@siegeIG, from one cave painter to another: here in CH the broadcast plays normally. But if it does not for you, you can download the talk via iTunes. Pity they only offer iTunes for subscribe to the podcast, instead of a normal RSS feed where people can choose how they want to subscribe, though.
well Cory, I believe if you want to make music, make your own beats. If you want to use a song from someone else, ask the musician first. Most artists will say "sure" and work something else, but you can't just go and do what you want and make something commercial from it.
I stopped using most stock in my work, except music because I am not a muscian, but I pay for royalty free stock music or ask musician friends if i can use their stuff. We did a Weird Al video in the 80's and asked his management for permission first and they said sure.
Trek has been one of the kinder franchises to fan fic: http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/index.html for example has even recieved the endorsement of the original cast. BUt I believe there have been issues with others like firefly
dmj: I'm not so sure about that artfrankmiami. It's mainly that most aren't dumb enough to go after it.
No I mean the studios won't let you sell it. Lucas allows people to use Star Wars almost anyway they want, they just can't sell it. Look at the guy who made an almost great Star Wars: Revelations that cost him a mortgage, but for $40k he made a movie that looked as good as Lucas's 100million versions.
Calmansi you make a good point. There's a lawyerly plague of MINE MINE MINE boilerplate that is so idiotic on its face that it does more violence to the respectability and reputation of copyright than the Pirate Party. Those ridiculous EULAs that everyone knows are BS? The essential message of them is: "Copyright is ridiculous, incomprehensible, and cannot be honored. It is an offensive weapon used to get you in a bad position and extract monopoly rents from you. By clicking here, you agree to abide by this agreeement."
but, DMJ, almost like what you said about free leads to sales...people like my DVD friend and my sister wrote fan fiction for Trek back in the 70s and that kept Trek alive and has given Paramount millions if not billions since 1979
RE: Girls Talk - according to the filmmaker, he's probably breaking about 20 different copyrights with every song and should be paying the lables millions of dollars. I say he's changing things because he has a fan base that could and should change the tide. Similar to Pirate political parties - "Make a law against me eh? Well two can play at that game, matey"
Decriminalizing fanfic. I think the right approach there is to say: "Noncommercial retelling of stories is fair use." It's agruably true -- there's some caselaw that swings that way (and even famous cases like WIND DONE GONE that cover commercial retelling, too) -- and making it an affirmative right would end the doubt and uncertainty that plagues fanfic writers.
So much of copyright law is made in secret... Canada had three successive Parliaments try to make a restrictive, US-style digital copyright law without public consultation, only to get shot down each time. Each time they argued that they didn't need to consult the public because they knew what the public wanted. Finally they just did a public consultation and the overwhelming, near-total majority rejected the approach.
Pirate parties vary from country to country. In CH e.g.they are about civic rights (privacy etc) in general, instead of purely about breaking the present copyright system.
Think of the canon of say Star Trek works. It's been made by many different authors over the years, but universes like that have corporate control. Do you think we have an opportunity to create something of that order but owned by the public
Re the Pirate Parties -- it's really remarkable, and it shows you how out-of-touch politicans are with public opinion. They've criminalized a generation, and written laws that invade privacy and threaten whole families' participation in electronic life, to please a small number of entertainment companies, and the public said ENOUGH. It started with an illegal raid on The Pirate Bay's servers, a raid that took down 200 other companies' sites, and the public were so outraged that they said, "If this is a choice between copyright and due process and civil society, we choose the latter." Now there are 8 or 10 pirate parties around the world. It's incredible.
But being from Miami in the middle of it, 2 Live Crew only started doing that with the lawsuits came flying at him, and George Lucas sued over the name. No more Skywalker Records high above the Hialeah skyline.
Art, that's not really true. The single most famous sampling case -- 2 Live Crew -- made clear attribution. In fact in most cases, the *point* of sampling is to remind people of a familiar work. When Bob Dylan sings "I'm going back to New York City, I do believe I've had enough" on the Beastie's Paul's Boutique, you know exactly who it is. And of course, performers didn't always attribute to composers, especially when live on stage or radio
DMJ726: Now that there are people remixing works, that derive from either major authors or corporate franchises, do you think that there is an opportunity to generate free/unencumbered fictional universes for people to build upon?
you mean like the book Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?
