This will probably be my only other reply, because this topic is so ridiculous and I'm already guilty of feeding a troll.
"Someone changed the IP that was stored *on* the servers, which is exactly what Mike has said repeatedly is in the public domain."
They didn't change the "intellectual property" (copyright here), they modified the contents of Floor64's database. That doesn't change any copyright claims (the "intellectual property"), or lack thereof, on the database. It changes the Floor64's actual database, specifically.
The expression on the Techdirt blog is essentially considered to be in the public domain -- that's what would be covered by copyright. That means anyone can use, adapt, built upon or modify that expression. That doesn't mean that anyone can use or modify Floor64's database.
I seriously hope that distinction isn't beyond your comprehension.
"you shake your finger about not knowing the difference between the "website" (which is IP) and the "software that manages it" (which, BTW, is also IP)."
The website isn't itself "intellectual property." It contains content that would be covered by copyright. Because anyone can do what they want with the content doesn't mean that anyone can do what they want on Floor64's server or its database.
Is that hard to understand?
(And the software that manages the site is covered by copyright, but Floor64's copy and running instance is a different matter, and I specifically wrote "breaking into" the software -- i.e. unauthorized access.)
"And yet, you seem to not know the difference between a "free license"... and "public domain".
The distinction between public domain and freely licensed doesn't matter here since both allow the freedom to modify that you're having trouble understanding here. (Public domain content is also free content.)
"Mike likes the idea of deciding what happens to other people's IP; but, not so much when it happens to him."
If you have to try this hard to find some sort of hypocrisy, maybe you're searching for something that doesn't exist. I think you want to believe it exists, but you seem too smart for me to be convinced that you actually believe there's any kind of hypocrisy here.
Your "site" isn't something that physically exists, it's just intellectual property like any other IP.
It was the physical instance of the site that was vandalized, the Techdirt servers that were broken into, through the site and affecting the site contents stored in the database. That's not intellectual property -- it's the machine, the admin interface, the data, etc.
I release all the code I write under a free license, but that doesn't mean anyone can use my my laptop -- nevermind vandalize it. I release all the songs I write under a free license, but that doesn't mean someone can use my guitar -- nevermind vandalize it.
I can only assume, for the sake of my own sanity, that this is a poor attempt at searching for hypocrisy, rather than believe that you actually don't understand the difference between copying a website and breaking into the software on the server that manages it.
"The problem is not with the AP in this case, the problem is the fact that you and a lot of other news sites and blogs jumped to an unsupported conclusion about the AP wanting to use DRM, when they never actually said that, based on a vague and widely misinterpreted flow chart... The whole article is a strawman argument."
Of course it's not actually DRM. But the aims are very similar -- to "protect" content with some sort of special digital format.
Take the term "DRM" out of the blog post and it'd still be the same. I based my criticism on the AP's press release and their microformat draft, not on a concept of DRM.
Forget DRM. If it's based on a microformat, how is the AP news registry supposed to...
"assure compliance with terms of use"
"employ a built-in beacon to notify AP about how the content is used"
"manage and control digital use of their content, by providing detailed metrics on content consumption, payment services and enforcement support"
And how is this supposed to support pay walls?
To paraphrase the post: microformats have little to do with "encapsulating," "built-in beacons," "enforcement support."
And the diagram makes even less sense once you realize it's just a microformat:
"apply protective format to news"
"Format protects content everywhere"
"the tracking beacon sends signals back to the news registry"
"A platform for protect, point and pay"
A microformat isn't going to "protect" the news. It doesn't protect, it merely expresses.
I don't think that's a strawman argument. It's a criticism of their claims for the technology.
"Could they be using this tagging as a way to claim DMCA tampering..even though it's not really DRM?"
You mean, tag it with restrictions on use, and claim that it's anti-circumvention to remove those tags?
Yeah, the thought crossed my mind too, but I think that'd be a huge stretch. Microformats don't stop you from doing anything, they only notifies you what supposed rules govern usage.
There's nothing to circumvent.
The only difference between a microformat and an 'All Rights Reserved' style copyright notice is that it's meant to be machine-readable rather than human-readable. But that's all the metadata is for -- reading. It's just targeted at different readers.
I'd be really surprised if something was considered a TPM simply because it's machine-readable...
"As a software engineer, I've been here. Someone upstairs asks, "How can we do A?" And you go back to your cube and you work on stuff until you can go back and say, "I think A can be accomplished with B". And you are told, "Build it"."
Yeah, agreed. If you check out the CC blog post, they begin their criticism with... "while Creative Commons is very sympathetic to the difficulty of explaining technical concepts in a short press release."
