"""They did copy my song but I don't think they did it on purpose."""
"""Islam doesn't even entertain the possibility that no copying took place, that it's just a natural melody to sing over those chords."""
"""It's nice to see Islam recognize that this sort of thing "happens all the time" and that "it's ok" -- and hopefully that means he's given up on a lawsuit -- but he fails to admit even the possibility that Coldplay came up with the melody on their own."""
Blaise, what I take away from Yusuf's statement is that even if they had written this song without ever having heard Yusuf's song (which may well be the case), he would still consider it to be "copied" because his song came first. To him it was the timeline that mattered. But he also goes on to basically say "No big deal." I disagree with Yusuf's definition of copied in this case, but the total gist of his message seems very valid to me.
"""It lasted for one month, to make a political statement, and it happened two years ago. And suddenly the RIAA/musicFIRST wants an FCC investigation? Of a bunch of high schoolers making a political statement against a tax that would harm their educational radio station by not "pirating" materials that the lobbyists claim are pirated?"""
Jeez Mike, when you put it that way, it sounds kinda silly.
"""Then you completely defeat your entire argument by writing this:
The amount of time, money, and effort to track down a single file sharer is beyond understanding.
If these alleged crimes are not worth pursing, proving, and prosecuting, then it necessarily follows that they are not serious crimes! Under your argument, you concede that it is not worth the music industry efforts to go after pirates because the costs of pursuing the charges far exceed the harm the pirates are causing."""
Was going to comment to say precisely this. I thought it was amusing that by simply shifting the position of a couple of sentences in AC's post, you get an almost Monty Python-esque effect:
"You just said that!"
"No I didn't."
"""Also, what makes you thing "The cost to artists is next to nothing, but the potential payoff is quite high."""
I -think- the cost to artists is next to nothing because the cost to artists is next to nothing. They are being asked for permission to advertise already created works of art, no extra work required. You do realize that a huge segment of the economy is devoted to paying in order to get more exposure (advertising) for products? And yet Google offers to do this for free since there is a benefit for them as well.
This is called win-win. I can't even comprehend the mindset that cannot see this.
Not a half bad idea, but really, SD cards are probably more expensive to manufacture than CDs/DVDs/Bluray discs. However if part of the idea is to decrease the actual physical size to correspond with the decreased size, thereby enforcing the concept of the incidental purchase, I'm sure they could find a way to mass produce SD (or your favorite alternative) very inexpensively.
Mike didn't actually claim it was infringement, as you noted later in your comment, he said "copy". I agree that Disney's creation would fall under parody, but today even parody invites an almost automatic claim of infringement. Also, it seems that you deliberately misinterpreted Mike's notion that Steamboat Willie "kicked off" Disney's empire. Can we agree that this cartoon was the showcase for Disney's synchronized sound technology? If so, then his statement stands, copying or no.
"""From the small bit I read, it was a question of fairness; about people using open-source software, building upon it to make it better, but not sharing those improvements back."""
I see two distinct views in the comments: non-coders who seem to be saying 'WTF, I can't help with that and I shouldn't be expected to!' I agree, and I'm pretty sure the open-source producers agree as well.
Then there are the coders who are (theoretically) forking products and making improvements but not sharing back to the community, or worse yet attempting to sell 'their' product which is against the terms of almost every open-source license. In this scenario I agree with the open-source producers, improvements should be forwarded to the community, and people should not be charged for what is essentially open-source software with some add-ons.
"""One would *think* a voting machine would require a lot less work than an ATM..."""
Actually, this is a really interesting comment. Would one think that? This one certainly does not: I think that a voting transaction -should- be handled with the same security and attention to detail provided for a currency transaction. However, I believe it is very likely that many would agree with you, that collecting votes should be "simpler than an ATM". Maybe this is part of the problem. Completing a voting transaction should be every bit as carefully completed and monitored as getting 20 bucks out of the ATM.
I once saw an add for a cable + internet package that was a really good deal, much cheaper than I was paying. I called the company and inquired about subscribing. First question I was asked was my address. When I gave it, I was told that they were not 'allowed' to service my area, another company covered it. If that is not the definition of "anti-competitive", I don't know what is.
Re: What does DRM and the DMCA have to do with this?
Apple (and HP -> printer cartridges, Sony/MS/Nintendo -> game systems, and the list goes on) claims that jailbreaking bypasses their built in 'locks' built into the software, including those locks that give them ultimate control over your (and I use the term 'your' loosely) iPhone, is breaking the law via the DMCA's rules against reverse-engineering/decrypting/decompiling/etc.
The DMCA was an incredibly poorly thought out piece of legislation. Also I seem to recall that many many of the voting legislators noted that they had not had the time (but I suspect more likely no inclination) to even read the full text of the DMCA.
Are you really stating that the reason "it took humankind so many years to evolve from primordial slime" is weak patent systems?