Now that there are people remixing works, that derive from either major authors or corporate franchises, do you think that there is an opportunity to generate free/unencumbered fictional universes for people to build upon?
And the composers objected strenuously to the idea of recording their music. What they did was art. What performers did was *following instructions*. 70 years later, the performers said, "What we do is art. What samplers do is stealing"
I think that big music companies have been crying poor since Marconi, and have either embraced new "free" distribution channels or died and been replaced by ones that did
Re big music companies -- I think that we've always shared music. When the "music industry" was sheet music, the business model was singing as a group around the piano. When it became records, the business model was selling for dances, radio stations, dates. Content isn't king, conversation is. Content is just something to talk about
dmj726, I just learned that there is a site to sell your music in tracks, but I don't recall the name right now. My friend's son is an aspiring rapper.
I personally published my music at jamendo under cc-by-sa. What do you think about the merits of the sa vs the nc clause in promoting artistic business models?
well, i put my name on most things, but i have to assume if i distribute naything on the net, it will be misappropriated. A friend of mine is remastering an old 50's TV show on DVD and already some jerk has tried to upload the show to a site. The DVD sales are what funds the remastering, so if it's free on the net, no more episodes. He sells a sample DVD for cheap that is almost free, but you can't afford "free" with manufacturing costs.
I don't think there's really any need for making the logo into a legally binding mark; there's so much variety in copyleft licenses that a single mark would have to exclude some of them
I obviously think that there's plenty to like about CC. I especially like the way that they've fostered a creative community of people who recognize the spectrum of art that can be made for commercial and non-commercial purposes.
Cory [re COPYLEFT] thankks for the thoughts. Is the concept to be a standard in the future like copyright is, e.g. inlcuding making its logo legally acceptable?
Re Steam -- i'm skeptical. I think what Steam REALLY sells is the convenience of a curated marketplace and a gameserver where you can play with others. In the age of S3 and parallel downloads, the answer to "How do I get high-def video" is, "Here's a quarter, go buy some sectors and terabytes of throughput"
Some people have criticized creative commons for being a contractual means to alleviate the symptoms, rather than solving the root of the copyright issue. What do you think about this?
Well, Copyleft -- which usually means the "share-alike" or viral licenses -- is a nice hack -- a way to move the cultural norm of paying your debt forward into the realm of copyright, where there's often a temptation to deny that you've stood on the shoulder of giants
RE: Whuffie... it wasn't just the judges, the press had a field day with the name of the company. Being crammed in a hot hall for hours at a time can get to a person.
Cory, do you think the Steam approach could be how money is made via the Net? You pay for the service of the server 1. Storing the media and 2. allowing you to download it whenever you want in a higher quality? That way it doens't matter how many people you share it with, even if you share the high-quality version... because you still have your download anytime version?
That's Nina Paley's thing, right? I really like it -- I think it's a good adjunct to my idea (published here) for self-serve, unendorsed commercial licenses
Cory, how can the big music companies be set on the right track regarding rights management? Is it just a matter of the people continuing to vote -- or not vote -- with their dollars for the better approaches?
yeah, I have trouble designing "ugly". Thanks to Sam Rosenthal of Blue Tape for a Blue Girl who I went to college with and taught me how to distress letraset type with Xerox machines. Grunge before David Carson.
Things like wikipedia may be either purely enjoyable for the participants to make or operate on the principle of "the more you contribute, the more you get"
dmj726, no I agree with what you mean, I have gotten a free song and bought the album, but there are people who NEVER buy anything (through file sharing) and I know a few of them and they think they are doing anything wrong!
I'm designing a book now for a local author, and it will be printed by Lightning Source a Print on demand venor who markets your book for you through Amazon and Barnes and Noble online stores and other ways throughout the world.
I have a question in regards to the recent American bill that proposes the government should be able to declare a cyber-security emergency and "shut down" the internet, including private sectors. I want to know what he thinks a "cyber-security emergency" is and what private sector networks will be "required" to be monitored.
How do you think Facebook and Twitter will be transformed as Corporate America continues to invade these technologies that were once very user-centric?
