
The Banshee music player links to more free content than I could ever listen to, and I've wasted more hours than I would like to admit sitting in front of YouTube. The cost of creating high-quality content has been dropping consistently over the past 20 years, and that drop in production costs has vastly accelerated in the last 3 years.
All this free stuff has lead to far more content being available. Too much content. The issue that must be addressed now is one of filtering, not production.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Photography is not art*. Jazz is not music.
"There have been many cases of musicians and other artists creating stuff in their sleep"
So the tens of thousands of hours they put in to reach that point mean nothing?
When Picasso was asked how long it took him to make a painting, he answered by telling them his age.
Stephen Leacock was a writer of both textbooks and a comedies. When people assumed his comedy was just him goofing around, while his textbooks were his serious work, he would reply by saying that the textbooks were easy, all he had to do was find and arrange the facts. The humour was hard, he had to create something new every time.
"I find that to be very snobbish."
I'm reminded of an old saying. Something about throwing stones...
What if the artist is also the one who created the photoshop filter? A lot of work and artistic choices goes into creating stuff like that too.
Then you have found one of the flaws in my argument. (and it only took you 10 minutes, too...)
As an artist (I was an artist before I was a photographer.) this is the kind of stuff that interests me the most. Digital media and copyright are some of the biggest issues going, an no artists are talking about it beyond saying "give me my money; I own everything!"
My last big project was a series of 'invisible paintings', where IR LEDs were hidden behind canvas. Our eyes can't see IR, but digital cameras can, so the only way to see the art is to photograph it, which museums and galleries don't allow visitors to do.
I kind of like it how most photographers aggressively cling to their copyrights, it gives me a competitive advantage: I sell the rights back to the client. Once the job is over, I don't need or want those images, I can offer a "deluxe package" where the copyrights are handed over to them with the prints. They are happy because, "hey, re-prints are free...in the long run, going with this guy is way cheaper than the rest..." and I'm happy because its 'for-sure' money, not 'maybe later' money. It's like selling deeds to plots of land on the moon, I'm getting their cash for giving them essentially nothing.
My opinion on this is not a very sound argument, but it's how I feel in my gut:
If the artist opend up the original photo and ran a 'pixelate' filter, it's infringement; if it's drawn by hand, pixel by pixel, (even if it's traced over the original photo) it should be considered an original artwork. I know that's an arbitrary distinction and the end results of both processes may be identical, but that's just how I feel about appropriation in art.
Even worse would be the guy who wants to avoid paying a licence fee for the content that appears in his production, Rogue film-makers, armed and roaming the streets, seeking out artists and 'public domaining' their work.
A few years ago, Canada held a series of copyright consultations, where the government sought (and ignored) the opinions of Canadians on all the issues surrounding copyright law.
Quite a few people (including myself) brought up the issue of crown copyright, suggesting that it should be abolished.
"Since it was paid for by the citizens, it should belong to the citizens" was my reasoning.
Some of the leaders seemed genuinely shocked by this idea. I don't understand how it could have been overlooked; we live right beside The States, and I do believe they had *some* influence in how things wend down...
I don't want to sound like I am defending these illegal detentions and destructions of personal of property, but having a camera pointed at your face can be intimidating for a lot of people.
Sometimes a confrontation can be avoided with some subtle trickery or deception.
For example, don't wave the camera in their face right from the start. Pretend you are recording a friend talking, or recording touristy things, then land on the scene at hand when their focus is no longer on you.
If that wont work, resolve the problem the Canadian way: smile politely and apologize in a way that sounds genuine. Show them that you are deleting the video/photos, and casually move along... Then run home and install some data recovery software, get your files back, and post everything on-line anonymously. Nothing is lost and a big legal hassle has been replaced with a much smaller technical hassle.
How about a speeding tax on gasoline. I mean...they know that everyone speeds, which is illegal, and they aren't catching everyone, so rather than needing to witness the crime itself, handing out a ticket, potentially taking it to trial the charges are disputed it, etc..... Lets just add a $0.10/ Litre speeding tax to gasoline!
When people know that they are pre-paying a speed tax on every drop of gas they buy, that will surely keep them driving at reasonable speeds, right?
Even though this story seems kind of silly on the surface, it wouldn't surprize me if this was the kind of work that leads to the true revolutionary breakthroughs in AI research.
I can't even imagine where to begin teaching a machine to recognize euphemisms, innuendo, allusions and metaphors.
Soon, we will be able to automate the production of great art and literature, freeing up a lot of time for us to hang out with the sentient robots and make dirty jokes.
It has been quite a while since I read Gladwell's original article, so I'm not sure if this was addressed or not, but is it possible that the speed and quantity of weak connections that build social networks overpower the much smaller number of strong personal connections?
100 real-life followers may matter far more than 100 twitter followers, but what about 1 000 000 twitter followers vs. 100 real life followers?
I can mail out 100 letters and get 20 RSVPs, half of which actually show up.
