Possibly no technology in the history of man has been so efficient at eliminating the current moment--burying it, destroying it--so that the next moment can happen in complete novelty.
I always thought the inexorable passage of time did an excellent job of that all by itself...?
In theory that money goes to the musicians who played on the record and the songwriters.
Only the first part of that is true. The royalties collected by ASCAP and BMI have nothing to do with the recordings and everything to do with the compositions.
Those are public performance royalties for composers and publishers. That's not the same thing as royalties that go to the performers of the recordings. Recording artists don't get any money for terrestrial radio plays (unless they are also the owners of the composition).
You honestly view that as "hijacking" the english language?
This is how English works. Words adapt over time. Nuances emerge between words that were once synonymous, or disappear between words that were once distinct. And the innovation/invention distinction is a very useful one that a lot of people are very familiar with, and one which is becoming increasingly more mainstream as the world of technology and economics from which it emerges becomes increasingly mainstream.
There is almost no such thing as a word whose definition is "universally accepted"
And hey, if you want to go even further, the Latin root inventio means a finding or discovery, while innovatio means to renew, restore or change. So aren't the people who believe they have the same meaning the ones getting it wrong?
I'm not sure people will view it that way, though. At first, lower premiums for autonomous cars will be seen as a nice way to save some money — but as they become more common and more of the norm, that perception will likely flip, and the cost of insuring a human driver will seem prohibitive and unnecessary. All it will likely take is the first generation of parents who are buying & insuring a car for their kids (or at least subsidizing all those costs for them) when autonomous cars are an option, and I think we'll see the viewpoint start shifting pretty rapidly.
What about it? We considered trying to relaunch it as part of Copia, but decided not to split our focus. There's no denying that it was something of a failure. Thankfully, Copia's launch has been much more successful! You can check out videos of our well-attended two-day inaugural summit in March, if you like.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Do you really think that people here are concerned about being able to download and share The Wizard Of Oz, not about the many potentially awesome reimaginings of it that could still happen?
This was pretty much confirmed when the discussion started focusing on how you can't really do anything with public domain anyway
Not sure what you mean here. That discussion started not as something people are accepting -- but as yet another thing that needs to be fixed about copyright law. You're focusing solely on the question of reducing copyright terms and we're talking about so much more than that - such as strengthening the sanctity of the public domain, clamping down on attempts to effectively re-copyright it, drastically strengthening fair use and transformative work defences when it comes to stuff that *isn't* in the public domain, adopting more compulsory licensing schemes to remove most/all issues of "permission" from copyright, and still more beyond...
Settle down, I realize that in this particular case the behaviour of the other studio was fairly egregious.
There's also Disney and Warner Bros. fighting over Wizard of Oz trademarks, with the latter especially aggressively opposing things at the trademark office (which, again I realize, is about opposing new trademarks, not trying to block creation of the works).
While your very narrowly defined statement -- that there are no instances of someone blocking a movie based entirely on a trademark claim -- appears true, the extrapolation that as such trademark represents no threat and creators don't have anything to worry about (or to spend money and time preparing for / thinking about / defending against) is not.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I wasn't talking about tastes, I was talking about motivations.
Your ENTIRE argument is based on the notion that any creativity that is derived from a public domain work is inherently worthless and low-quality. Sounds like a taste judgement to me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
What do you want to do with public domain works?
Enjoy them, remix them, distribute them, derive things from them, mash them together, update them, present them in new lights, produce the next Apocalypse Now. Y'know, the stuff you're allowed to do with public domain works. Why, what do you want to do with them?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
What about, say, once upon a time - the Tv show. They manage to use a lot of the same characters and texts as disney (and other studios) And I haven't heard of the lawyers shutting that down.
That show airs on Disney-ABC and is backed by Disney. The most recent episode introduced Elsa from Frozen, after a bunch of negotiations and a greenlight from Disney.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Harry Potter with sex, snore! L.O.T.R with sex, snore. Buffy the vampire slayer at age 40 (probably having sex) snore!
See, you're still doing it: implying that the only things we must be talking about are silly oversexed fanfics.
Go see the incredibly moving and mindblowing Mr. Burns: A Post-Electric Play. Go watch Cracked's utterly hilarious (if you are a fan of the shows) mashup of Arrested Development and Game of Thrones. Go read Timothy Findlay's Headhunter or watch Apocalypse Now, both based on Heart of Darkness. Go see a production of The Beggar's Opera.
