Now I don't know the facts about the music in question(as nobody replying on this blog does) but I would assume that he wouldn't need to use whole songs, so this post is thrown right out.
The important question is still.....Why would he have to get licensing for 5-10 second snippets of songs just to show how the section of music in question is different or maybe even similar?
in the original article: You really find yourself in a "Catch 22" - since, as a copyright attorney (who will be presumed will be fully aware of the law in this area) you need the permission of the copyright owners to illustrate, in an intelligible manner, the fact that their copyrights are likely to be worthless.
i take that to mean that the point of the book was to prove that the copyright is invalid on some music that was involved in a messy copyright dispute.
if you are writing a book about how a particular copyright is worthless, does that affect your chances of (1) obtaining permission to use the samples for a fee that fits the book's budget, (2) your chances of being taken to court and having to prove fair use if you were to use the samples without permission?
heft·y (hěf'tē) adjective
Of considerable size or amount
Lovely definition, which I find perfectly acceptable
excellent, if you will accept dictionary definitions, have a look at these:
con⋅sid⋅er⋅a⋅tion (kən-sĭd'ə-rā'shən) noun
1)the act of considering; careful thought; meditation; deliberation
2)something that is or is to be kept in mind in making a decision, evaluating facts, etc.
con⋅sid⋅er⋅a⋅ble (kən-sĭd'ər-ə-bəl) adjective
1) Large in amount, extent, or degree
2) Worthy of consideration; significant
(3) What you have failed to establish is that (1) = (2). The fees were "outside the budget." Does that mean the fees were "considerable" or doest that they were not going to go outside their budget?
if you have to decide whether you can afford a fee, you are considering it. that fee then becomes a factor to be considered; it becomes a consideration when making a decision and is therefore "considerable" according to definitnon #2 for the word considerable. if it is decided that the fee is too large, based on your consideration, then the fee is considerable according to definition #1 for the word considerable.
therefore, according to the definitions above, the amount of the fee is considerable and therefore is "hefty".
(5) Mike deliberately and with specific intent used the word "hefty" because he was intentionally biasing the original report to further enhance how he perceives of copyright;
of course he did. he's a dirty bastard that keeps all his pirate bay money that supports terrorism in offshore accounts. i thought we established that already.
(6) Did copyright "prevent" the use of the music? No, the publisher's unwillingness to go outside their budget prevented seeking the licenses, not copyright.
and the licenses would be required even if copyright had fair use as a right instead of a legal defense? i think not.
it still seems like fair use should have permitted the use of the music
thanks to the copyright system, you can either pay up front (if you can even locate someone to pay) or you can roll the dice and run the risk of paying to prove fair use in court.
both of those options seem like budgetary obstacles that prevent small independent creative works and are a direct result of copyright.
was I bashing or asking for clarification or support for the use of a word that in context became pejorative?
the dude explained why he used the word hefty like a dozen posts ago and you're still on his dick.
At least, the hefty defensive reaction I got in response to my simple little question seemed to indicate so.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? "there [sic] you go again with the numbers." Really? What number?
you said, Can we establish a dollar figure for "out of reach" so that we know what "hefty" means?. that sounds like you want to establish a dollar figure for "hefty". i am not sure how to express a dollar figure without using numbers. if it is possible to do so then please forgive me, i went to public school. if you were being rhetorical, then perhaps you should have stated so.
I returned to the basic issue, which is "how" do you define hefty?
i define "hefty" as a "considerable amount", just like webster's. if you have to take into consideration the amount necessary to acquire a license, then that amount is considerable. i would call deciding whether or not you can afford something to be consideration. maybe you don't and that is where we will have to agree to disagree. but to my understanding of the word consideration (something that is or is to be kept in mind in making a decision, according to webster), an amount that is determined to be too large for a budget is considerable (rather large or great in size, distance, extent, etc. again, according to webster's) and therefore conforms to the definition of "hefty".
that is how i define "hefty". i can try to put it in simpler terms if you would like.
If the author needed $30 for licensing fees, then I will call him up and pay the fees for him just so he can have a better book.
see, $30 looks like a number, a "dollar figure" if you will. again, maybe you mean something other than "thirty dollars", but it sure looks like the number thirty representing a number of dollars. again, this all looks to me to be you asking for numbers as an answer when i have stated that you can't use numbers to answer the question. again, i went to a public school, so maybe there are special meanings for this stuff that i am just not aware of.
How does the article justify the use of the word hefty with respect to the licensing fees?
the article stated that "the need for licenses and the budget foreclosed our doing so." i interpret that as meaning that the fees didn't fit the budget because they were too large, or "hefty".
