Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this the start of a digital b
"You absolutely, undeniably, can download and backup permanently a book from Amazon"
No, you can't. Unless you break the DRM, any content you have is still dependent on Amazon. There's no permanency if Amazon's DRM servers going offline or them deciding to revoke the DRM licences as they did with copies of 1984 is still on the table.
"The issue is using that book file 4 kindle replacements later."
Weirdly, that's not the issue. I've never had a problem reading books I have for Kindle with 6 generations of Kindle down the road, using them on the web based reader, etc. That's unlikely to change so long as Amazon's DRM is still active, and in fact it's part of their business model to ensure that you can buy more hardware while accessing the same content. I just can't guarantee that I'll be able to open up a drive and see a book I hadn't read for 20 years still available to me the same way I can open an old box of paperbacks and start reading.
"Not everybody starts businesses. This is pretty damn important, because when everyone starts their own business they sure as hell aren't going to work for somebody else."
Also, the majority of people who start a new business understand that most businesses fail within the first couple of years. This is why banks will always demand a business plan, it's a risky venture and lots of people who go into business will cut their losses and do something else when it fails.
Our friend here seems to have 2 problems - one is that he didn't get anyone else's input, he just powered ahead and pissed away a lot of money he had in savings rather than discuss with anyone with knowledge about how to run a business. The other is that he's so pig-headed that even though people here have spend years telling him how he failed, his ego won't let him accept failure and so he rambles on about how he'd be a millionaire if only his more competent competition was somehow removed.
In theory, it's nice to see the name of the song being played. Some stations have already apparently been abusing this to show ads instead of track information, but you'd also expect the radio to do some basic checks on the inputs.
Depends. Are they doing it stopped at a red light, or while they're speeding? It's not the fault of the car owner that they bought a car with incompetent software developers, but it's also not the fault of the people they drive in to...
My entire experience (no pun intended) with Rogan is through the Knowledge Fight podcast, which is dedicated to tearing down Alex Jones's faulty logic and tactics. Jones has appeared on a couple of Rogan episodes and I've heard the teardowns, which basically consist of pointing out how Rogan let obvious propaganda fly and (apparently) inadvertently laundered some dangerous disinformation to reach larger audience than Alex could get on Infowars.
Rogan doesn't seem to give a crap beyond getting stoned and talking rubbish with "controversial" people, and whether or not he realises how he platforms dangerous propaganda, he seems to absolutely do it.
I'd go the other way with my thoughts, really. Spotify, for whatever reason, decided they needed to make popular podcasts exclusive to attract more subscribers. Rogan was popular, so they grabbed him and they gambled on the idea that even though they'd lose some of his base due to "selling out", they'd get enough new subscribers to compensate.
I certainly could be wrong, but unless being on Spotify convinced a bunch of people to start listening who hadn't before, I don't see how Rogan got more listeners as a result. Most likely it was just a case where he got a bunch of money while Spotify hoped to upsell his listeners he used to go elsewhere to go with them.
Damn... yeah if that can happen anyway it's pretty bad design, but from what I understand here all that caused it was a file being sent without an explicit extension specified? Wow...
"this is never an isolated incident or a few bad apples"
As ever, the saying is "a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel", not "there's a few bad apples, meh we'll put up with them". Even if it were an isolated incident, the correct course of action it to remove the rot...
"But instead we get people screaming the 'defund the police' is bad... "
Which, I suspect is because as with "Occupy Wall Street", "Black Lives Matter" and "Obamacare", the people screaming against them don't understand what the terms mean or what's behind them. Usually if you discuss the ideas without the labels the people shouting loudest against them actually support them.
As I sometime paraphrase, if you're a journalist and someone tells you it's raining and another tells you it's clear and sunny, you job isn't to report both sides. Your job is to look out the windows and work out who's lying.
"Another point of view" can be silly entertainment in a situation where it's obvious one is wrong. But, in a pandemic it can get people killed. Sadly, that's not hyperbole and I have many examples of people who went to their death bed opposing vaccines because someone like Rogan led them to believe fiction.