And then, Jonathan Malek, one of the AP developers behind the format, actually leaves a comment. He seems to be pretty reasonable, and I think making a good design decision in incorporating ccREL into the microformat instead of reinventing the wheel... it's just not going to help do what the AP hopes it will. But nothing else will either.
"A "cover" is when a band performs a song written and/or made famous by another band. Orchestral music is rarely associated with a single orchestra in that fashion."
I think we're saying the same thing there.
We identify orchestral music more with the composer, while popular music gets identified more often with the performer.
Would someone say "the Toronto Symphony Orchestra covered Bach's Brandenburg Concerto?" The concept of a cover is more related to performer-focused styles of music, not composer-focused styles.
So, I can understand someone getting confused about the copyright of a recording of a public domain composition. We tend to think about the composers, not the performers.
"And the fact that the underling musical composition is copyrighted seperately from the audio recording is not evidence that copyright is designed around "covers." Our current system of statutory copyright owes much of its structure to the player piano industry, not to "covers.""
I didn't mean to say its designed around covers, but around popular music, around performer-focused music.
Hence, some of the confusion when confronting other types of music (liturgical music also comes to mind, as a type that isn't performer-focused).
"True...but they don't make sense now because multimedia players did not unite when the Internet was born. It was every man for themselves and the opportunity was missed for positive growth putting them all on the nonproductive defensive for 10 years!"
No, the rules don't make sense for largely technical reasons, rather than social ones. Copyright infringement was still illegal in the early days of the internet, but Napster flourished.
It's not because of "it was every man for themselves."
It's because the Internet is a giant copying machine. The function at the heart of computing is copying. Copying is at the heart of the communicating on the web. If stuff is online, it's going to be copied -- that's how the internet works.
Even more to the point: the marginal cost of reproduction is essentially $0. It doesn't cost you anything more to have 3000 copies made than to have three, once you've got the first. In a competitive market, price approaches the marginal cost of reproduction, which in the case of digital files is $0.
It's perfectly natural that the price of digital goods would approach $0, and that people using a giant computer network would engage in copying as they communicate.
The internet is about copying because the technology is about copying. It's not because the entertainment industry was slow, it's because they actually thought they could stop the technology.
Because they no longer make sense? Rules based around controlling copying and being paid for any copying and usage make little sense on the Internet -- for writers or for readers.
Whether are not there are examples of actual copyright infringement, it seems like there'd be a good chance of lawsuits. Look at all the claims against J. K. Rowling, or the Satriani/Coldplay lawsuit. When copyright touches so many things for so long, you don't need to actually infringe copyright to be the subject of an expensive lawsuit -- you just need to be successful.
"Blaise, Terry McBride is like Trent Reznor: If you ignore how the heck he got there, he looks like a genius today. But both are heavily leveraging foundations built outside of the "new" system, and I really wonder how they would do without that support."
I don't share your skepticism. Of course they've got foundations in old business models, because they got started when those business models made sense. This argument will be increasingly irrelevant as time goes on, and more and more people who've started up without those foundations continue to show what it takes to be successful.
"Also, linking to stuff on techdirt is just linking to OPINION. If you want to prove a point, link to something that isn't your boss's opinion."
*sigh* You are really bad at following conversations, eh? This will probably be my last comment.
You said: "The only time anyone around here talks about record labels it's "greedy assholes" and "buggy whip sellers" and all sorts of nonsense."
So, I linked to a bunch of Techdirt articles which weren't like that at all. The point I was trying to prove was about Techdirt's opinion.
If you can't follow the conversation, it's not worth continuing.
That's all? You're going to ignore the rest of the comment because you disagree with the McBride example? Nettwerk was one of about eight examples over those five posts. (And McBride is a good example not because of how he built his business, but because of how he's running his business.)
Seems like you've got your mind made up and you're more interested in restating your complaints than actually responding to the post or to my comments. Hey, if that works for you...
There are two main arguments I tend to bring up here.
First, collective licensing agreements often mean that the creator doesn't have absolute control. Look at how politicians used music during the last American election (John McCain and the Foo Fighters?). Second, didn't Guitar Hero use cover songs at first to avoid having to negotiate with rock stars? Maybe I'm missing something about moral rights, but in those situations, people can just pay the fees and use the music, even if the creator objects.
