I dunno. Honestly, I don't buy the angle that the world's problems boil down to "people suck" nor do I buy the idea that we have to choose between letting power-hungry people screw us over officially or attack us illegally.
I think the issue, even as you frame it, remains systemic and cultural: the political system as it currently functions permits the people you identify to become powerful, and even translates their negative characteristics into political advantages. The broader culture of political discourse promotes ideological factionalism, frames compromise as weakness or defeat, and draws little-to-no distinction between objective challenges and subjective values. The structure ensures that leaders must spend more time fighting to remain leaders than they do actually leading, and while it's great that said fighting is now done with media and psychology instead of bullets and blood, it still creates the troublesome situation where progress is almost unheard of, taking place only for brief stints on the tiny little islands of political security that crop up during the storm.
That's why some people's brains go straight to autocracy, of course -- it seems like the exact opposite, with a leader who needs waste no time on remaining leader and can focus all efforts on improving the nation's lot and that of its people. But of course that's not true either: the ongoing war for power in an autocracy is a war between the dictator and everyone else, with his position in fact relying on informal support from a wide variety of self-interested parties. Sure, in the event of a genuinely benevolent, wise and well-liked dictator, things might appear to be going great -- but that's even rarer than those brief moments of political security in our current system. Plus, even if it is achieved, it is inherently unstable since a functioning social order relies so heavily on one person.
Actually I think the problem is that the political system no longer promotes consensus-building or pragmatism. 100 people don't have to all be right, nor do they all have to agree on anything -- but they need to have a mechanism that facilitates their cooperation, not one that exacerbates and trivializes their competition.
I think it's kinda both... I mean sure, now they might not have the cash, but they did at one point when they first saw the world changing -- and instead of trying to change the nature of their experience to suit it, they tried to defend their existing way of doing things and cram more people into the seats with more expensive concessions. Such a rare story in entertainment industries these days, of course ;)
Indeed. I finally went to see Age of Ultron last night, and all I could think the entire time was "man I wish I was watching this at home on my computer..."
I dunno about where you are but here we DO have VIP Cinemas now, with tables for groups and comfy chairs and in-theatre food & drink service and such. But naturally they cost considerably more than your average movie ticket.
This is a blog, not a board or a platform or a magazine... Submissions are accepted, but everything goes through our editors. No need to provide an email if you don't want to -- comments are open to all.
It's a nice thought, but sadly copyright law as written is based on the prevailing assumption that granting such monopolies to creative works is indeed in the public interest.
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Shouldn't Have a Media Player in the First Place, and Possibly, Not Even Podcasts.
Do you not comprehend that different things can both have value? That there is much to be said for a well-rehearsed performance or discussion in some contexts, and that at other times people very much enjoy listening to an unrehearsed conversation among people they find interesting or insightful or funny or what-have-you?
I am not "startled" by the concept of career progression in an artistic field. I am baffled by your direct connection of Shakespearean acting to a podcast about technology and media, as though the purpose of and standards for the two are identical.
*loyal reader for over 10 years, who values your service greatly
Then perhaps you could value the insight of the people who run the blog, including the person who has been running it for over 10 years, instead of telling us all our reasons are stupid and essentially accusing us of lying.
If you need Squarespace, you shouldn't be building websites.
If you need Soundcloud, you shouldn't be distributing audio.
This is a new world where content gets created without thrid party overloards. Join us.
If you think any of those things are true, then you're living in a fantasy-land and have no idea how the modern web works.
Firstly, we're a very small team with a large number of projects. It's not easy for us to just take on the management of entire new things on a whim, no matter how simple those things might seem to you.
Secondly, the internet ad market is not as easy or as simple as you presume. Try selling ads for a blog of this size - while keeping a commitment to quality ads that don't piss of your readers and are never deceptive - and you'll see that.
Thirdly, the fact that we use third-party services has nothing to do with a "hipster aesthetic" (honestly... look at our still-not-updated site design... how hip are we right now?) but that we actually believe that sort of networking and work-distribution is one of the greatest things about the internet, and an extremely powerful way to fuel innovation and growth. We chose SoundCloud because we like a whole lot of what that company does and stands for and found they offered an clean and easy out-of-the-box solution for our needs — if we feel we really have to re-think that, we will.
Re: You Shouldn't Have a Media Player in the First Place, and Possibly, Not Even Podcasts.
The truth is that unless you are the sort of person who goes and does Shakespeare in the park, for no pay, and with a stage consisting of blankets which you have painted and stapled to thin pieces of wood, and the audience consisting of such persons as are willing to sit on the grass, or have brought their own folding chairs and picnic baskets, you are not really an actor, and you have no business doing podcasting.
But your initial argument here is that protecting the moral rights of creators -- such as not wanting a politician they disagree with to use their work -- is a key reason that we need copyright.
How can you say that, and then say you are not fond of moral rights? Do you mean that you don't think we should actually have a law to protect the thing you think is important, as long as creators are able to misuse another law to similar effect?