Or I send out 1000 facebook invites, have 10% click "attend" and only 10% of those actually show up.
Re: Re: For me it's not just about software cost but of time ...
In Ubuntu's defence, auto updates can be turned off fairly easily, and having an up-to-date system is good, especially in open source software, where any vulnerability is out in the open.
Saying that, I also find the daily updates annoying.
I would rather have an "run system update before shut down" option in the shut down menu than be bothered by that window every day.
Switching to Free software has saved me well over $1000 over the past 4 years. That doesn't mean I have $1000 in my wallet, that money was definitely spent elsewhere.
Eventually no one will be able to create anything due to all useful combinations of expression being previously copyrighted.
I've actually talked to several programmers about writing some software that generates midi files of every possible melody, just so we can hold all future musicians hostage. Using copyright to stop all musical progress for the next 100+ years!
(once you limit yourself the popular scales and tempos, and phrases of a reasonable length, that 'almost infinite' number actually becomes fairly manageable.)
I never understood the whole 'after death' thing they introduced into copyright
The argument I use is that if copyright lasted for the duration of the artists life, and their work went into the public domain the day the artist died, unscrupulous people people could get content for free by taking out the artist.
"That's a nice movie you've got there, but don't be asking too much for it, it'd be a shame if something happened to you..."
A better way (in my opinion) would be having copyright based entirely on the date of first publication. "Publication + 20 years" or so seems reasonable. Life + 50 or Life + 70 makes absolutely no sense.
The day I can sit down with an artificial being and have a reasonable discussion about why it should be grated rights is the day I will be willing to grant them.
well...that will be the day I will vote for robot rights...
well...that will be the day I will decide to vote in favour of robot rights in the next election.
I only hope the election comes before the robot uprising.
On the post: Marketing Music Through Non-Linear Communication: Accepting The Full Reality Of The Digital Age
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny, the amount of new work being released under open licenses like the creative commons seems to be growing steadily.
The Banshee music player links to more free content than I could ever listen to, and I've wasted more hours than I would like to admit sitting in front of YouTube. The cost of creating high-quality content has been dropping consistently over the past 20 years, and that drop in production costs has vastly accelerated in the last 3 years.
All this free stuff has lead to far more content being available. Too much content. The issue that must be addressed now is one of filtering, not production.
On the post: If Jay Maisel's Photograph Is Original Artwork, Then So Is The Pixelated Cover Of 'Kind Of Bloop'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Photography is not art*. Jazz is not music.
So the tens of thousands of hours they put in to reach that point mean nothing?
When Picasso was asked how long it took him to make a painting, he answered by telling them his age.
Stephen Leacock was a writer of both textbooks and a comedies. When people assumed his comedy was just him goofing around, while his textbooks were his serious work, he would reply by saying that the textbooks were easy, all he had to do was find and arrange the facts. The humour was hard, he had to create something new every time.
"I find that to be very snobbish."
I'm reminded of an old saying. Something about throwing stones...
On the post: If Jay Maisel's Photograph Is Original Artwork, Then So Is The Pixelated Cover Of 'Kind Of Bloop'
Re: Re:
Then you have found one of the flaws in my argument. (and it only took you 10 minutes, too...)
As an artist (I was an artist before I was a photographer.) this is the kind of stuff that interests me the most. Digital media and copyright are some of the biggest issues going, an no artists are talking about it beyond saying "give me my money; I own everything!"
My last big project was a series of 'invisible paintings', where IR LEDs were hidden behind canvas. Our eyes can't see IR, but digital cameras can, so the only way to see the art is to photograph it, which museums and galleries don't allow visitors to do.
On the post: If Jay Maisel's Photograph Is Original Artwork, Then So Is The Pixelated Cover Of 'Kind Of Bloop'
I kind of like it how most photographers aggressively cling to their copyrights, it gives me a competitive advantage: I sell the rights back to the client. Once the job is over, I don't need or want those images, I can offer a "deluxe package" where the copyrights are handed over to them with the prints. They are happy because, "hey, re-prints are free...in the long run, going with this guy is way cheaper than the rest..." and I'm happy because its 'for-sure' money, not 'maybe later' money. It's like selling deeds to plots of land on the moon, I'm getting their cash for giving them essentially nothing.
My opinion on this is not a very sound argument, but it's how I feel in my gut:
If the artist opend up the original photo and ran a 'pixelate' filter, it's infringement; if it's drawn by hand, pixel by pixel, (even if it's traced over the original photo) it should be considered an original artwork. I know that's an arbitrary distinction and the end results of both processes may be identical, but that's just how I feel about appropriation in art.
On the post: Supreme Court Not Interested In Dispute Over Steinbeck Heirs Trying To Reclaim Copyrights
Re:
On the post: Does It Make Sense For Governments To Make Their Content Creative Commons... Or Fully Public Domain?
Quite a few people (including myself) brought up the issue of crown copyright, suggesting that it should be abolished.