How can we use a relative word, "hefty," when the relativity was arbitrarily established as "considered out of reach"? What does "clearly considered out of reach" mean? Can we establish a dollar figure for "out of reach" so that we know what "hefty" means? And, can we do so in a way that does not use assumptions?
there you go again with the numbers. the problem is that the fees got in the way of an author making his point. that's not a problem that you can solve with a spreadsheet.
the copyright system has been sold to us as a method for protecting creative works, but for a lot of creators, it is an obstacle. that is the point. that is the problem.
i know that you want to plug in numbers and you think that will prove your point, but the point isn't a numeric value. the point is that the system that protects creative works prevents the creation of creative works via legal fees and licensing fees. that's a problem.
no, i understand the point completely. you want to bash mike, this blog, and the people who post here.
you can't accept that licensing fees prevented the author from making his point about how absurd copyright has become and complain about the use of a word in order to derail the conversation with unknown/made up numbers.
the copyright argument is always about getting free music, right? it's always about cheap bastards who want to steal your back catalog. it's never about creativity, innovation, or free speech. it's never about advancing the useful arts and sciences. that's your point, right? that against monopoly, techdirt, and people who don't agree with copyright in it's current implementation are just cheap, lazy, and ungrateful, right?
people want to create things and the copyright system, a system supposedly developed to protect peoples creations, prevents that at a number of turns. one such example is the fact that making fair use of a small portion of a copyrighted work in a scholarly discussion is not protected by the copyright system and one must either pay to obtain clearance for using that work, or pay to prove fair use in a court of law. either way, the author must pay up or not include the material. the author chose to not include the material. you copyright types should be happy about that.
so you can go to the mat over mike's use of the word hefty, because the article doesn't include any numbers, but it doesn't change the fact that a work that is critical of the copyright system couldn't make it's point thanks to the machinations of the copyright system.
It appears that "hefty" has been used in an extension of the original article even though "hefty" was never justified by that article, and there has been no explanation as to what hefty means.
i went with the webster's definition. if you don't accept the webster's definition, i'm not sure you will accept any definition.
we do not know whether "out of reach" was defined by the budget (which is a common occurrence in projects), or whether it was defined by the ability (or even willingness) of participants in the project to pay.
and why does that matter? if i want to create something, and copyright prevents it, and the point of copyright is to protect creative works, then either there is something wrong with the copyright system or the point of the copyright system is not to protect creative works but to some other end, perhaps preventing creativity by small independent creators or perhaps generating revenue from licensing fees.
out of reach means out of reach. hefty means of a considerable amount. the licensing fees were considered (the webster's definition that you will not accept) to be too great. the fees got in the way. that a problem. that's THE problem.
the author thought the fees were too great. you don't think they were. i understand that. i get that you dislike what mike says, and you dislike the conversations had here. we are all very aware.
The so-called "made up numbers" were merely a suggestion as to what the numbers could have been.
of course they are, and i stand by my assertion that your assumption dispelled mikes assumption, thanks to your numbers that don't really exist. this is excellent work you are doing here, making the world safe from assumptions other than your own.
Furthermore, if I sounded sarcastic, that was not my intent.
i have doubt at that you are completely sincere, that's why this is so entertaining.
ahh yes, the bill clinton defense. classy choice considering the gravity of this issue and what is at stake here.
even though there is not one iota of evidence to back up that it was exceeded by a "considerable amount," or even what the definition of "considerable amount" is.
woah, easy on the speculation, sir. perhaps we should first define what "is" is, then proceed to defining what "definition" is. if we can tackle those thorny issues, perhaps we can then approach what "if" means, and if we manage to get past that, then we can go into the difference between speculation and and assumption.
Here I will make an assumption and assume that they would have proceeded with any amount up to $500.
woah woah woah, you can't just go and assume. dirty bastards like mike assume. i hoped you wouldn't stoop so low as to assume, and assuming with made up numbers? made up numbers are what caused all this drama to begin with. i am very disappointed. i had such high hopes for us :-(
Aren't you mixing up posts? Mike was the one posting about "hefty" fees. The later posts were trying to figure out how "hefty" came about, given that the original article did not use the word "hefty."
i don't think so, mike said it was reasonable to assume that a licensing fee that was out of reach of a person's budget could be considered "hefty".
then an anonymous coward stepped in with some made up numbers to show that mike's assumption was not reasonable based on AC's assumptions, thereby dispelling mike's previous assumption as unreasonable and asserting the AC's own assumption as reasonable. really, it's all very simple.
Since you seem to be the master of all knowledge, perhaps you might enlighten us as to what "hefty" means in terms of licensing fees?
oh no my friend, i don't know everything. i simply read people's posts in their entirety and don't get my feelings hurt when someone is sarcastic.
you will note that I neither "hand waved" or made "assumptions,"
my mistake, i must have misread "It is true that I am assuming" to mean that it was true that you were assuming something.
I repeat my earlier request. How do we go from "doesn't fit our budget" to "hefty" licensing fees?
heft·y (hěf'tē) adjective
Of considerable size or amount
an amount that does not fit into the budget is considerable, or at the very least deserves some consideration.
this is especially true in the context of publications that criticize copyright because copyright critics are all cheap bastards who don't really care about innovation or enrichment and just want everything for free.