Unfortunately, Rogan's persona isn't journalism, it's an "entertainer" who chats with "interesting" people. It just so happens that those people are almost invariably dangerous con artists who place human life below their bank balance.
"And as became usual in the last years, we have very knowledgeable microbiologists and virologists commenting on vaccines"
We also have conmen and morons commenting on them. Not a good thing during a global pandemic that's killing more people every day than died on 9/11.
"the podcast in question provided just another point of view on our problems"
When the point of view is from batshit fantasists or people who directly profit from selling snake oil, that's a problem.
"Not just Rogan's point of view but also scientists' ones, including the current vaccine developers'"
Has he had current vaccine developers on there? I'm aware of him having anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and doctors who claim to have been involved in the mRNA vaccine early in development (but neither involved with the COVID vaccines or the non-mRNA vaccines available). But, not people involved with the actual current vaccines. Could you point me to the episode where such a person was a guest?
"Spotify didn’t only give Rogan a bigger platform"
Did it though? It took a podcast that's available literally anywhere podcasts can be streamed (i.e. the whole internet) and made it so that you had to go to Spotify. While that no doubt attracted more people to Spotify as designed, I doubt that's a bigger platform overall, as the original platform was "people who use Spotify + others".
"it sure as shit deserves some responsibility for funding Rogan’s ability to spread dumb bullshit."
That's the problem. They explicitly paid him to do what he was doing already (which included platforming disinformation), and the group of people funding him now included Spotify customers who would never even consider listening to his show.
"I have tremendous respect for Tribe and his knowledge of the Constitution, but in the last few months, it seems his hatred of Trump is interfering with his more traditional ability to actually look at the issues carefully. "
""Part delays" cited by Mazda could put permanent fixes months off."
While I'm happy that it seems that no actually vital car functionality was affected
what? A problem caused by a software exploit can't be fixed by a factory reset and an update to fix the bug with an additional patch? You have to have a hardware replacement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this the start of a digital backlash
"Well, with publications, and some video services, the DRM is encoded into the title at the time of download"
So, it's still present, right?
"As long as you keep the/an authorised device the file still works even if the source company looses or removes distribution."
On which format? Literally the reason why DRM on purchased music isn't a thing any more is because the labels realised they handed a monopoly to Apple's DRM, and when the transition happened non-Apple DRM purchases ceased to be valid. Also, "as long as you keep the authorised device" is still major problem.
"Going into an argument against DRM you should have a good, through, understanding, of what your fighting against."
Yes, I fight against any DRM that on something I supposedly own. I'm willing to waive that for a cheap price, but I won't enter into a contract that says I don't own something I "bought" unless I believe have the better part of the deal. The problem is, a lot of people don't understand that's an issue.
"Except Spotify I am only talking about purchasing."
Forgive me if I missed something, but Spotify is a rental service. I think they used to offer an option to purchase though an affiliate program early on, but IIRC that went by the wayside when they made deals with labels to access to US market.
"I included Spotify here because the do, or at least did, allow uploading of tracks into private playlists"
But, with those track the point was you already bought the music elsewhere, the deal was simply to allow you to listen to them through Spotify rather than launch another program if the same music was available on Spotify, or play it from local storage if it was there.
That's a completely different paradigm, where Spotify acts as a media player if you have the tracks locally, and not really relevant to discussion of DRM of music you don't own in a local digital format. For example, if you own music in another format then you can't play it offline on Spotify if you didn't get the offline subscription version.
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
Basically, the American Dream states that you can achieve anything you want to if you work hard enough. When people do this and they realise it's not enough because the system is gamed against them, convince them that it's not the system at fault, but that guy over there stealing from them - people will actively vote against their own interests to ensure that other guy doesn't get ahead, even if it damages themselves at the same time. After all, you work hard and you'll get there eventually when that guy isn't able to stop you - and supporting social programs to ensure that everyone has a basic quality of life is socialism.
