I read the post as saying SATIRE isn't protected while parody is. In other words you can't use Dr Seuss like characters in a satire even if the characters aren't borrowed from Dr Seuss and that the illustrations clearly aren't his but someone else's borrowing the style.
And most satirical work is heavily political in one form or another.
I'd have to see more of the work to but, on the surface, it's sad that it came to an end with a C&D request/order.
Recorded music is about 120 years old, movies about the same so "centuries" isn't correct.
Books printed by movable type in the western world came after Gutenberg developed his printing press and you can bet your bottom dollar that people who made their living copying by hand weren't the least bit pleased to see that come along.
Similar resistance met photography in its early days from painters and sketchers who had previously done the kind of work early photography began to do.
Recorded music was considered inferior to live music well into the 1930s and 40s that most music heard on radio was live rather than recorded and "music" only radio formats didn't appear until the 1950s only after radio had to compete with television for the kind of programming they'd run until TV came along.
I do agree that to say they can't exist at all (past tense) without the Internet is incorrect. To say they won't exist (present and future tense) at all if they don't adapt is likely accurate, at least not in the way they do now and certainly not as large and powerful as they are now.
It's evolution, in a way. Adapt and survive, don't adapt and become extinct. Story telling, making movies or video will continue to happen, music will continue to be played live and reproduced but the reproduction will be digital and likely done in smaller more widely spread locations than the analog studio model we have now.
The danger for the RIAA, the MPAA and the publishing industry isn't that the products they make will vanish but that they will, at least as a major force, if they don't adapt and soon.
I'll close by saying that I object to the term "copyright industries" in that what's being referred to doesn't encompass all the things, creations and businesses who use copyright in a different fashion for their own products. It muddies the waters rather than clarify things. Yes, I know that's not necessarily your term but the person you quote but I thought I'd state my objection to that term anyway.
Even if you're correct that legal file sharing "is such a small amount of what is really going on out there", and I'd argue that it isn't. you're prepared to stop even that to prevent "illegal" infringing copying? Or the transitory copying that allows things like computers, LANS and the Internet function correctly?
Neither copy or replica mean that I have obtained a song, for example, without paying for it. And your repeated attempts to recast those words into something "evil" wear thin after a while, speaking of weasel words.
What aren't weasel words are that the MPAA and RIAA or their equivalents around the world, have serviced an existing demand in the marketplace. So, like it or not, the marketplace has gotten what it wanted by other means. Most industries would respond simply by filling the demand that's there and making a buck or million but not the people you defend.
The problem isn't with the marketplace it's with a group of companies that can't see beyond the end of their noses, rather like you can't. For better or worse the clock can't be turned back, the Internet and the Web are realities that aren't going anywhere and it doesn't matter how many attempts you make to try to force the Internet and the Web into a form of what existed before they did they won't.
You refuse to accept that no matter how much evidence is there that you can't turn the clock back you keep trying.
"One of the definitions of insanity is repeating the same behaviour over and over again expecting different results." But that is exactly what you, the *AAs and others don't seem to get.
Of course artists should be rewarded (paid) for their efforts if those efforts find a market. Many don't. That's one of the risks of being an artist. But they should be paid at a price the marketplace will accept even if it isn't the price the artist wants. And no, the price isn't necessarily free, though it could be.
The specialist at weasel words isn't anyone here it's you, my friend, and I suggest you find a new tune and lyrics to sing. You're beyond tiresome.
This is the classic "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil" response to something that really isn't that much of a problem to start with.
Am I surprised that an unbalanced individual would visit "sites that advocate terrorism or carrying calls for hate or violence"? Not in the least. Would such a law have stopped the shooter in the recent violence in France? No. So why criminalize what you're not going to stop? And way punish researchers into that sort of thing by calling them habitual visitors to such sites?
Sarkozy is in danger of losing his job in the upcoming French elections so I suspect this grandstanding is largely what all that's about. Appeal to his base.
Not that France is about to ban porn. This is France, after all, where you can see soft core on your TV set at home.