"Since it was paid for by the citizens, it should belong to the citizens" was my reasoning.
Some of the leaders seemed genuinely shocked by this idea. I don't understand how it could have been overlooked; we live right beside The States, and I do believe they had *some* influence in how things wend down...
On the post: When Citizens Elect Comedians Who Run For Office As A Joke...
fake politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Party_of_Canada_(1963%E2%80%931993)#Other_campaigns
"Penny Hoar, a safe sex activist, distributed condoms in Toronto while running under the slogan "Politicians screw you - protect yourself."
On the post: DailyDirt: Saving The Planet By Using Better Packaging
Re: Law Of Unintended Consequences
By all means, make better bottles, just don't tell me about it!
On the post: Police Claim That Allowing People To Film Them In Public Creates 'Chilling Effects'
tips
Sometimes a confrontation can be avoided with some subtle trickery or deception.
For example, don't wave the camera in their face right from the start. Pretend you are recording a friend talking, or recording touristy things, then land on the scene at hand when their focus is no longer on you.
If that wont work, resolve the problem the Canadian way: smile politely and apologize in a way that sounds genuine. Show them that you are deleting the video/photos, and casually move along... Then run home and install some data recovery software, get your files back, and post everything on-line anonymously. Nothing is lost and a big legal hassle has been replaced with a much smaller technical hassle.
On the post: The Stupidity Of 'You Must Be A Criminal' Copyright Taxes: The SD Card Edition
Re: Re: Re: In other news
When people know that they are pre-paying a speed tax on every drop of gas they buy, that will surely keep them driving at reasonable speeds, right?
On the post: Scientists Finally Tackle The Age Old 'That's What She Said' Problem
I can't even imagine where to begin teaching a machine to recognize euphemisms, innuendo, allusions and metaphors.
Soon, we will be able to automate the production of great art and literature, freeing up a lot of time for us to hang out with the sentient robots and make dirty jokes.
On the post: Professor Gets Tenure With The Help Of His Wikipedia Contributions
Re:
On the post: Gladwell Logic: There Was War Before Nuclear Bombs Existed, Thus Nukes Have No Impact On War
Re: Still Some Validity
100 real-life followers may matter far more than 100 twitter followers, but what about 1 000 000 twitter followers vs. 100 real life followers?
I can mail out 100 letters and get 20 RSVPs, half of which actually show up.
Or I send out 1000 facebook invites, have 10% click "attend" and only 10% of those actually show up.
In both cases, the same number of people show up.
At what point does quantity overpower quality?
On the post: Obama Secretly Accepts Transparency Award...
Re:
I don't know, reviving a transparency award in secret is pretty hilarious.
Whether there were dangers or not, it's still a good story, one that is far too easy of a target to pass up.
I got a very good chuckle out of it.
On the post: According To Microsoft's Own Numbers, Microsoft Costs The World Economy $500 Billion
Re: Re: For me it's not just about software cost but of time ...
Saying that, I also find the daily updates annoying.
I would rather have an "run system update before shut down" option in the shut down menu than be bothered by that window every day.
Switching to Free software has saved me well over $1000 over the past 4 years. That doesn't mean I have $1000 in my wallet, that money was definitely spent elsewhere.
On the post: Reason #247 Why You Should Pay For The NYTimes: To Keep Its Dead Obituary Writers Employed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've actually talked to several programmers about writing some software that generates midi files of every possible melody, just so we can hold all future musicians hostage. Using copyright to stop all musical progress for the next 100+ years!
(once you limit yourself the popular scales and tempos, and phrases of a reasonable length, that 'almost infinite' number actually becomes fairly manageable.)
On the post: South Korea Wants To Mandate Everyone Must Install 'Security' Software To Prevent 'Zombies'
alternate OSes
Would Linux be outlawed until there is an approved program for it?
What if the approved software isn't compatible with your distro?
Will this software slow down StarCraft at all?
On the post: Reason #247 Why You Should Pay For The NYTimes: To Keep Its Dead Obituary Writers Employed
Re: Re:
The argument I use is that if copyright lasted for the duration of the artists life, and their work went into the public domain the day the artist died, unscrupulous people people could get content for free by taking out the artist.
"That's a nice movie you've got there, but don't be asking too much for it, it'd be a shame if something happened to you..."
A better way (in my opinion) would be having copyright based entirely on the date of first publication. "Publication + 20 years" or so seems reasonable. Life + 50 or Life + 70 makes absolutely no sense.
On the post: Am I Violating The DMCA By Visiting The NYTimes With NoScript Enabled?
Re: Even better question
Believe it or not, someone has tried to argue that viewing a page source is illegal in the past:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071017/092927.shtml
On the post: When Will We Have To Grant Artificial Intelligence Personhood?
well...that will be the day I will vote for robot rights...
well...that will be the day I will decide to vote in favour of robot rights in the next election.
I only hope the election comes before the robot uprising.
Next >>