""I absolutely agree that if YouTube receives a valid takedown request, they are 100% obliged to comply. The meat of my original comment was not about accuracy of any YouTube algorithm"
You have to remember the sheer amount of data that's involved here. They already store more content than a person could ever hope to watch in their lifetime, and they're adding days of content every minute, then everything they already have needs to be scanned for new takedown notices. Even if the algorithm they use is 99.99999999% accurate, that likely still leaves hundreds of false positives every day.
That's not good and they could be a lot better at dealing with complaints and resolving conflicts in ways that don't negatively affect the accused. But, unless you have a better idea this is as good as it can get, especially if - and you have to remember this part - there's a history of the people telling YouTube what to remove lying to them. It doesn't matter how good your algorithm is if the data it's processing is wrong.
"in the form of a DMCA take down, an accusation of the commission of federal crimes.
Again, this is wrong. The infringement being accused is civil, not criminal.
I understand your points, but you seem to be getting angry over a rather misleading version of what's going on.
"Seems to me a 3D scan is a recording of a public performance of the art."
No, it's not. It's a photocopy of the sheet music. All you're doing is mapping the geometric and spacial information about the sculpture, just as the sheet music for the concerto is information about what notes belong where.
Now, if you have a performance of the sheet music that's a different ball game, because each member of the orchestra, the conductor, the acoustics and production of the venue, etc., all contribute to the end recording. Those are creative processes, hence the recording being copyrightable, but the sheet music remains public domain.
Same here. if you take the 3D scan of the sculpture and use it to create something else, edit it into something else that counts as a transformative work, then it's possible that the end work would be copyrightable. But, the factual information contained in the scan itself should remain public domain.
While you can argue that the result of an automated process such as a 3D scan is not a creative work on its own (though I know many developers who will fight you to the death on the idea that creating the 3D scanning software is not a creative process), usually the process doesn't end there. Quite often, people will take the result of the scan, and start editing to remove flaws in the scan, create textures and colouring, and start adjusting it beyond what the initial scan gave them. If the original work is damaged, they might expand on it to show how it would have looked originally, or might even introduce time lapses and animations to give context.
So, at what point does the work change from being the output of a program, to a creative effort that requires copyright protection? In the case of art that's already in the public domain, the correct answer should be that derivative works created for museums and the like also fall under the public domain, but there's always going to be someone with a profit motive trying to undermine that (not that profit isn't possible under public domain, but monopolies like to not share..)
No, it's not. Public domain is the default state where all art belongs and used to immediately go to the moment it was produced. Copyright is an agreement by the public to waive this status for a limited amount of time in order to encourage and promote more work which will eventually enrich the public domain.
If your understanding is different to that, you've been listening to someone with a vested interest in robbing from the public domain indefinitely, and you should stop doing that.
On the post: Analog Books Go From Strength To Strength: Helped, Not Hindered, By The Digital World
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this the start of a digital b
"You absolutely, undeniably, can download and backup permanently a book from Amazon"
No, you can't. Unless you break the DRM, any content you have is still dependent on Amazon. There's no permanency if Amazon's DRM servers going offline or them deciding to revoke the DRM licences as they did with copies of 1984 is still on the table.
"The issue is using that book file 4 kindle replacements later."
Weirdly, that's not the issue. I've never had a problem reading books I have for Kindle with 6 generations of Kindle down the road, using them on the web based reader, etc. That's unlikely to change so long as Amazon's DRM is still active, and in fact it's part of their business model to ensure that you can buy more hardware while accessing the same content. I just can't guarantee that I'll be able to open up a drive and see a book I hadn't read for 20 years still available to me the same way I can open an old box of paperbacks and start reading.
On the post: Danish Court Confirms Insane 'Little Mermaid' Copyright Ruling Against Newspaper Over Cartoon
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Not everybody starts businesses. This is pretty damn important, because when everyone starts their own business they sure as hell aren't going to work for somebody else."