In many ways this urge to blame the Internet for everything falls into the same category as blaming comic books for violence in the late 1940s and 1950s and blaming rock'n'roll for just about everything our parents didn't like from the 1950s onwards. Neither had a shred of evidence to them but one brought us the Comics Code Authority which pretty much emasculated that art form and the other led to record burnings, phrases like "jungle music" and worse because rock's origins were in in black culture in the United States.
It got Sarkozy face time here and in other places and that's all he wants, dangerous and silly as the idea is.
There really isn't much of a level shit disturbers like Sarkozy won't sink below. Even if it's below the shit in the outhouse.
If the comments I'm reading on the Facebook group you have the link to are correct there appears to be a major stall over the United States trying to "export", or "colonize" as one comment read, American IP laws across the Pacific. I can't see if that's partially a reading by Pacific Rim countries of the reaction to ACTA in Europe or simply their reluctance to get caught up what they might perceive as being forced to do what they are told by Europeans or Americans any more. If the word colonization is being used that's a very loaded word around the Pacific Rim given their history. (Not just with Europe and America but with China and Japan as well.)
It's also mildly amusing to see that these negotiations are almost as leaky as ACTA was and some of the issues seem to be exactly the same around IP issues, and that's a reluctance to follow the American route. Though I'm hard pressed to say what's worse the American route or the "three strikes" and you're off the Internet route that seems so popular in Europe right now.
All that said various governments do need to be shot for conducting these negotiations in so much secrecy. There's really no need unless, of course, they're hiding something.
I'm still wondering just how, really, even a moron in a hurry can mistake a movie for a pub. Trademark protection doesn't apply unless there's the possibility of confusion on the public's part and I don't think most of us are stupid enough to make that mistake.
Actually all SZC needs to do to protect it's copyright on the movie is charge $1 a year.
Part of the criticism is that the name "The Hobbit" and the accompanying story has been licensed to SZC by Tolkien's estate and isn't really theirs at all except as it relates to the movie. If it's trade mark just how in heaven does even a moron in a hurry mistake a pub for a movie?
Yes, they do deserve credit for backing off and muzzling their lawyers. But the point is that they don't have all the IP surrounding LoTR or The Hobbit just for their movie. Everything else is Tolkien's estate and it doesn't look like they've ever complained.
Though the copyrights on the books are still in place I'd agree that you would think that John or Christopher would have gone after them by now if it was a serious issue in these little pubs.
It's still all crap. a serious and silly overreach by the producers of a film I WAS looking forward to seeing in an actual movie theatre. WAS.
There have been plenty of images of both The Hobbit and LOTR over the years which this pub may have that have nothing at all to do with this movie.
For example calendars by The Brothers Hildebrandt and some with art by Tolkien himself. If these have been there for years and no one has complained of infringement why should they get rid of them? They predate the upcoming movie and have nothing at all to do with it. I don't see any infringement on the movie with any of that.
The strange thing is you'd think that if there was ACTUAL infringement either the producers of the LOTR movies or Tolkien's estate would have chased it down long before now.
The first spreadsheet was VisiCalc which everyone pretty much copied and improved on since then, even Microsoft.
And we freetards may use LibreOffice or OpenOffice.
And in the coding world, by the way, the code is protected by copyright. The idea, as you say isn't. Which is why there are is a small flock of spreadsheets about these days.
So you get to code yourself a spreadsheet if it's not a direct steal of the code of what you're basing it on.
Access was a communications program and a dog at that. Now, if I remember correctly, it's a database included in Office.
Anyway, it would be nice if you knew about copyright and how it affects programming.
As for software patents, far, far too often the DO protect the idea (i.e. One Click patent) rather than the implementation of that idea.
I'd go on but you're stuck in a mindset glued together with SuperGlue so I don't think I can pry it apart.
That's the short form of what really happened. While the patent did earn James Watt a ton of money there's no doubt it held things back until the patent expired.
There has been some argument over whether or not the explosion in innovation would have occurred had people not been forced to try to design around or whether it would have occurred anyway. I tend to side with those who say it would have happened, and sooner, had the patent not existed.
I still don't see where the parent's faith comes into this at all. There don't appear to be any reports that the kid's mom is a Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise, though suddenly that conclusion is being jumped to. Oh, I see. South Carolina. It must be then!
Still, religion or the lack thereof doesn't prevent monumental stupidity.