It is true that I am assuming that $10 was left over, but not really. I merely wondered how a statement about budgeting for the book leads to a presumption that fees for licensing are "hefty." For all we know the licensing fees were ten cents per book, but with an initial run of 5000 books the fees would have been $500 and the budget did not have $500 left. Now, ten cents on the price of a $20 or $30 book is hardly "hefty." The gross amount of $500 is closer to "hefty," but again that is a relative term. I merely ask for clarification as to how Mike was able to go from "insufficient money in the budget" to "hefty."
you are absolutely right. mike is a damn dirty liar for making assumptions.
you on the otherhand, with your assumptions and hand waving, are a shining monument to integrity.
hefty clearly doesn't translate to "doesn't fit our budget", it clearly translates to some numbers that some anonymous coward made up.
thanks for clearing up this matter.
mike: i expect to see your full apology on the front page of the website forthwith.
yeah yeah we've heard it all before: you wouldn't steal a car, piracy supports terrorism, think of the artists, the rights agencies collect money for song writers who can't tour, the pirate bay makes billions of dollars in offshore accounts, blah blah blah.
you always say the same shit and we always refute it point by point and you keep coming back with the same shit. tell your handlers that you need more material.
i guess i have to ask the obvious question:
what part of "the conversation has moved on" don't you get?
I think in the future shows may be given smaller budgets to compensate if they are going to lose large areas of ad space from online streaming. This might mean more reality shows and less big budget shows like Lost.
or you could just figure out how to deliver quality entertainment with fewer costs.
I also predict more product placement in tv shows. The intergration of ads and content is the only way to ensure to advertisers that people are watching the ads.
it can't get any worse than chuck. it's a giant commercial for bestbuy, subway, dell, and toyota. i am waiting for the episode where they have gunfights with subway sandwiches instead of pistols.
i think that product misplacement (or anti-placement) would be fun: get paid to put bad placements into shows: food that makes people sick, cars that break down, gadgets that malfunction, etc. competitors could bid to either run the ads or take them out of the show.
Are drugs improving the quality of law enforcement?
based on watching "the wire" i would say yes.
the cops find a way to get an advantage over the dealers, then the dealers find a way to circumvent that advantage. this means that cops have to upgrade their tactics to keep pace.
For file sharing to not hurt the profit of movies, the theater has to offer something that home viewing cannot. With the increasing emphasis on large screens and special effects, other aspects of movies are more likely to get neglected.
i went to see the watchmen opener, and it was great. i went with a bunch of friends, we hung out with other hardcore fans, and we had a blast. waiting in line with a hundreds of total strangers that are just as excited as you are is something you can't pirate or get at home.
also, there have been a few 3d flicks (mostly kid movies) that have been fun to go see.
ads can be viewed once with no problem, twice is usually still ok, but after that it begins to do the opposite of intent, in repelling the intended target. After that it begins to build resentment in the target to the point of product boycott if carried too far.
i couldn't agree more.
there are some films that i still haven't seen because i saw the trailer for it too many times. this happens a lot on basic cable networks like comedy central and spikeTV.
i have all but stopped watching cable TV and i have found that i am more open to movies now that i am not seeing commercials for them all the time, especially the films my wife likes that are not really targets towards me.
i hate to say it, but the most interesting ads i have seen in the past few years are from burgerking. between their crazy commercials, xbox games, and crazy web promotions, i find myself paying more attention to their ads than i do to anyone else's. those ads, plus the having a decent veggie burger on the menu make BK a more likely choice for my family when it comes to burger joints.
Actually, it is pretty easy. Go to TPB. Download a copy of the top list every day for the next 30 days. Report back how many legal items were on that top list.
that only reports what the users are doing, not the engine itself. this is why we have safe harbor laws.
the engine itself is serving up data that the users ask for, and that data is links to content that may or may not be legal.
It is difficult to write a phrase that would specifically explain it, but yes, it is "when you see it you will know it".
ahh the ages old practice of hand waving. how scientific of you.
what are the top 100 searches on google? are they for legal stuff? do you know what i use to find torrents that aren't on my favorite torrent trackers? google.
if you type the word ".torrent" in to google i get tons of links to torrents and torrent trackers. if my intent is to find torrents of illegal content, i am already breaking the law before i hit TPB.
TPB gets used for illegal stuff. so too does google, and instant messaging (every client has a file transfer function) and removable storage. so too do computers and the internet in general. these are all tools that serve perfectly legal purposes that also get used for illegal purposes. yes TPB gets used for a lot of illegal things, but safe harbor laws are safe harbor laws.
the point with TPB specifically, and search engines in general, is that you have to take up the issue with the people sharing illegal content and not the providers of the platform.
this is why suing craigslist because someone posts an ad for prostitution, or suing ebay for hosting an ad for something stolen, or suing youtube because someone posts a video without authorization is so wrong.
the people to sue are those who are sharing the files you don't want shared. the trouble is, there are millions of them and they probably don't have any money to take. but companies like TBP, craigslist, ebay, or even ISPs are single visible entities that easy to find and convenient to sue.
that's like saying, "i don't know who stole my bike, so i am going to go kick the mayor's ass because i know where his office is".
also, these visible entities that are convenient to sue are more likely to have money.
if an employee at mcdonalds punches you in the face, you should sue the employee, but your lawyer will tell you to sue mcdonald's as well since the corporation has money.
your corporate overlords have a beef with filesharing, which they are certainly entitled to have, so they want to take down the current platform that enables it, but that is a stupid move.