Also, the majority of people who start a new business understand that most businesses fail within the first couple of years. This is why banks will always demand a business plan, it's a risky venture and lots of people who go into business will cut their losses and do something else when it fails.
Our friend here seems to have 2 problems - one is that he didn't get anyone else's input, he just powered ahead and pissed away a lot of money he had in savings rather than discuss with anyone with knowledge about how to run a business. The other is that he's so pig-headed that even though people here have spend years telling him how he failed, his ego won't let him accept failure and so he rambles on about how he'd be a millionaire if only his more competent competition was somehow removed.
On the post: Seattle Public Radio Station Manages To Partially Brick Area Mazdas Using Nothing More Than Some Image Files
Re: Auto(lol)ated systems
"BUT WHY?
Computerized radio?"
In theory, it's nice to see the name of the song being played. Some stations have already apparently been abusing this to show ads instead of track information, but you'd also expect the radio to do some basic checks on the inputs.
On the post: Seattle Public Radio Station Manages To Partially Brick Area Mazdas Using Nothing More Than Some Image Files
Re:
Depends. Are they doing it stopped at a red light, or while they're speeding? It's not the fault of the car owner that they bought a car with incompetent software developers, but it's also not the fault of the people they drive in to...
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Re:
My entire experience (no pun intended) with Rogan is through the Knowledge Fight podcast, which is dedicated to tearing down Alex Jones's faulty logic and tactics. Jones has appeared on a couple of Rogan episodes and I've heard the teardowns, which basically consist of pointing out how Rogan let obvious propaganda fly and (apparently) inadvertently laundered some dangerous disinformation to reach larger audience than Alex could get on Infowars.
Rogan doesn't seem to give a crap beyond getting stoned and talking rubbish with "controversial" people, and whether or not he realises how he platforms dangerous propaganda, he seems to absolutely do it.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Re:
I'd go the other way with my thoughts, really. Spotify, for whatever reason, decided they needed to make popular podcasts exclusive to attract more subscribers. Rogan was popular, so they grabbed him and they gambled on the idea that even though they'd lose some of his base due to "selling out", they'd get enough new subscribers to compensate.
I certainly could be wrong, but unless being on Spotify convinced a bunch of people to start listening who hadn't before, I don't see how Rogan got more listeners as a result. Most likely it was just a case where he got a bunch of money while Spotify hoped to upsell his listeners he used to go elsewhere to go with them.
On the post: Seattle Public Radio Station Manages To Partially Brick Area Mazdas Using Nothing More Than Some Image Files
Re: Re:
Damn... yeah if that can happen anyway it's pretty bad design, but from what I understand here all that caused it was a file being sent without an explicit extension specified? Wow...
On the post: FOIA Lawsuit Featuring A DC Police Whistleblower Says PD Conspired To Screw Requesters It Didn't Like
Re:
"this is never an isolated incident or a few bad apples"
As ever, the saying is "a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel", not "there's a few bad apples, meh we'll put up with them". Even if it were an isolated incident, the correct course of action it to remove the rot...
"But instead we get people screaming the 'defund the police' is bad... "
Which, I suspect is because as with "Occupy Wall Street", "Black Lives Matter" and "Obamacare", the people screaming against them don't understand what the terms mean or what's behind them. Usually if you discuss the ideas without the labels the people shouting loudest against them actually support them.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Re: Re:
As I sometime paraphrase, if you're a journalist and someone tells you it's raining and another tells you it's clear and sunny, you job isn't to report both sides. Your job is to look out the windows and work out who's lying.
"Another point of view" can be silly entertainment in a situation where it's obvious one is wrong. But, in a pandemic it can get people killed. Sadly, that's not hyperbole and I have many examples of people who went to their death bed opposing vaccines because someone like Rogan led them to believe fiction.
Unfortunately, Rogan's persona isn't journalism, it's an "entertainer" who chats with "interesting" people. It just so happens that those people are almost invariably dangerous con artists who place human life below their bank balance.
