[Atli]

WolfCoder, on 28 January 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

CTphpnwb, on 26 January 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

...
Freedom without responsibility is just chaos. Every system needs rules in order to function, and the problem these days is that we have all kinds of bad people doing all kinds of bad things in the name of "freedom" but what they're really bringing is anarchy.

This sounds familiar in an eerie way. Something about how it is in human nature that we must be governed.

"but what they're really bringing is anarchy."

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[depricated]

modi123_1, on 26 January 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

Goddamn William Wallace! That rouge! That knave!

But it matches his eyes and his kilt so well!

CTphpnwb, on 26 January 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

In addition to the cost of the theft itself, the thief who steals a rolex reduces the value of them all because there are now more on the market as the company needs to replace the lost inventory. Adding one watch to the market may seem trivial, but the loss in value is not zero. The thief who steals the design and copies it does many orders of magnitude greater damage.

See, and THIS is the crux of the IP issue. Right here. I can't imagine you're anything less than an RIAA or MPAA fed troll, reading that. Your dogmatic view on IP is deprecated, and has been unsupported for over a decade. Moreover, it's self-destructive.

See, I always pay for things. To me, it's a matter of morality - I want to be paid to write code, I pay for my programs. I want to be paid for my music, so I pay for music I listen to as well. I spend more than anyone I know on both points - I also branch out musically far more than anyone else I know. I also sample music, and this doesn't bother me in the least. It's not theft even by your ignorant, dogmatic definition of IP.

IP conflates too many laws that weren't written to consider eachother. Trademark, Copyright, Property, Patent. What you've described ("The thief who steals the design and copies it does many orders of magnitude greater damage.") is a Patent violation. Because this came up in conversation during band practice last night, I'll point out Metallica for this. While I have no problem with them wanting to get paid for their music - I support that concept 100% - I'm stalwartly opposed to them (really their lawyers) accusing children of patent violations on technicality, when what they've done amounts to petty theft. Stealing a $20 CD nets you 20 songs and a $100 fine if caught. Downloading a single MP3 can cost $80,000 in reparations for copyright and patent violation. How is one different from the other? It's because in computing, the act of copying is still a file creation. That small technicality is what has fueled the RIAA and MPAA's raging hard-on for wallet-raping petty criminals. I don't think it should go unpunished, by any means, but I do think it should be proportionately punished. Intent to profit should be proven.

But moreover, how is it different than a cover band who plays an entire show of Metallica songs? That cover band, though they may see themselves (and others may see them) as honoring Metallica, the fact is that they're profiting from the copyrighted work of the band - far worse than downloading Master of Puppets, imo, but I've never heard of a cover band being slapped with an $80,000 fine per song played at their gig.

The problem with your assumption that file sharing === "The thief who steals the design and copies it" is that it assigns intent that should need to be proven. Back to my earlier point: such an approach only shoots your industry in the foot. Numerous studies have shown that file sharing directly leads to higher sales. I can attest to this personally, even - with only the exception of one band who I know I will enjoy thoroughly, I've previewed every album I've purchased in the past 10 years. To that end, though, I've also paid for every album in my collection. And the bands? They're cool with it. I know because I've asked. Hey Ocean posts free MP3s occasionally, the Megas too. The Cat Empire releases preview MP3s for upcoming albums. Radiohead was the first I'm aware of to adopt the "pay what you want/can" model. I frequently encourage people to pay CD+Shipping price on Bandcamp for just a digital download, because it helps support the band.

I'm pro file sharing, and I'm pro paying for what you listen to. Until the last few weeks with the new bandmate I've never listened to Metallica. I had very little exposure to them in school prior to their involvement in the Napster case, and after they dropped a massive Cleveland Steamer on the law, I lost any interest in listening to them. Why? Because I respect their wishes for me to not download their music - but I'm not going to buy their music if I've never heard it, and I can't hear it without downloading it to check out. Huh.

Attempts to castrate the internet are not taken likely, and I for one would fully withdraw the productivity of my mind from supporting such a network. I would rather wash dishes for a living than contribute to that.

[jon.kiparsky]

Python_4_President, on 27 January 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

(That is, thanks for not wanting to neuter me because I'm niche, or a minority, or different, or for other reasons.)