TPB is a nice convenient place to see what's being shared. it let's you see what is on the scene so you can track the underground popularity of things (hello free maketing data). you can also grab the torrent files just like everyone else and use TPB to gather data on who is sharing (so you can find the guy that stole your bike instead of beating on the mayor).
if you shut it down, you will temporarily disrupt the scene, but the activity will resume. only now it will be more fragmented, more underground, and tougher for you to track. plus, you will be pushing the state of the art of the technology and the scene.
you think it's tough fighting piracy now, wait until torrent search functionality is hidden within the torrent system itself as well as the routes to seeders. sure BT will slow down for a bit until there are enough relays set up, but in the end piracy will prevail.
you may be able to stop one of us, but you can't stop us all.
who will set up these relays, for free, using their own equipment? the community itself, and they will be happy to do it.
Becker is obviously one of the idiots that think everything on the internet is a fact. The more Web 2.0 the better.
and you sound like an idiot that stubbornly refuses to see the writing on the wall. news papers are dead grandpa, and they ain't coming back.
Blogs are primarily vehicles for expressing the writer's opinion. NOT for reporting news. Any moron can start a blog and write anything he wants. Including truths, half-truths and outright lies. These writings may or may not be reviewed by peers or employers.
yeah, and how much drek comes out of the mainstream media without proper fact checking? remember the run up the the invasion of iraq? the press was a government powered feedback loop.
and newspapers don't answer to readers the way that bloggers do, in the end they just have to answer to sponsors.
what does ink on paper have to do with journalism?
good journalism is good journalism. integrity is integrity. hard evidence is hard evidence. it doesn't matter if it appears on dead trees or a back lit screen.
Actual card carrying journalists on the other hand are subject to sanctions. When a newspaper writer makes up a story and gets caught at it he loses his job at the very least. At the same time he is vilified by every other serious journalist.
and blogs don't criticize other blogs? the rest of the media doesn't bash blogs? your friends and people you trust don't have opinions on blogs and the bloggers that write for them?
do you think that people who publish to the internet belong to some sort of secret cabal where they all pledge to get along all peachy keen?
A blogger who puts garbage on the net may actually benefit from increased traffic and readership. And he can very easily change his name and open a new blog within hours.
and you think the rest of the internet will just mindlessly follow them to the new place?
if you change your name and start over you have to build up a new readership and establish a new reputation. you lose your rank on search engines and word of mouth. you think someone can just whip up a site with a million unique hits a day with no real investment of time?
sure there are sleazy search engine optimizations you can pull to look more important than you really are, but it's not hard to tell wannabes from the real deal.
if you shut down a site, you lose readership. if you abandon one in scandal, you have to be pretty careful how you set up your new one. you can't leave a link on your old blog saying "find my new site here!" or people will obviously know that the two sites are linked and carry the controversy over with them. building a new reputation online takes time, which is something that is pretty hard to fake. reputation is a real scarcity.
I have a certain amount of respect for Mike but I would be surprised if many people consider him a journalist. I certainly don't. Bloggers are more akin to "columnists" that write op-ed pieces in the newspapers. And many bloggers are even more like gossip columnists. I won't even go into the foolishness of considering Facebook and Twitter to be reliable news sources!
so if a journalist you respect started blogging and using twitter, that would somehow discredit them?
what if mike went to work for your favorite paper? would that suddenly make his writing more relevant?
why does publishing to the web make you not a journalist? why is the demise of the newspaper business somehow the demise of journalism, rather than the liberation of it?
Just consider how many internet sites are out there that claim George Bush's family were secret Nazi's. Or that the 9/11 attacks were done by the CIA to give a pretext for invading Iraq. And on and on and on.
so, do you read the national enquirer and believe that shit too? it's on paper, it's gotta be legit, right? and all those conspiracy theory books about the kennedy assassination from the 70's and 80's? that's on paper as well, so they gotta be true as well, right? he really was killed by elvis under orders from the red cross which is really a front for the mafia, right?
not all publications are created equally, online or off. it's the same thing online, and you can easily discuss it with people you trust. not to mention that online, other people can comment, and while 90% of them are dribbling idiots (read the comments on a CNN.com article sometime; america is doomed) people occasionally offer useful feedback.
Do you think that you can tell absolutely if a post on Twitter, Facebook or Joe's Blog is fact or fiction just by reading it? Can I sell you some farmland in Atlantis?
yes we can. or at least one of us can. we do things like look for some mention of sources. we look at other articles. the more outrageous the claim, the easier it is to check it via google, or the more likely the claim is sarcasm.
i think it might be hard for you to grasp that since we're just a bunch of crazy kids playing with our computers, but we really can. can every single one of us tell the difference on sight? of course not, but there will be someone among us who can, and he or she will tell the rest of us, or at least tell someone that we listen to.
i don't get why so many people think the end of newspapers will be the end of journalism. they act as though when the last printing press stops, someone is going to round up all the journalists and shoot them, or the "actual card carrying journalists" will crumble to dust, or be called back to their home planet.
if you are a beat reporter working for the *.times and the paper goes under, why can't you keep covering your beat on your own website? won't you finally be able to write pieces that you think should be written but the editors kept nixing?
from what i gather, a lot of newspaper journalism is using wire services, lexis-nexis type services, and public records, why does that require a whole newspaper? that sounds like something a small team of people could do from home while collaborating via email/IM. like the band that goes independent of the record label, surely you have a chance to make more and do more on your own, or at the very least say more than you could before.
it seems like embracing online journalism could be an exit strategy for writers, editors, and researchers facing a collapsing industry. why do so few see it that way?