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Re:
"And as became usual in the last years, we have very knowledgeable microbiologists and virologists commenting on vaccines"
We also have conmen and morons commenting on them. Not a good thing during a global pandemic that's killing more people every day than died on 9/11.
"the podcast in question provided just another point of view on our problems"
When the point of view is from batshit fantasists or people who directly profit from selling snake oil, that's a problem.
"Not just Rogan's point of view but also scientists' ones, including the current vaccine developers'"
Has he had current vaccine developers on there? I'm aware of him having anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and doctors who claim to have been involved in the mRNA vaccine early in development (but neither involved with the COVID vaccines or the non-mRNA vaccines available). But, not people involved with the actual current vaccines. Could you point me to the episode where such a person was a guest?
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Re:
"Spotify didn’t only give Rogan a bigger platform"
Did it though? It took a podcast that's available literally anywhere podcasts can be streamed (i.e. the whole internet) and made it so that you had to go to Spotify. While that no doubt attracted more people to Spotify as designed, I doubt that's a bigger platform overall, as the original platform was "people who use Spotify + others".
"it sure as shit deserves some responsibility for funding Rogan’s ability to spread dumb bullshit."
That's the problem. They explicitly paid him to do what he was doing already (which included platforming disinformation), and the group of people funding him now included Spotify customers who would never even consider listening to his show.
On the post: Thankfully, Jay Inslee's Unconstitutional Bill To Criminalize Political Speech Dies In The Washington Senate
Re: Larry Tribe
A quick search gives me things like this:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170424/01483737214/stop-it-trumps-lawyers-did-not-say-th at-protestors-have-no-first-amendment-right-to-dissent.shtml
I'm not sure of the current details but that suggests to me that something did change in recent years,
On the post: Seattle Public Radio Station Manages To Partially Brick Area Mazdas Using Nothing More Than Some Image Files
""Part delays" cited by Mazda could put permanent fixes months off."
While I'm happy that it seems that no actually vital car functionality was affected
On the post: The Josh Hawley Mug: It Makes Him An Asshole, But Shouldn't Make Him A Copyright Infringer
Re: Show me strong white
There was a time when certain people used dogwhistles.
Now, it's all foghorns, followed by whining that they get told their foghorns are too loud and they have to use them elsewhere..
On the post: Analog Books Go From Strength To Strength: Helped, Not Hindered, By The Digital World
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this the start of a digital backlash
"Well, with publications, and some video services, the DRM is encoded into the title at the time of download"
So, it's still present, right?
"As long as you keep the/an authorised device the file still works even if the source company looses or removes distribution."
On which format? Literally the reason why DRM on purchased music isn't a thing any more is because the labels realised they handed a monopoly to Apple's DRM, and when the transition happened non-Apple DRM purchases ceased to be valid. Also, "as long as you keep the authorised device" is still major problem.
"Going into an argument against DRM you should have a good, through, understanding, of what your fighting against."
Yes, I fight against any DRM that on something I supposedly own. I'm willing to waive that for a cheap price, but I won't enter into a contract that says I don't own something I "bought" unless I believe have the better part of the deal. The problem is, a lot of people don't understand that's an issue.
"Except Spotify I am only talking about purchasing."
Forgive me if I missed something, but Spotify is a rental service. I think they used to offer an option to purchase though an affiliate program early on, but IIRC that went by the wayside when they made deals with labels to access to US market.
"I included Spotify here because the do, or at least did, allow uploading of tracks into private playlists"
But, with those track the point was you already bought the music elsewhere, the deal was simply to allow you to listen to them through Spotify rather than launch another program if the same music was available on Spotify, or play it from local storage if it was there.
That's a completely different paradigm, where Spotify acts as a media player if you have the tracks locally, and not really relevant to discussion of DRM of music you don't own in a local digital format. For example, if you own music in another format then you can't play it offline on Spotify if you didn't get the offline subscription version.