Second, the real moral argument, I think, is based on an ethic of freedom of speech for artists. Sometimes, people worry about artistic "vandalism." What if you've got some folk songwriter who is throughly offended by a death metal cover of her song? Should she have the right to deny other artists from "destroying" or "vandalizing" her work? The problem is, who defines what's distorted and what's vandalized? I think there's a serious issue of artistic freedom here. I wouldn't want my ability to make art to be contingent on another artist's approval.
On the post: Hacked Recap
Re:
They didn't change the "intellectual property" (copyright here), they modified the contents of Floor64's database. That doesn't change any copyright claims (the "intellectual property"), or lack thereof, on the database. It changes the Floor64's actual database, specifically.
The expression on the Techdirt blog is essentially considered to be in the public domain -- that's what would be covered by copyright. That means anyone can use, adapt, built upon or modify that expression. That doesn't mean that anyone can use or modify Floor64's database.
I seriously hope that distinction isn't beyond your comprehension.
The website isn't itself "intellectual property." It contains content that would be covered by copyright. Because anyone can do what they want with the content doesn't mean that anyone can do what they want on Floor64's server or its database.
Is that hard to understand?
(And the software that manages the site is covered by copyright, but Floor64's copy and running instance is a different matter, and I specifically wrote "breaking into" the software -- i.e. unauthorized access.)
The distinction between public domain and freely licensed doesn't matter here since both allow the freedom to modify that you're having trouble understanding here. (Public domain content is also free content.)
If you have to try this hard to find some sort of hypocrisy, maybe you're searching for something that doesn't exist. I think you want to believe it exists, but you seem too smart for me to be convinced that you actually believe there's any kind of hypocrisy here.
On the post: Hacked Recap
Re: Re: Re:
It was the physical instance of the site that was vandalized, the Techdirt servers that were broken into, through the site and affecting the site contents stored in the database. That's not intellectual property -- it's the machine, the admin interface, the data, etc.
I release all the code I write under a free license, but that doesn't mean anyone can use my my laptop -- nevermind vandalize it. I release all the songs I write under a free license, but that doesn't mean someone can use my guitar -- nevermind vandalize it.
I can only assume, for the sake of my own sanity, that this is a poor attempt at searching for hypocrisy, rather than believe that you actually don't understand the difference between copying a website and breaking into the software on the server that manages it.
On the post: Are Parents Making Facebook Uncool?
Favourite Facebook Bio
It simply says: "I want to spy on my kids."
Love it.
On the post: The 'Creative' Technology Behind The AP's News Registry
Re:
Of course it's not actually DRM. But the aims are very similar -- to "protect" content with some sort of special digital format.
Take the term "DRM" out of the blog post and it'd still be the same. I based my criticism on the AP's press release and their microformat draft, not on a concept of DRM.
Forget DRM. If it's based on a microformat, how is the AP news registry supposed to...
To paraphrase the post: microformats have little to do with "encapsulating," "built-in beacons," "enforcement support."
And the diagram makes even less sense once you realize it's just a microformat:
A microformat isn't going to "protect" the news. It doesn't protect, it merely expresses.
I don't think that's a strawman argument. It's a criticism of their claims for the technology.
On the post: Are Parents Making Facebook Uncool?
So True
She says to my 18-year-old sister, "will you be my friend on Facebook?" My sister says, "um... no." My mom: "why not??"
She replies: "... you're too lame."
Then, she turns to my 15-year-old brother: "will you be my friend on Facebook?"
He responds: "I'm not on Facebook." (he is)
On the post: The 'Creative' Technology Behind The AP's News Registry
Re:
You mean, tag it with restrictions on use, and claim that it's anti-circumvention to remove those tags?
Yeah, the thought crossed my mind too, but I think that'd be a huge stretch. Microformats don't stop you from doing anything, they only notifies you what supposed rules govern usage.
There's nothing to circumvent.
The only difference between a microformat and an 'All Rights Reserved' style copyright notice is that it's meant to be machine-readable rather than human-readable. But that's all the metadata is for -- reading. It's just targeted at different readers.
I'd be really surprised if something was considered a TPM simply because it's machine-readable...
On the post: The 'Creative' Technology Behind The AP's News Registry
Re:
Yeah, agreed. If you check out the CC blog post, they begin their criticism with... "while Creative Commons is very sympathetic to the difficulty of explaining technical concepts in a short press release."
And then, Jonathan Malek, one of the AP developers behind the format, actually leaves a comment. He seems to be pretty reasonable, and I think making a good design decision in incorporating ccREL into the microformat instead of reinventing the wheel... it's just not going to help do what the AP hopes it will. But nothing else will either.
It doesn't seem like Malek is the problem.