O.k., fascetiousness aside, the answer to "why bother" is to excel, to achieve. Patents do not accomplish this goal, they provide over-arching protections that many believe lead to less competition -- which is the situation that really should beg the question "why bother". If *someone* is going to sue you no matter what you try to do, nobody will try to do anything.
On the post: Yusuf Islam Forgives Coldplay For Copying His Song, Even Though They Probably Didn't
Depends on your definition I suppose
"""Islam doesn't even entertain the possibility that no copying took place, that it's just a natural melody to sing over those chords."""
"""It's nice to see Islam recognize that this sort of thing "happens all the time" and that "it's ok" -- and hopefully that means he's given up on a lawsuit -- but he fails to admit even the possibility that Coldplay came up with the melody on their own."""
Blaise, what I take away from Yusuf's statement is that even if they had written this song without ever having heard Yusuf's song (which may well be the case), he would still consider it to be "copied" because his song came first. To him it was the timeline that mattered. But he also goes on to basically say "No big deal." I disagree with Yusuf's definition of copied in this case, but the total gist of his message seems very valid to me.
On the post: Um, Sorry, But You Don't Get To Sue When Somebody Moves Images You're Hotlinking
Re: I'm the guy...
On the post: Recording Industry: Radio Is Piracy, But Not Playing Our Music Is A Federal Offense
Hmm
Jeez Mike, when you put it that way, it sounds kinda silly.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Still Insisting That Gov't Protectionism Is The Only Way To Compete
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The amount of time, money, and effort to track down a single file sharer is beyond understanding.
If these alleged crimes are not worth pursing, proving, and prosecuting, then it necessarily follows that they are not serious crimes! Under your argument, you concede that it is not worth the music industry efforts to go after pirates because the costs of pursuing the charges far exceed the harm the pirates are causing."""
Was going to comment to say precisely this. I thought it was amusing that by simply shifting the position of a couple of sentences in AC's post, you get an almost Monty Python-esque effect:
"You just said that!"
"No I didn't."
On the post: Don't Underestimate The Value Of Exposure
Re: Um. No.
I -think- the cost to artists is next to nothing because the cost to artists is next to nothing. They are being asked for permission to advertise already created works of art, no extra work required. You do realize that a huge segment of the economy is devoted to paying in order to get more exposure (advertising) for products? And yet Google offers to do this for free since there is a benefit for them as well.
This is called win-win. I can't even comprehend the mindset that cannot see this.
On the post: Blu-Ray To Allow Users To Make 'Copies' -- With Lots Of Strings Attached
Re:
On the post: Rep. Wexler And The Lies Of The Copyright Industry
Re: Steamboat Bill ?
Mike didn't actually claim it was infringement, as you noted later in your comment, he said "copy". I agree that Disney's creation would fall under parody, but today even parody invites an almost automatic claim of infringement. Also, it seems that you deliberately misinterpreted Mike's notion that Steamboat Willie "kicked off" Disney's empire. Can we agree that this cartoon was the showcase for Disney's synchronized sound technology? If so, then his statement stands, copying or no.
On the post: The Fear Of Freeloaders Overblown In Both Proprietary And Open Arenas
Re:
I see two distinct views in the comments: non-coders who seem to be saying 'WTF, I can't help with that and I shouldn't be expected to!' I agree, and I'm pretty sure the open-source producers agree as well.
Then there are the coders who are (theoretically) forking products and making improvements but not sharing back to the community, or worse yet attempting to sell 'their' product which is against the terms of almost every open-source license. In this scenario I agree with the open-source producers, improvements should be forwarded to the community, and people should not be charged for what is essentially open-source software with some add-ons.
On the post: Yet Another E-Voting Glitch; This One Adds 5,000 Phantom Votes
Re:
Actually, this is a really interesting comment. Would one think that? This one certainly does not: I think that a voting transaction -should- be handled with the same security and attention to detail provided for a currency transaction. However, I believe it is very likely that many would agree with you, that collecting votes should be "simpler than an ATM". Maybe this is part of the problem. Completing a voting transaction should be every bit as carefully completed and monitored as getting 20 bucks out of the ATM.
On the post: Verizon: US Broadband Is Really Competitive, If You Just Redefine The Market The Way We Want...
Competition
On the post: Apple's Rejection Of EFF RSS Reader App Sort Of Proves EFF's Point About Arbitrary App Rejections
Re: What does DRM and the DMCA have to do with this?
The DMCA was an incredibly poorly thought out piece of legislation. Also I seem to recall that many many of the voting legislators noted that they had not had the time (but I suspect more likely no inclination) to even read the full text of the DMCA.
On the post: The Role Of Abundance In Innovation
Re: gobbledygook
Are you really stating that the reason "it took humankind so many years to evolve from primordial slime" is weak patent systems?
O.k., fascetiousness aside, the answer to "why bother" is to excel, to achieve. Patents do not accomplish this goal, they provide over-arching protections that many believe lead to less competition -- which is the situation that really should beg the question "why bother". If *someone* is going to sue you no matter what you try to do, nobody will try to do anything.
Next >>