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: This whole "hefty" this has to go.
The important question is still.....Why would he have to get licensing for 5-10 second snippets of songs just to show how the section of music in question is different or maybe even similar?
in the original article:
You really find yourself in a "Catch 22" - since, as a copyright attorney (who will be presumed will be fully aware of the law in this area) you need the permission of the copyright owners to illustrate, in an intelligible manner, the fact that their copyrights are likely to be worthless.
i take that to mean that the point of the book was to prove that the copyright is invalid on some music that was involved in a messy copyright dispute.
if you are writing a book about how a particular copyright is worthless, does that affect your chances of (1) obtaining permission to use the samples for a fee that fits the book's budget, (2) your chances of being taken to court and having to prove fair use if you were to use the samples without permission?
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
Of considerable size or amount
Lovely definition, which I find perfectly acceptable
excellent, if you will accept dictionary definitions, have a look at these:
con⋅sid⋅er⋅a⋅tion (kən-sĭd'ə-rā'shən) noun
1)the act of considering; careful thought; meditation; deliberation
2)something that is or is to be kept in mind in making a decision, evaluating facts, etc.
con⋅sid⋅er⋅a⋅ble (kən-sĭd'ər-ə-bəl) adjective
1) Large in amount, extent, or degree
2) Worthy of consideration; significant
(3) What you have failed to establish is that (1) = (2). The fees were "outside the budget." Does that mean the fees were "considerable" or doest that they were not going to go outside their budget?
if you have to decide whether you can afford a fee, you are considering it. that fee then becomes a factor to be considered; it becomes a consideration when making a decision and is therefore "considerable" according to definitnon #2 for the word considerable. if it is decided that the fee is too large, based on your consideration, then the fee is considerable according to definition #1 for the word considerable.
therefore, according to the definitions above, the amount of the fee is considerable and therefore is "hefty".
(5) Mike deliberately and with specific intent used the word "hefty" because he was intentionally biasing the original report to further enhance how he perceives of copyright;
of course he did. he's a dirty bastard that keeps all his pirate bay money that supports terrorism in offshore accounts. i thought we established that already.
(6) Did copyright "prevent" the use of the music? No, the publisher's unwillingness to go outside their budget prevented seeking the licenses, not copyright.
and the licenses would be required even if copyright had fair use as a right instead of a legal defense? i think not.
it still seems like fair use should have permitted the use of the music
thanks to the copyright system, you can either pay up front (if you can even locate someone to pay) or you can roll the dice and run the risk of paying to prove fair use in court.
both of those options seem like budgetary obstacles that prevent small independent creative works and are a direct result of copyright.
was I bashing or asking for clarification or support for the use of a word that in context became pejorative?
the dude explained why he used the word hefty like a dozen posts ago and you're still on his dick.
At least, the hefty defensive reaction I got in response to my simple little question seemed to indicate so.
ZOMFG U CANT SAY HEFTY!!! OMFGWTFEMOEMOEMOEMO
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
you said, Can we establish a dollar figure for "out of reach" so that we know what "hefty" means?. that sounds like you want to establish a dollar figure for "hefty". i am not sure how to express a dollar figure without using numbers. if it is possible to do so then please forgive me, i went to public school. if you were being rhetorical, then perhaps you should have stated so.
I returned to the basic issue, which is "how" do you define hefty?
i define "hefty" as a "considerable amount", just like webster's. if you have to take into consideration the amount necessary to acquire a license, then that amount is considerable. i would call deciding whether or not you can afford something to be consideration. maybe you don't and that is where we will have to agree to disagree. but to my understanding of the word consideration (something that is or is to be kept in mind in making a decision, according to webster), an amount that is determined to be too large for a budget is considerable (rather large or great in size, distance, extent, etc. again, according to webster's) and therefore conforms to the definition of "hefty".
that is how i define "hefty". i can try to put it in simpler terms if you would like.
If the author needed $30 for licensing fees, then I will call him up and pay the fees for him just so he can have a better book.
see, $30 looks like a number, a "dollar figure" if you will. again, maybe you mean something other than "thirty dollars", but it sure looks like the number thirty representing a number of dollars. again, this all looks to me to be you asking for numbers as an answer when i have stated that you can't use numbers to answer the question. again, i went to a public school, so maybe there are special meanings for this stuff that i am just not aware of.
How does the article justify the use of the word hefty with respect to the licensing fees?
the article stated that "the need for licenses and the budget foreclosed our doing so." i interpret that as meaning that the fees didn't fit the budget because they were too large, or "hefty".