The point Cpt. was making is not that the photo would likely find such a use fair in those circumstances -- simply that it's absolutely possible and, if they did, the photographer's moral objections to the politician would not be relevant.
You've proposed that a creator's ability to make moral decisions about who can use their work is one of the reasons that copyright is important. We are pushing back on that, because the truth is that copyright makes no actual room for such concerns. The ability to use copyright in that way is a side effect -- it's neither the purpose of the law nor the ideal outcome of the law.
If you truly believe that situations like this are the ones that make creator control worthwhile, then what you truly believe in are moral rights, not economic copyrights.
No, but you're arguing that it's right and good for creators to make decisions about how to license their work based on their moral feelings about the use. Yes, that's possible under the current law — but I also think it's a bad thing, and essentially a misuse of copyright which is not supposed to be about moral concerns but about economics.
As for the compulsory licensing, yes, it prevents you from changing the song -- and that is a huge flaw in the system. It would work even better if people were able to get compulsory licenses for derivative works, alterations, remixes and everything else.
Another important question to consider: can moral rights be transferrable? In most countries that have strong moral rights, they are not — nor are they alienable or waiveable. Because if this truly is a moral issue, would it make any sense for a creator to be able to sell the right to make moral decisions about their work to another party? If that's possible, then clearly it's not a moral issue at all — it's just another artificial means of control to be bartered for its economic value.
But on the other hand, if moral rights aren't transferrable, then it reduces the value of your economic rights, and creates a lot of messy situations. I am going to be far, far less interested in purchasing a license to one of your photos -- or purchasing the rights to one of your photos entirely -- if I know that you, forever, will retain the right to interfere with my use of it. Generally this includes your right to demand attribution, and to prevent me from damaging the "integrity" of the work by modifying it, plus anything else where you can make the argument that my use is damaging your relationship to the work as its creator.
I do not believe in "moral rights" for creators. And the US copyright system mostly excludes them as well, preferring to focus solely on the economic aspect, even though that makes America's adherence to the Berne Convention questionable -- which I approve of.
I just do not see what purpose it serves for society to give people the right to control use of their work, via copyright, but on moral grounds. How is that a good thing for anyone? For every photographer trying to block an anti-gay-marriage politician from using their work, there's also a politician trying to block a watchdog group from using footage of their stump speeches to highlight their self-contradictions, and a corporation trying to block the exposure of its bad business practices and toxic culture. See, that knife cuts in a lot of directions, and most of them aint so nice.
Copyright tends to work best when there such restrictions are impossible. For example, look at the compulsory license system for cover songs: a rightsholder can't stop you from covering their song as long as you pay the fixed prescribed royalty rate. It doesn't matter if they hate your style of music or think you are butchering it -- they get no say in the matter. That permissiveness has given us a rich history of genre-bending covers and reimaginings, and it's easy to find death metal bands covering golden oldies and crooners oldie-fying death metal songs. Our musical culture has, without a doubt, benefited hugely from this open exchange of songs between musicians. Would we be better off if musicians had the right to say "I don't want that band covering my song, but I'll let this one do it"?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think the issue, even as you frame it, remains systemic and cultural: the political system as it currently functions permits the people you identify to become powerful, and even translates their negative characteristics into political advantages. The broader culture of political discourse promotes ideological factionalism, frames compromise as weakness or defeat, and draws little-to-no distinction between objective challenges and subjective values. The structure ensures that leaders must spend more time fighting to remain leaders than they do actually leading, and while it's great that said fighting is now done with media and psychology instead of bullets and blood, it still creates the troublesome situation where progress is almost unheard of, taking place only for brief stints on the tiny little islands of political security that crop up during the storm.
That's why some people's brains go straight to autocracy, of course -- it seems like the exact opposite, with a leader who needs waste no time on remaining leader and can focus all efforts on improving the nation's lot and that of its people. But of course that's not true either: the ongoing war for power in an autocracy is a war between the dictator and everyone else, with his position in fact relying on informal support from a wide variety of self-interested parties. Sure, in the event of a genuinely benevolent, wise and well-liked dictator, things might appear to be going great -- but that's even rarer than those brief moments of political security in our current system. Plus, even if it is achieved, it is inherently unstable since a functioning social order relies so heavily on one person.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: May 17th - 23rd
Re: Re: Re: Home Video Vs Cinemas
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: May 17th - 23rd
Re: Re: Re: Home Video Vs Cinemas
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: May 17th - 23rd
Re: Re: Home Video Vs Cinemas
I dunno about where you are but here we DO have VIP Cinemas now, with tables for groups and comfy chairs and in-theatre food & drink service and such. But naturally they cost considerably more than your average movie ticket.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: May 10th - 16th
Re: Board question: user-gen content or editored?
This is a blog, not a board or a platform or a magazine... Submissions are accepted, but everything goes through our editors. No need to provide an email if you don't want to -- comments are open to all.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: pre-infringement... it's all how you look at it.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 22: Are Smaller Online Media Players Doomed In The Age Of Buzzfeed?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Shouldn't Have a Media Player in the First Place, and Possibly, Not Even Podcasts.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 22: Are Smaller Online Media Players Doomed In The Age Of Buzzfeed?