Regarding the musicians not making much money from the label: That's not the point. If not warners who fails, it's then the artist alone that is being stolen from who is failing because his work is stolen one way or another. Apple iTunes store is probably the best I've seen as a way to distribute free and for purchase content.
Artists make pennies on albums anyway. They make more from concerts and merchandise. Besides which, if they only care about money, rather than spreading their message, they probably aren't worth it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/28/taking_liberties/entry5270834.shtml Obviously Cory will be opposed to this, but I want to know what he thinks a "cyber-security emergency" is and what private sector networks will be "required" to be monitored.
The example I gave came from an actual case of mine. I had taken a photo of a Winnie the Pooh stuffed bear back in 1985 with a Buckaroo Banzai promotional headband on it. My charity group had thought of selling posters of the picture, calling it Buckapoo Banzai, to raise money. The person who was at that time in charge of Lucas Film licensing and was an expert on what was and was not legal said that the poster was legal and a trademark lawyer had been hired and cleared us, too. Anything you buy for personal use was legal to be photographed and sold, at least then. I've been shooting Barbies and GI Joes for years at that time in the 80's (and not in lewd settings as some artists have). Now it seems those laws have been changed. If that is what he's talking about, then yes, I'm for some relaxation, as long as there is not a direct copy of things.
Artfrankmiami: Most artists who "free" or copyleft their works, attempt to use the sharing of their digital works (which are inherently easy to copy) to increase their sales of scarce goods. COry gives away his stories in digital form in order to sell more books.
I would like to know how much of this concept (Copyleft) is embraced by those who are strict with copyrights (and therefore would, in theory, reject CC in extreme cases)...
@Terry: What I know of Copyleft; most everyone in Asia where I am from is at liberty to ignore copyrights and Copyleft as a concept is vistually unknown. I am a visual artist myself and have self-imposed restrictions on when/where to use copyrighted material as I would others respect my own works...
Artfrankmiami: in re "If what he means is being able to buy an item that is a toy and photographing that toy in a manner that makes it different or a parody and makes it legal to sell as art, then I understand, but then, that's really trademark law..."
I would like to know what exactly he means about liberalizing copyrights.
"Doctorow, who advocates Creative Commons licensing and liberalized copyright laws, will discuss how Web 2.0 is transforming the economy, culture, education, and the ways we create and consume content and information."
Well, I'm not sure what is exactly meant that he advocates "liberalized" copyright laws, but as an artist, photographer and a writer, I don't think anyone has a right to disseminate copyrighted work or even non-copyrighted work of other people without any attribution to the creator. The Association of Media Photographers (ASMP) fought hard to have the copyright laws changed that a photograph is copyrighted at the moment of creation, but you still need to do the actual registration to be able to sue and collect damages.
Right now, I am enjoying listening to old time radio episodes of Dragnet that I downloaded through the Internet Archive and the Old Time Radio Researchers Group and are distributed under the Creative Commons license. I do make screen grabs of other people's work, but I do not print them and/or sell them. They are for my personal collection and for reference or inspiration, but I don't share them. If I want to share, then I send the image's link for that person to see for themselves. I'm sure other's do not feel the same way, and then there is that one recent instance, where a family photo from a Flickr account was grabbed and used to create a poster banner in Europe, Italy I think, for advertising. How many have not been discovered?
And I do think if we buy a DVD or CD, we should be able to make a backup, because that is how we treat DVDs and CDs now, as software. But, I can see it from the other side, because people take advantage of this ability to make exact duplicates and pirate them to sell and I appreciate that at least Disney will replace a damaged DVD.
At Deviant Art, there is some respect and some people show their work under the Creative Commons license, but one photographer I know from Switzerland has her images residing at other sites w/o permission and one person on the web is even saying that they are her and using the same name since the images are watermarked with her name.
You cannot relax laws to the extent to please content consumers who want everything for "FurrrRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"
If what he means is being able to buy an item that is a toy and photographing that toy in a manner that makes it different or a parody and makes it legal to sell as art, then I understand, but then, that's really trademark law.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Ray Kurzweil's Blio and Apple's iPad tablet will make it easier than ever to have books "read" to us, says Dr. Kim, who believes that talking tablets will become interwoven into our consciousness as we "merge" with the increasingly elegant machines we hold in our hands.