Expand your damn mind and stop assuming this is all about trivial slashfic.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Well you've been saying over and over in this thread that all of us who defend derivative work, the public domain, looser copyright, etc. have childish tastes and only like crappy "fan fantasy" art, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Yeah, you do sound old and/or wrong.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
(and, y'know, if you're going to spend this entire thread quietly implying that my tastes -- and those of many readers here who rightfully defend transformative culture and the importance of the public domain -- are uncreative and formulaic and somehow inferior, then I'll say what I like about yours)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
I'm sure your life is great. But also, based on the huge world of creativity you are dismissing here in these comments, I also suspect you are missing out on lots. Don't worry, we all are, somewhere or another - and in this case, there's a lot of stuff out there that is enriching and enjoyable but falls under the umbrella of "lazy" art that you've defined.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
(Also, the idea that original voices in music are "harder to find" today is laughable. I must say, your views on this smell very much of a "get off my lawn" attitude about the kids these days, moreso than any reasoned opinion on what constitutes worthwhile art and culture)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Clearly we have different views on what constitutes culture and creativity. To my mind, your view is very narrow, and I suspect your life is less rich for it. It is a shame.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 30: Does Distance Matter In The Digital Age?
Re: Time matters, not distance
I always thought the inexorable passage of time did an excellent job of that all by itself...?
On the post: Taylor Swift Is Not The Savior Artists Need
Re: Terri
Only the first part of that is true. The royalties collected by ASCAP and BMI have nothing to do with the recordings and everything to do with the compositions.
On the post: Taylor Swift Is Not The Savior Artists Need
Re: You missed a big point
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Uber
This is how English works. Words adapt over time. Nuances emerge between words that were once synonymous, or disappear between words that were once distinct. And the innovation/invention distinction is a very useful one that a lot of people are very familiar with, and one which is becoming increasingly more mainstream as the world of technology and economics from which it emerges becomes increasingly mainstream.
There is almost no such thing as a word whose definition is "universally accepted"
And hey, if you want to go even further, the Latin root inventio means a finding or discovery, while innovatio means to renew, restore or change. So aren't the people who believe they have the same meaning the ones getting it wrong?
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 29: Autonomous Vehicles Will Change Everything
Re: Re: Autonomous Vehicles
On the post: Hacking Policy Through Innovation, Not Lobbying
Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
This was pretty much confirmed when the discussion started focusing on how you can't really do anything with public domain anyway
Not sure what you mean here. That discussion started not as something people are accepting -- but as yet another thing that needs to be fixed about copyright law. You're focusing solely on the question of reducing copyright terms and we're talking about so much more than that - such as strengthening the sanctity of the public domain, clamping down on attempts to effectively re-copyright it, drastically strengthening fair use and transformative work defences when it comes to stuff that *isn't* in the public domain, adopting more compulsory licensing schemes to remove most/all issues of "permission" from copyright, and still more beyond...
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
There's also Disney and Warner Bros. fighting over Wizard of Oz trademarks, with the latter especially aggressively opposing things at the trademark office (which, again I realize, is about opposing new trademarks, not trying to block creation of the works).
While your very narrowly defined statement -- that there are no instances of someone blocking a movie based entirely on a trademark claim -- appears true, the extrapolation that as such trademark represents no threat and creators don't have anything to worry about (or to spend money and time preparing for / thinking about / defending against) is not.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Your ENTIRE argument is based on the notion that any creativity that is derived from a public domain work is inherently worthless and low-quality. Sounds like a taste judgement to me.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Enjoy them, remix them, distribute them, derive things from them, mash them together, update them, present them in new lights, produce the next Apocalypse Now. Y'know, the stuff you're allowed to do with public domain works. Why, what do you want to do with them?
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
So yeah, it does happen.
http://www.newyorktrademarkattorneyblog.com/2014/02/10/disney-prevails-trademark-lawsuit-involving-m ovie-frozen/
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
That show airs on Disney-ABC and is backed by Disney. The most recent episode introduced Elsa from Frozen, after a bunch of negotiations and a greenlight from Disney.
So uh yeah, want to try again?
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
See, you're still doing it: implying that the only things we must be talking about are silly oversexed fanfics.
Go see the incredibly moving and mindblowing Mr. Burns: A Post-Electric Play. Go watch Cracked's utterly hilarious (if you are a fan of the shows) mashup of Arrested Development and Game of Thrones. Go read Timothy Findlay's Headhunter or watch Apocalypse Now, both based on Heart of Darkness. Go see a production of The Beggar's Opera.
Expand your damn mind and stop assuming this is all about trivial slashfic.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
If you honestly believe there's no chance that any of those things would rouse Disney, then you don't know Disney...
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: June 7th - 13th
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "is intellectual property immoral?" -- Techdirt answers that only one way:
Next >>