Oh, FYI, God and Allah are the same deity. Different names, same deity.
The movie industry pirated tons way back in it's wayward youth. Ignored patents and copyrights, refused to pay damages and just went ahead making those good old silent films we grin at so much.
Later on companies around the MPAA did innovate, colour, sound and so on. But they were already in threat mode which they refined a bit when VCRs came along.
Now they whip out the paperwork for lawsuits is whipped out at the sniff of possible infringement 40 years down the road.
And we get remakes of My Mother The Car and John Carter (but not of Mars!!!). Now THAT's innovation!
They believe too many of the bad New York mob films they made where the mobster/protection guys all looked like male models and the women were gorgeous models so the baddie changed his mind about shooting her.
The main difference is the the MPAA doesn't change it's mind if you're a gorgeous model or not.
That's if and only if things go against Hotfile both at the district court level and appeal should a summary judgement be granted and be favourable to the MPAA.
If, by shit-storming you mean the resurrection of lunacy such as SOPA and PIPA I'd suggest to you that a move like that is radioactive at least until after the November US elections. Even then, the "content" industry and the politicians made a serious mistake in under-estimating the power if the Internet when it comes to wake up grass roots movements. The "content" industry may make that mistake again but I doubt the politicians will particularly if it costs one or two of them their seats.
If the amicus brief, and I haven't read it yet, is as narrow as Torrent Freak and Mike say it is and it isn't accepted on the grounds that it's too broad or essentially re-argues Hotfile's case for them then I can see the grassroots movement firing up again. Either way, I see no political storm building until after November and maybe not even then.
As I said above this is also the case with the Joint Signals Establishment in Canada (I think that's the name, either that or some lengthy military-bureaucratic name). As with what you're talking about with the UK this dates back to WW2 and the Cold War.
There is the possibility that he IS telling the truth but in a way that leaves him escape room should the situation ever change.
It's in the very nature of intelligence agencies world wide to choose their words very carefully so as not to reveal what is really going on lest that affect other operations and so on. That alone doesn't indicate he's lying. Nor does his fallback on what the NSA is and isn't legally allowed to do inside the territorial United States.
Nor is he necessarily lying when he says that the NSA doesn't have the equipment to do what he's being asked. At the moment.
The reality is that Internet protocols aren't point to point in the vast majority of cases so they don't actually have to have the equipment in the United States to do what they're accused of doing. They may have it in, oh, say, Bermuda and do the intercepts there. More likely is that they just need to use existing intercept agreements they have with allies such as Canada and the UK and use places like the Joint Signals Establishment north of Ottawa and do it there which only means that NSA is sharing information with Canadian military intelligence and other intelligence services in Canada. It would require a major internet presence in or near the area but that already exists so they can, theoretically, pretty much intercept any email sent from one American to another moments after it leaves the territorial United States and moments before it returns depending on how it's all routed at that moment.
Technically the NSA wouldn't be breaking US law because the intercepts are occurring outside the USA in both directions.
Of course they wouldn't them all but they'd get enough to pass on to the FBI who could then do their own intercepts and around it goes.
So he's telling the truth while leaving out great holes where and when he can. Like I said that's typical of most heads of intelligence agencies anywhere in the world. Even more typical when the questions are asked in a situation where every move and word is being televised.
Is that happening? I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. No grand conspiracy theories needed either as there are already sharing connections between the FBI and RCMP, Canadian and American military intelligence, CSIS and the US equivalent which would be NSA so it's just business as usual. It also wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't happening, just as he said. For now.
If they land these gTLDs I suspect the RIAA, for music to do exactly what you say they might. The same for the MPAA with .movies and so on for .games. (For now .books isn't there but I can't imagine that not coming soon just for the "content" industry.)
Like you I also object to, under the circumstances, the assigning of common words to gTLDs or TLDs of any description.
They can have their walled gardens and good luck to them. There aren't all that many brands as badly tarnished as those of the "content" industry and they just seem to want to tarnish them some more.
Then again with their ignorance of how the Web actually works I don't see them making a go of it. Or they can wait for the .indie gTLD to come along and let "Broken Social Scene" show them how it's done. ;-)
On the post: C&D Squashes Seuss-Style Satire: Where Did The Idea/Expression Dichotomy Go?