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
there you go again with the numbers. the problem is that the fees got in the way of an author making his point. that's not a problem that you can solve with a spreadsheet.
the copyright system has been sold to us as a method for protecting creative works, but for a lot of creators, it is an obstacle. that is the point. that is the problem.
i know that you want to plug in numbers and you think that will prove your point, but the point isn't a numeric value. the point is that the system that protects creative works prevents the creation of creative works via legal fees and licensing fees. that's a problem.
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
no, i understand the point completely. you want to bash mike, this blog, and the people who post here.
you can't accept that licensing fees prevented the author from making his point about how absurd copyright has become and complain about the use of a word in order to derail the conversation with unknown/made up numbers.
the copyright argument is always about getting free music, right? it's always about cheap bastards who want to steal your back catalog. it's never about creativity, innovation, or free speech. it's never about advancing the useful arts and sciences. that's your point, right? that against monopoly, techdirt, and people who don't agree with copyright in it's current implementation are just cheap, lazy, and ungrateful, right?
people want to create things and the copyright system, a system supposedly developed to protect peoples creations, prevents that at a number of turns. one such example is the fact that making fair use of a small portion of a copyrighted work in a scholarly discussion is not protected by the copyright system and one must either pay to obtain clearance for using that work, or pay to prove fair use in a court of law. either way, the author must pay up or not include the material. the author chose to not include the material. you copyright types should be happy about that.
so you can go to the mat over mike's use of the word hefty, because the article doesn't include any numbers, but it doesn't change the fact that a work that is critical of the copyright system couldn't make it's point thanks to the machinations of the copyright system.
It appears that "hefty" has been used in an extension of the original article even though "hefty" was never justified by that article, and there has been no explanation as to what hefty means.
i went with the webster's definition. if you don't accept the webster's definition, i'm not sure you will accept any definition.
we do not know whether "out of reach" was defined by the budget (which is a common occurrence in projects), or whether it was defined by the ability (or even willingness) of participants in the project to pay.
and why does that matter? if i want to create something, and copyright prevents it, and the point of copyright is to protect creative works, then either there is something wrong with the copyright system or the point of the copyright system is not to protect creative works but to some other end, perhaps preventing creativity by small independent creators or perhaps generating revenue from licensing fees.
out of reach means out of reach. hefty means of a considerable amount. the licensing fees were considered (the webster's definition that you will not accept) to be too great. the fees got in the way. that a problem. that's THE problem.
the author thought the fees were too great. you don't think they were. i understand that. i get that you dislike what mike says, and you dislike the conversations had here. we are all very aware.
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
of course they are, and i stand by my assertion that your assumption dispelled mikes assumption, thanks to your numbers that don't really exist. this is excellent work you are doing here, making the world safe from assumptions other than your own.
Furthermore, if I sounded sarcastic, that was not my intent.
i have doubt at that you are completely sincere, that's why this is so entertaining.
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
ahh yes, the bill clinton defense. classy choice considering the gravity of this issue and what is at stake here.
even though there is not one iota of evidence to back up that it was exceeded by a "considerable amount," or even what the definition of "considerable amount" is.
woah, easy on the speculation, sir. perhaps we should first define what "is" is, then proceed to defining what "definition" is. if we can tackle those thorny issues, perhaps we can then approach what "if" means, and if we manage to get past that, then we can go into the difference between speculation and and assumption.
Here I will make an assumption and assume that they would have proceeded with any amount up to $500.
woah woah woah, you can't just go and assume. dirty bastards like mike assume. i hoped you wouldn't stoop so low as to assume, and assuming with made up numbers? made up numbers are what caused all this drama to begin with. i am very disappointed. i had such high hopes for us :-(
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
i don't think so, mike said it was reasonable to assume that a licensing fee that was out of reach of a person's budget could be considered "hefty".
then an anonymous coward stepped in with some made up numbers to show that mike's assumption was not reasonable based on AC's assumptions, thereby dispelling mike's previous assumption as unreasonable and asserting the AC's own assumption as reasonable. really, it's all very simple.
Since you seem to be the master of all knowledge, perhaps you might enlighten us as to what "hefty" means in terms of licensing fees?
oh no my friend, i don't know everything. i simply read people's posts in their entirety and don't get my feelings hurt when someone is sarcastic.
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
my mistake, i must have misread "It is true that I am assuming" to mean that it was true that you were assuming something.
I repeat my earlier request. How do we go from "doesn't fit our budget" to "hefty" licensing fees?
heft·y (hěf'tē) adjective
Of considerable size or amount
an amount that does not fit into the budget is considerable, or at the very least deserves some consideration.
this is especially true in the context of publications that criticize copyright because copyright critics are all cheap bastards who don't really care about innovation or enrichment and just want everything for free.
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: RTFA
you are absolutely right. mike is a damn dirty liar for making assumptions.
you on the otherhand, with your assumptions and hand waving, are a shining monument to integrity.
hefty clearly doesn't translate to "doesn't fit our budget", it clearly translates to some numbers that some anonymous coward made up.
thanks for clearing up this matter.
mike: i expect to see your full apology on the front page of the website forthwith.