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Shouldn't Have a Media Player in the First Place, and Possibly, Not Even Podcasts.
I am not "startled" by the concept of career progression in an artistic field. I am baffled by your direct connection of Shakespearean acting to a podcast about technology and media, as though the purpose of and standards for the two are identical.
On the post: Fair Use At Risk When Private Companies Get To Make The Decision For Us
Re: Re: Re: You Reap What You Sow
Then perhaps you could value the insight of the people who run the blog, including the person who has been running it for over 10 years, instead of telling us all our reasons are stupid and essentially accusing us of lying.
If you need Squarespace, you shouldn't be building websites.
If you need Soundcloud, you shouldn't be distributing audio.
This is a new world where content gets created without thrid party overloards. Join us.
If you think any of those things are true, then you're living in a fantasy-land and have no idea how the modern web works.
On the post: Fair Use At Risk When Private Companies Get To Make The Decision For Us
Re: Re: Re: You Reap What You Sow
On the post: Fair Use At Risk When Private Companies Get To Make The Decision For Us
Re: You Reap What You Sow
Secondly, the internet ad market is not as easy or as simple as you presume. Try selling ads for a blog of this size - while keeping a commitment to quality ads that don't piss of your readers and are never deceptive - and you'll see that.
Thirdly, the fact that we use third-party services has nothing to do with a "hipster aesthetic" (honestly... look at our still-not-updated site design... how hip are we right now?) but that we actually believe that sort of networking and work-distribution is one of the greatest things about the internet, and an extremely powerful way to fuel innovation and growth. We chose SoundCloud because we like a whole lot of what that company does and stands for and found they offered an clean and easy out-of-the-box solution for our needs — if we feel we really have to re-think that, we will.
On the post: Fair Use At Risk When Private Companies Get To Make The Decision For Us
Re:
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 22: Are Smaller Online Media Players Doomed In The Age Of Buzzfeed?
Re: You Shouldn't Have a Media Player in the First Place, and Possibly, Not Even Podcasts.
...WHAT?
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But your initial argument here is that protecting the moral rights of creators -- such as not wanting a politician they disagree with to use their work -- is a key reason that we need copyright.
How can you say that, and then say you are not fond of moral rights? Do you mean that you don't think we should actually have a law to protect the thing you think is important, as long as creators are able to misuse another law to similar effect?
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've proposed that a creator's ability to make moral decisions about who can use their work is one of the reasons that copyright is important. We are pushing back on that, because the truth is that copyright makes no actual room for such concerns. The ability to use copyright in that way is a side effect -- it's neither the purpose of the law nor the ideal outcome of the law.
If you truly believe that situations like this are the ones that make creator control worthwhile, then what you truly believe in are moral rights, not economic copyrights.
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for the compulsory licensing, yes, it prevents you from changing the song -- and that is a huge flaw in the system. It would work even better if people were able to get compulsory licenses for derivative works, alterations, remixes and everything else.
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But on the other hand, if moral rights aren't transferrable, then it reduces the value of your economic rights, and creates a lot of messy situations. I am going to be far, far less interested in purchasing a license to one of your photos -- or purchasing the rights to one of your photos entirely -- if I know that you, forever, will retain the right to interfere with my use of it. Generally this includes your right to demand attribution, and to prevent me from damaging the "integrity" of the work by modifying it, plus anything else where you can make the argument that my use is damaging your relationship to the work as its creator.
Put simply: screw that.
On the post: If You're Promoting Copyright Without Fair Use, You're Promoting Out And Out Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do not believe in "moral rights" for creators. And the US copyright system mostly excludes them as well, preferring to focus solely on the economic aspect, even though that makes America's adherence to the Berne Convention questionable -- which I approve of.
I just do not see what purpose it serves for society to give people the right to control use of their work, via copyright, but on moral grounds. How is that a good thing for anyone? For every photographer trying to block an anti-gay-marriage politician from using their work, there's also a politician trying to block a watchdog group from using footage of their stump speeches to highlight their self-contradictions, and a corporation trying to block the exposure of its bad business practices and toxic culture. See, that knife cuts in a lot of directions, and most of them aint so nice.
Copyright tends to work best when there such restrictions are impossible. For example, look at the compulsory license system for cover songs: a rightsholder can't stop you from covering their song as long as you pay the fixed prescribed royalty rate. It doesn't matter if they hate your style of music or think you are butchering it -- they get no say in the matter. That permissiveness has given us a rich history of genre-bending covers and reimaginings, and it's easy to find death metal bands covering golden oldies and crooners oldie-fying death metal songs. Our musical culture has, without a doubt, benefited hugely from this open exchange of songs between musicians. Would we be better off if musicians had the right to say "I don't want that band covering my song, but I'll let this one do it"?
Next >>