Re: Re:
And most satirical work is heavily political in one form or another.
I'd have to see more of the work to but, on the surface, it's sad that it came to an end with a C&D request/order.
On the post: How Much Of Today's Copyright Mess Is Due To Bad Definitions Of The Word Copy?
Re:
Recorded music is about 120 years old, movies about the same so "centuries" isn't correct.
Books printed by movable type in the western world came after Gutenberg developed his printing press and you can bet your bottom dollar that people who made their living copying by hand weren't the least bit pleased to see that come along.
Similar resistance met photography in its early days from painters and sketchers who had previously done the kind of work early photography began to do.
Recorded music was considered inferior to live music well into the 1930s and 40s that most music heard on radio was live rather than recorded and "music" only radio formats didn't appear until the 1950s only after radio had to compete with television for the kind of programming they'd run until TV came along.
I do agree that to say they can't exist at all (past tense) without the Internet is incorrect. To say they won't exist (present and future tense) at all if they don't adapt is likely accurate, at least not in the way they do now and certainly not as large and powerful as they are now.
It's evolution, in a way. Adapt and survive, don't adapt and become extinct. Story telling, making movies or video will continue to happen, music will continue to be played live and reproduced but the reproduction will be digital and likely done in smaller more widely spread locations than the analog studio model we have now.
The danger for the RIAA, the MPAA and the publishing industry isn't that the products they make will vanish but that they will, at least as a major force, if they don't adapt and soon.
I'll close by saying that I object to the term "copyright industries" in that what's being referred to doesn't encompass all the things, creations and businesses who use copyright in a different fashion for their own products. It muddies the waters rather than clarify things. Yes, I know that's not necessarily your term but the person you quote but I thought I'd state my objection to that term anyway.
On the post: How Much Of Today's Copyright Mess Is Due To Bad Definitions Of The Word Copy?
Re:
Neither copy or replica mean that I have obtained a song, for example, without paying for it. And your repeated attempts to recast those words into something "evil" wear thin after a while, speaking of weasel words.
What aren't weasel words are that the MPAA and RIAA or their equivalents around the world, have serviced an existing demand in the marketplace. So, like it or not, the marketplace has gotten what it wanted by other means. Most industries would respond simply by filling the demand that's there and making a buck or million but not the people you defend.
The problem isn't with the marketplace it's with a group of companies that can't see beyond the end of their noses, rather like you can't. For better or worse the clock can't be turned back, the Internet and the Web are realities that aren't going anywhere and it doesn't matter how many attempts you make to try to force the Internet and the Web into a form of what existed before they did they won't.
You refuse to accept that no matter how much evidence is there that you can't turn the clock back you keep trying.
"One of the definitions of insanity is repeating the same behaviour over and over again expecting different results." But that is exactly what you, the *AAs and others don't seem to get.
Of course artists should be rewarded (paid) for their efforts if those efforts find a market. Many don't. That's one of the risks of being an artist. But they should be paid at a price the marketplace will accept even if it isn't the price the artist wants. And no, the price isn't necessarily free, though it could be.
The specialist at weasel words isn't anyone here it's you, my friend, and I suggest you find a new tune and lyrics to sing. You're beyond tiresome.
On the post: Sarkozy Seeks To Criminalize 'Habitually Visiting' Websites About Violence
Am I surprised that an unbalanced individual would visit "sites that advocate terrorism or carrying calls for hate or violence"? Not in the least. Would such a law have stopped the shooter in the recent violence in France? No. So why criminalize what you're not going to stop? And way punish researchers into that sort of thing by calling them habitual visitors to such sites?
Sarkozy is in danger of losing his job in the upcoming French elections so I suspect this grandstanding is largely what all that's about. Appeal to his base.
Not that France is about to ban porn. This is France, after all, where you can see soft core on your TV set at home.
In many ways this urge to blame the Internet for everything falls into the same category as blaming comic books for violence in the late 1940s and 1950s and blaming rock'n'roll for just about everything our parents didn't like from the 1950s onwards. Neither had a shred of evidence to them but one brought us the Comics Code Authority which pretty much emasculated that art form and the other led to record burnings, phrases like "jungle music" and worse because rock's origins were in in black culture in the United States.