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re: Re: Re:
Do you get "fair use" of your neighbor's car?
yeah yeah we've heard it all before: you wouldn't steal a car, piracy supports terrorism, think of the artists, the rights agencies collect money for song writers who can't tour, the pirate bay makes billions of dollars in offshore accounts, blah blah blah.
you always say the same shit and we always refute it point by point and you keep coming back with the same shit. tell your handlers that you need more material.
i guess i have to ask the obvious question:
what part of "the conversation has moved on" don't you get?
On the post: Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point
Re:
Aren't news channels 'for profit'?
yes, but they are owned by large media conglomerates. the rules are different for them.
On the post: The Pirate Bay Has Been Bought By A Public Company [Updated...]
the site still works
i'm not really seeing the impact so far.
On the post: Online Ad Rates Higher On Certain TV Shows Than TV Ad Rates
Re: Re:
or you could just figure out how to deliver quality entertainment with fewer costs.
I also predict more product placement in tv shows. The intergration of ads and content is the only way to ensure to advertisers that people are watching the ads.
it can't get any worse than chuck. it's a giant commercial for bestbuy, subway, dell, and toyota. i am waiting for the episode where they have gunfights with subway sandwiches instead of pistols.
i think that product misplacement (or anti-placement) would be fun: get paid to put bad placements into shows: food that makes people sick, cars that break down, gadgets that malfunction, etc. competitors could bid to either run the ads or take them out of the show.
On the post: Is Piracy Also Increasing The Quality Of New Movies?
Re:
based on watching "the wire" i would say yes.
the cops find a way to get an advantage over the dealers, then the dealers find a way to circumvent that advantage. this means that cops have to upgrade their tactics to keep pace.
On the post: Is Piracy Also Increasing The Quality Of New Movies?
Re: movie industry != music industry
i went to see the watchmen opener, and it was great. i went with a bunch of friends, we hung out with other hardcore fans, and we had a blast. waiting in line with a hundreds of total strangers that are just as excited as you are is something you can't pirate or get at home.
also, there have been a few 3d flicks (mostly kid movies) that have been fun to go see.
On the post: Making Banner Ads Cool Again
Re: The problem with ads, to begin with; over use
i couldn't agree more.
there are some films that i still haven't seen because i saw the trailer for it too many times. this happens a lot on basic cable networks like comedy central and spikeTV.
i have all but stopped watching cable TV and i have found that i am more open to movies now that i am not seeing commercials for them all the time, especially the films my wife likes that are not really targets towards me.
i hate to say it, but the most interesting ads i have seen in the past few years are from burgerking. between their crazy commercials, xbox games, and crazy web promotions, i find myself paying more attention to their ads than i do to anyone else's. those ads, plus the having a decent veggie burger on the menu make BK a more likely choice for my family when it comes to burger joints.
On the post: Can Someone Please Tell Us How You Determine What's A 'Legal' Search Engine From An 'Illegal' One?
Re: Re: Re:
that only reports what the users are doing, not the engine itself. this is why we have safe harbor laws.
the engine itself is serving up data that the users ask for, and that data is links to content that may or may not be legal.
On the post: Can Someone Please Tell Us How You Determine What's A 'Legal' Search Engine From An 'Illegal' One?
Re:
ahh the ages old practice of hand waving. how scientific of you.
what are the top 100 searches on google? are they for legal stuff? do you know what i use to find torrents that aren't on my favorite torrent trackers? google.
if you type the word ".torrent" in to google i get tons of links to torrents and torrent trackers. if my intent is to find torrents of illegal content, i am already breaking the law before i hit TPB.
TPB gets used for illegal stuff. so too does google, and instant messaging (every client has a file transfer function) and removable storage. so too do computers and the internet in general. these are all tools that serve perfectly legal purposes that also get used for illegal purposes. yes TPB gets used for a lot of illegal things, but safe harbor laws are safe harbor laws.
the point with TPB specifically, and search engines in general, is that you have to take up the issue with the people sharing illegal content and not the providers of the platform.
this is why suing craigslist because someone posts an ad for prostitution, or suing ebay for hosting an ad for something stolen, or suing youtube because someone posts a video without authorization is so wrong.
the people to sue are those who are sharing the files you don't want shared. the trouble is, there are millions of them and they probably don't have any money to take. but companies like TBP, craigslist, ebay, or even ISPs are single visible entities that easy to find and convenient to sue.
that's like saying, "i don't know who stole my bike, so i am going to go kick the mayor's ass because i know where his office is".
also, these visible entities that are convenient to sue are more likely to have money.
if an employee at mcdonalds punches you in the face, you should sue the employee, but your lawyer will tell you to sue mcdonald's as well since the corporation has money.
your corporate overlords have a beef with filesharing, which they are certainly entitled to have, so they want to take down the current platform that enables it, but that is a stupid move.
TPB is a nice convenient place to see what's being shared. it let's you see what is on the scene so you can track the underground popularity of things (hello free maketing data). you can also grab the torrent files just like everyone else and use TPB to gather data on who is sharing (so you can find the guy that stole your bike instead of beating on the mayor).
if you shut it down, you will temporarily disrupt the scene, but the activity will resume. only now it will be more fragmented, more underground, and tougher for you to track. plus, you will be pushing the state of the art of the technology and the scene.
you think it's tough fighting piracy now, wait until torrent search functionality is hidden within the torrent system itself as well as the routes to seeders. sure BT will slow down for a bit until there are enough relays set up, but in the end piracy will prevail.
you may be able to stop one of us, but you can't stop us all.
who will set up these relays, for free, using their own equipment? the community itself, and they will be happy to do it.