On the post: The Josh Hawley Mug: It Makes Him An Asshole, But Shouldn't Make Him A Copyright Infringer
Re: Re: Re:
Attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson:
Basically, the American Dream states that you can achieve anything you want to if you work hard enough. When people do this and they realise it's not enough because the system is gamed against them, convince them that it's not the system at fault, but that guy over there stealing from them - people will actively vote against their own interests to ensure that other guy doesn't get ahead, even if it damages themselves at the same time. After all, you work hard and you'll get there eventually when that guy isn't able to stop you - and supporting social programs to ensure that everyone has a basic quality of life is socialism.
On the post: YouTube's Content ID System Flags, Demonetizes Video Of Cat Purring
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libel?
""I absolutely agree that if YouTube receives a valid takedown request, they are 100% obliged to comply. The meat of my original comment was not about accuracy of any YouTube algorithm"
You have to remember the sheer amount of data that's involved here. They already store more content than a person could ever hope to watch in their lifetime, and they're adding days of content every minute, then everything they already have needs to be scanned for new takedown notices. Even if the algorithm they use is 99.99999999% accurate, that likely still leaves hundreds of false positives every day.
That's not good and they could be a lot better at dealing with complaints and resolving conflicts in ways that don't negatively affect the accused. But, unless you have a better idea this is as good as it can get, especially if - and you have to remember this part - there's a history of the people telling YouTube what to remove lying to them. It doesn't matter how good your algorithm is if the data it's processing is wrong.
"in the form of a DMCA take down, an accusation of the commission of federal crimes.
Again, this is wrong. The infringement being accused is civil, not criminal.
I understand your points, but you seem to be getting angry over a rather misleading version of what's going on.
On the post: Auguste Rodin's Sculptures Are In The Public Domain; 3D Scans Of Them Should Be, Too
Re:
Bad analogy.
"Seems to me a 3D scan is a recording of a public performance of the art."
No, it's not. It's a photocopy of the sheet music. All you're doing is mapping the geometric and spacial information about the sculpture, just as the sheet music for the concerto is information about what notes belong where.
Now, if you have a performance of the sheet music that's a different ball game, because each member of the orchestra, the conductor, the acoustics and production of the venue, etc., all contribute to the end recording. Those are creative processes, hence the recording being copyrightable, but the sheet music remains public domain.
Same here. if you take the 3D scan of the sculpture and use it to create something else, edit it into something else that counts as a transformative work, then it's possible that the end work would be copyrightable. But, the factual information contained in the scan itself should remain public domain.
On the post: Auguste Rodin's Sculptures Are In The Public Domain; 3D Scans Of Them Should Be, Too
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disagree with "Public Domain"
Well, that's a can of worms....
While you can argue that the result of an automated process such as a 3D scan is not a creative work on its own (though I know many developers who will fight you to the death on the idea that creating the 3D scanning software is not a creative process), usually the process doesn't end there. Quite often, people will take the result of the scan, and start editing to remove flaws in the scan, create textures and colouring, and start adjusting it beyond what the initial scan gave them. If the original work is damaged, they might expand on it to show how it would have looked originally, or might even introduce time lapses and animations to give context.
So, at what point does the work change from being the output of a program, to a creative effort that requires copyright protection? In the case of art that's already in the public domain, the correct answer should be that derivative works created for museums and the like also fall under the public domain, but there's always going to be someone with a profit motive trying to undermine that (not that profit isn't possible under public domain, but monopolies like to not share..)
On the post: Auguste Rodin's Sculptures Are In The Public Domain; 3D Scans Of Them Should Be, Too
Re: Disagree with "Public Domain"
""Public Domain" is a category of copyright"
No, it's not. Public domain is the default state where all art belongs and used to immediately go to the moment it was produced. Copyright is an agreement by the public to waive this status for a limited amount of time in order to encourage and promote more work which will eventually enrich the public domain.
If your understanding is different to that, you've been listening to someone with a vested interest in robbing from the public domain indefinitely, and you should stop doing that.
Next >>