It got Sarkozy face time here and in other places and that's all he wants, dangerous and silly as the idea is.
There really isn't much of a level shit disturbers like Sarkozy won't sink below. Even if it's below the shit in the outhouse.
On the post: Australian Gov't: Not In The Public Interest For The Public To Be Interested In Secret Anti-Piracy Negotiations
Re: For those who need more TPP Info
It's also mildly amusing to see that these negotiations are almost as leaky as ACTA was and some of the issues seem to be exactly the same around IP issues, and that's a reluctance to follow the American route. Though I'm hard pressed to say what's worse the American route or the "three strikes" and you're off the Internet route that seems so popular in Europe right now.
All that said various governments do need to be shot for conducting these negotiations in so much secrecy. There's really no need unless, of course, they're hiding something.
And they wouldn't do that, would they?
On the post: Hobbit Actors Stephen Fry & Ian McKellen Pay License For Hobbit Pub
Re:
On the post: Hobbit Actors Stephen Fry & Ian McKellen Pay License For Hobbit Pub
Re:
Part of the criticism is that the name "The Hobbit" and the accompanying story has been licensed to SZC by Tolkien's estate and isn't really theirs at all except as it relates to the movie. If it's trade mark just how in heaven does even a moron in a hurry mistake a pub for a movie?
Yes, they do deserve credit for backing off and muzzling their lawyers. But the point is that they don't have all the IP surrounding LoTR or The Hobbit just for their movie. Everything else is Tolkien's estate and it doesn't look like they've ever complained.
On the post: Hobbit Actors Stephen Fry & Ian McKellen Pay License For Hobbit Pub
Re: Re:
It's still all crap. a serious and silly overreach by the producers of a film I WAS looking forward to seeing in an actual movie theatre. WAS.
Now I'm not to sure.
On the post: Hobbit Actors Stephen Fry & Ian McKellen Pay License For Hobbit Pub
Re:
There have been plenty of images of both The Hobbit and LOTR over the years which this pub may have that have nothing at all to do with this movie.
For example calendars by The Brothers Hildebrandt and some with art by Tolkien himself. If these have been there for years and no one has complained of infringement why should they get rid of them? They predate the upcoming movie and have nothing at all to do with it. I don't see any infringement on the movie with any of that.
The strange thing is you'd think that if there was ACTUAL infringement either the producers of the LOTR movies or Tolkien's estate would have chased it down long before now.
The whole thing is a crock of smelly cat litter.
On the post: Copying Leads To Competition, Competition Leads To Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: COMPETITION? NUUUUUU
And we freetards may use LibreOffice or OpenOffice.
And in the coding world, by the way, the code is protected by copyright. The idea, as you say isn't. Which is why there are is a small flock of spreadsheets about these days.
So you get to code yourself a spreadsheet if it's not a direct steal of the code of what you're basing it on.
Access was a communications program and a dog at that. Now, if I remember correctly, it's a database included in Office.
Anyway, it would be nice if you knew about copyright and how it affects programming.
As for software patents, far, far too often the DO protect the idea (i.e. One Click patent) rather than the implementation of that idea.
I'd go on but you're stuck in a mindset glued together with SuperGlue so I don't think I can pry it apart.
On the post: Just Because Companies Can Design Around Patents Doesn't Mean There's No Impact For Consumers
Re: Re:
There has been some argument over whether or not the explosion in innovation would have occurred had people not been forced to try to design around or whether it would have occurred anyway. I tend to side with those who say it would have happened, and sooner, had the patent not existed.
On the post: The Right Way To Deal With Copying: Be More Open
Like the RIAA and MPAA the gaming biz has gotten into a way of doing things and, for the life of them, can't imagine any other way.
The answer ought to be easy but there's brick wall to bash down first.
On the post: Parent Claims 'Ender's Game' Is Pornographic; Teacher Who Read It To Students Put On Temporary Leave
Re: I see it the other way
Still, religion or the lack thereof doesn't prevent monumental stupidity.
Oh, FYI, God and Allah are the same deity. Different names, same deity.