On the post: Judge Posner Recommends Extending Copyright Law To Protect Newspapers
Re: Both are Delusional
and you sound like an idiot that stubbornly refuses to see the writing on the wall. news papers are dead grandpa, and they ain't coming back.
Blogs are primarily vehicles for expressing the writer's opinion. NOT for reporting news. Any moron can start a blog and write anything he wants. Including truths, half-truths and outright lies. These writings may or may not be reviewed by peers or employers.
yeah, and how much drek comes out of the mainstream media without proper fact checking? remember the run up the the invasion of iraq? the press was a government powered feedback loop.
and newspapers don't answer to readers the way that bloggers do, in the end they just have to answer to sponsors.
what does ink on paper have to do with journalism?
good journalism is good journalism. integrity is integrity. hard evidence is hard evidence. it doesn't matter if it appears on dead trees or a back lit screen.
Actual card carrying journalists on the other hand are subject to sanctions. When a newspaper writer makes up a story and gets caught at it he loses his job at the very least. At the same time he is vilified by every other serious journalist.
and blogs don't criticize other blogs? the rest of the media doesn't bash blogs? your friends and people you trust don't have opinions on blogs and the bloggers that write for them?
do you think that people who publish to the internet belong to some sort of secret cabal where they all pledge to get along all peachy keen?
A blogger who puts garbage on the net may actually benefit from increased traffic and readership. And he can very easily change his name and open a new blog within hours.
and you think the rest of the internet will just mindlessly follow them to the new place?
if you change your name and start over you have to build up a new readership and establish a new reputation. you lose your rank on search engines and word of mouth. you think someone can just whip up a site with a million unique hits a day with no real investment of time?
sure there are sleazy search engine optimizations you can pull to look more important than you really are, but it's not hard to tell wannabes from the real deal.
if you shut down a site, you lose readership. if you abandon one in scandal, you have to be pretty careful how you set up your new one. you can't leave a link on your old blog saying "find my new site here!" or people will obviously know that the two sites are linked and carry the controversy over with them. building a new reputation online takes time, which is something that is pretty hard to fake. reputation is a real scarcity.
I have a certain amount of respect for Mike but I would be surprised if many people consider him a journalist. I certainly don't. Bloggers are more akin to "columnists" that write op-ed pieces in the newspapers. And many bloggers are even more like gossip columnists. I won't even go into the foolishness of considering Facebook and Twitter to be reliable news sources!
so if a journalist you respect started blogging and using twitter, that would somehow discredit them?
what if mike went to work for your favorite paper? would that suddenly make his writing more relevant?
why does publishing to the web make you not a journalist? why is the demise of the newspaper business somehow the demise of journalism, rather than the liberation of it?
Just consider how many internet sites are out there that claim George Bush's family were secret Nazi's. Or that the 9/11 attacks were done by the CIA to give a pretext for invading Iraq. And on and on and on.
so, do you read the national enquirer and believe that shit too? it's on paper, it's gotta be legit, right? and all those conspiracy theory books about the kennedy assassination from the 70's and 80's? that's on paper as well, so they gotta be true as well, right? he really was killed by elvis under orders from the red cross which is really a front for the mafia, right?
not all publications are created equally, online or off. it's the same thing online, and you can easily discuss it with people you trust. not to mention that online, other people can comment, and while 90% of them are dribbling idiots (read the comments on a CNN.com article sometime; america is doomed) people occasionally offer useful feedback.
Do you think that you can tell absolutely if a post on Twitter, Facebook or Joe's Blog is fact or fiction just by reading it? Can I sell you some farmland in Atlantis?
yes we can. or at least one of us can. we do things like look for some mention of sources. we look at other articles. the more outrageous the claim, the easier it is to check it via google, or the more likely the claim is sarcasm.
i think it might be hard for you to grasp that since we're just a bunch of crazy kids playing with our computers, but we really can. can every single one of us tell the difference on sight? of course not, but there will be someone among us who can, and he or she will tell the rest of us, or at least tell someone that we listen to.
i don't get why so many people think the end of newspapers will be the end of journalism. they act as though when the last printing press stops, someone is going to round up all the journalists and shoot them, or the "actual card carrying journalists" will crumble to dust, or be called back to their home planet.
if you are a beat reporter working for the *.times and the paper goes under, why can't you keep covering your beat on your own website? won't you finally be able to write pieces that you think should be written but the editors kept nixing?
from what i gather, a lot of newspaper journalism is using wire services, lexis-nexis type services, and public records, why does that require a whole newspaper? that sounds like something a small team of people could do from home while collaborating via email/IM. like the band that goes independent of the record label, surely you have a chance to make more and do more on your own, or at the very least say more than you could before.
it seems like embracing online journalism could be an exit strategy for writers, editors, and researchers facing a collapsing industry. why do so few see it that way?
Next >>