On the post: Copyright Conundrum: Was 'Public Domain' Music Silenced On YouTube?
Re:
I think we're saying the same thing there.
We identify orchestral music more with the composer, while popular music gets identified more often with the performer.
Would someone say "the Toronto Symphony Orchestra covered Bach's Brandenburg Concerto?" The concept of a cover is more related to performer-focused styles of music, not composer-focused styles.
So, I can understand someone getting confused about the copyright of a recording of a public domain composition. We tend to think about the composers, not the performers.
I didn't mean to say its designed around covers, but around popular music, around performer-focused music.
Hence, some of the confusion when confronting other types of music (liturgical music also comes to mind, as a type that isn't performer-focused).
On the post: Copyright Conundrum: Was 'Public Domain' Music Silenced On YouTube?
Re:
It's confusing because copyright is designed around that popular music model. It gets awkward for something like Ride of the Valkyrie's.
On the post: Catholic Archbishop Apparently Not A Fan Of Social Networking
Catholic New Media Conference
On the post: Music Fans And 'Amateur Musicologists' May Impact Coldplay/Satriani Copyright Battle
Re: Re: Still glad
Cat Steven's is convinced that it's his. Who copied from who? I don't think it's as clear cut as you'd like to think.
On the post: EMI Claims Controversial Satriani/Coldplay Mashup Video Violates Coldplay Copyright
Re: To all the non-musicians who are crying foul...
On the post: EMI Claims Controversial Satriani/Coldplay Mashup Video Violates Coldplay Copyright
Re:
On the post: Would King Lear Ever Have Been Written If Copyright Law Existed?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: King Lear
It's not because of "it was every man for themselves."
It's because the Internet is a giant copying machine. The function at the heart of computing is copying. Copying is at the heart of the communicating on the web. If stuff is online, it's going to be copied -- that's how the internet works.
Even more to the point: the marginal cost of reproduction is essentially $0. It doesn't cost you anything more to have 3000 copies made than to have three, once you've got the first. In a competitive market, price approaches the marginal cost of reproduction, which in the case of digital files is $0.
It's perfectly natural that the price of digital goods would approach $0, and that people using a giant computer network would engage in copying as they communicate.
The internet is about copying because the technology is about copying. It's not because the entertainment industry was slow, it's because they actually thought they could stop the technology.
On the post: Would King Lear Ever Have Been Written If Copyright Law Existed?
Re: Re: Profit
On the post: Would King Lear Ever Have Been Written If Copyright Law Existed?
Re: Re: Re: King Lear
Because they no longer make sense? Rules based around controlling copying and being paid for any copying and usage make little sense on the Internet -- for writers or for readers.
On the post: Would King Lear Ever Have Been Written If Copyright Law Existed?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Less Well Known Artists Make Use Of Mobile Platforms To Interact With Fans
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't share your skepticism. Of course they've got foundations in old business models, because they got started when those business models made sense. This argument will be increasingly irrelevant as time goes on, and more and more people who've started up without those foundations continue to show what it takes to be successful.
*sigh* You are really bad at following conversations, eh? This will probably be my last comment.
You said: "The only time anyone around here talks about record labels it's "greedy assholes" and "buggy whip sellers" and all sorts of nonsense."
So, I linked to a bunch of Techdirt articles which weren't like that at all. The point I was trying to prove was about Techdirt's opinion.
If you can't follow the conversation, it's not worth continuing.
On the post: Less Well Known Artists Make Use Of Mobile Platforms To Interact With Fans
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems like you've got your mind made up and you're more interested in restating your complaints than actually responding to the post or to my comments. Hey, if that works for you...
On the post: Is It Really So Bad If Music Is Used In A Way The Musician Doesn't Like?
Collective Licensing and Freedom of Speech
First, collective licensing agreements often mean that the creator doesn't have absolute control. Look at how politicians used music during the last American election (John McCain and the Foo Fighters?). Second, didn't Guitar Hero use cover songs at first to avoid having to negotiate with rock stars? Maybe I'm missing something about moral rights, but in those situations, people can just pay the fees and use the music, even if the creator objects.
Second, the real moral argument, I think, is based on an ethic of freedom of speech for artists. Sometimes, people worry about artistic "vandalism." What if you've got some folk songwriter who is throughly offended by a death metal cover of her song? Should she have the right to deny other artists from "destroying" or "vandalizing" her work? The problem is, who defines what's distorted and what's vandalized? I think there's a serious issue of artistic freedom here. I wouldn't want my ability to make art to be contingent on another artist's approval.
Next >>