On the post: Parent Claims 'Ender's Game' Is Pornographic; Teacher Who Read It To Students Put On Temporary Leave
Re: Re:
On the post: MPAA Asks For Megaupload Data To Be Retained So It Can Sue Users... Then Insists It Didn't Really Mean That
Re:
Later on companies around the MPAA did innovate, colour, sound and so on. But they were already in threat mode which they refined a bit when VCRs came along.
Now they whip out the paperwork for lawsuits is whipped out at the sniff of possible infringement 40 years down the road.
And we get remakes of My Mother The Car and John Carter (but not of Mars!!!). Now THAT's innovation!
On the post: MPAA Asks For Megaupload Data To Be Retained So It Can Sue Users... Then Insists It Didn't Really Mean That
Re: Running the Insane Asylum
The main difference is the the MPAA doesn't change it's mind if you're a gorgeous model or not.
On the post: Google Defends The DMCA's Safe Harbors Against The MPAA's Attempts To Reinterpret Them In Hotfile Case
Re:
If, by shit-storming you mean the resurrection of lunacy such as SOPA and PIPA I'd suggest to you that a move like that is radioactive at least until after the November US elections. Even then, the "content" industry and the politicians made a serious mistake in under-estimating the power if the Internet when it comes to wake up grass roots movements. The "content" industry may make that mistake again but I doubt the politicians will particularly if it costs one or two of them their seats.
If the amicus brief, and I haven't read it yet, is as narrow as Torrent Freak and Mike say it is and it isn't accepted on the grounds that it's too broad or essentially re-argues Hotfile's case for them then I can see the grassroots movement firing up again. Either way, I see no political storm building until after November and maybe not even then.
On the post: NSA Insists It Doesn't Have 'The Ability' To Spy On American Emails, Texts, Etc.
Re: Reading too much in?
On the post: NSA Insists It Doesn't Have 'The Ability' To Spy On American Emails, Texts, Etc.
Re:
It's in the very nature of intelligence agencies world wide to choose their words very carefully so as not to reveal what is really going on lest that affect other operations and so on. That alone doesn't indicate he's lying. Nor does his fallback on what the NSA is and isn't legally allowed to do inside the territorial United States.
Nor is he necessarily lying when he says that the NSA doesn't have the equipment to do what he's being asked. At the moment.
The reality is that Internet protocols aren't point to point in the vast majority of cases so they don't actually have to have the equipment in the United States to do what they're accused of doing. They may have it in, oh, say, Bermuda and do the intercepts there. More likely is that they just need to use existing intercept agreements they have with allies such as Canada and the UK and use places like the Joint Signals Establishment north of Ottawa and do it there which only means that NSA is sharing information with Canadian military intelligence and other intelligence services in Canada. It would require a major internet presence in or near the area but that already exists so they can, theoretically, pretty much intercept any email sent from one American to another moments after it leaves the territorial United States and moments before it returns depending on how it's all routed at that moment.
Technically the NSA wouldn't be breaking US law because the intercepts are occurring outside the USA in both directions.
Of course they wouldn't them all but they'd get enough to pass on to the FBI who could then do their own intercepts and around it goes.
So he's telling the truth while leaving out great holes where and when he can. Like I said that's typical of most heads of intelligence agencies anywhere in the world. Even more typical when the questions are asked in a situation where every move and word is being televised.
Is that happening? I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. No grand conspiracy theories needed either as there are already sharing connections between the FBI and RCMP, Canadian and American military intelligence, CSIS and the US equivalent which would be NSA so it's just business as usual. It also wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't happening, just as he said. For now.
On the post: Fear-Induced Foolishness: Entertainment Industry Thinks Controls On New TLDs Will Actually Impact Piracy
Re: gTLD system.
Like you I also object to, under the circumstances, the assigning of common words to gTLDs or TLDs of any description.
They can have their walled gardens and good luck to them. There aren't all that many brands as badly tarnished as those of the "content" industry and they just seem to want to tarnish them some more.
Then again with their ignorance of how the Web actually works I don't see them making a go of it. Or they can wait for the .indie gTLD to come along and let "Broken Social Scene" show them how it's done. ;-)
Next >>