You know, it hadn't really occurred to me until you mentioned it, but could we just do that? I mean, it's not likely you'd be in danger of reproducing, but I'm thinking "better safe than sorry", right?

I'm told it's a pretty painless procedure... at least that's what the vet told me when we took my cat in.

[jon.kiparsky]

depricated, on 28 January 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

But moreover, how is it different than a cover band who plays an entire show of Metallica songs? That cover band, though they may see themselves (and others may see them) as honoring Metallica, the fact is that they're profiting from the copyrighted work of the band - far worse than downloading Master of Puppets, imo, but I've never heard of a cover band being slapped with an $80,000 fine per song played at their gig.

In the US, venues pay a fee to ASCAP and BMI to cover composer royalties. The fee is scaled to the size of the venue and to some extent to the type, so a coffee shop that has the radio on in the background pays a token fee, but if they have live performances the fee is a bit more (since now they're a performance venue).
So the Metallica cover band is actually playing under a license. Venues which play copyrighted music without paying the fee have in fact been hit with hefty fines, in the five digits.

This brings to mind the old bebop habit of writing a new head for someone's tune and performing it under some made-up name to avoid Gershwin's or Kern's or whoever's royalty fee.

(Just as a word to the wise, if you're performing music, you might want to look up the laws regarding IP, they might be important to you in the future)

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 28 January 2013 - 07:53 AM

[depricated]

jon.kiparsky, on 28 January 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

depricated, on 28 January 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

But moreover, how is it different than a cover band who plays an entire show of Metallica songs? That cover band, though they may see themselves (and others may see them) as honoring Metallica, the fact is that they're profiting from the copyrighted work of the band - far worse than downloading Master of Puppets, imo, but I've never heard of a cover band being slapped with an $80,000 fine per song played at their gig.

In the US, venues pay a fee to ASCAP and BMI to cover composer royalties. The fee is scaled to the size of the venue and to some extent to the type, so a coffee shop that has the radio on in the background pays a token fee, but if they have live performances the fee is a bit more (since now they're a performance venue).
So the Metallica cover band is actually playing under a license. Venues which play copyrighted music without paying the fee have in fact been hit with hefty fines, in the five digits.

This brings to mind the old bebop habit of writing a new head for someone's tune and performing it under some made-up name to avoid Gershwin's or Kern's or whoever's royalty fee.

(Just as a word to the wise, if you're performing music, you might want to look up the laws regarding IP, they might be important to you in the future)

I actually wasn't aware of all that. I've never handled gig arrangements. Appreciate the knowledge, that'll come in handy when/if we start playing shows. I do remember hearing something about this years ago when I asked about playing a CD over the store com instead of the radio at a gas station.

[jon.kiparsky]

depricated, on 28 January 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

I actually wasn't aware of all that. I've never handled gig arrangements. Appreciate the knowledge, that'll come in handy when/if we start playing shows. I do remember hearing something about this years ago when I asked about playing a CD over the store com instead of the radio at a gas station.

Yeah, that sort of thing gets really hairy after a while. I've been out of the business for a while now, but I wouldn't be surprised if the gas station had negotiated a special license with weird terms like "radio only". That sort of thing happens in the world of licensing.

Another useful tip - which may be out of date! - is that if you record a cover song, the "mechanical licensing" is handled through the Harry Fox Agency. That's a pretty good place to go for information about recordings of cover songs.

[Python_4_President]

jon.kiparsky, on 28 January 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

Python_4_President, on 27 January 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

(That is, thanks for not wanting to neuter me because I'm niche, or a minority, or different, or for other reasons.)

You know, it hadn't really occurred to me until you mentioned it, but could we just do that? I mean, it's not likely you'd be in danger of reproducing, but I'm thinking "better safe than sorry", right?

I'm told it's a pretty painless procedure... at least that's what the vet told me when we took my cat in.

You can try />






On to the future, though:

Quote

So the Metallica cover band is actually playing under a license. Venues which play copyrighted music without paying the fee have in fact been hit with hefty fines, in the five digits.

License -> database
database -> google glasses

attendees wearing google glasses Mk2 (the self contained unit) watching unlicensed music play at a location marked by GPS automatically nark on the venue.


Fast forward a bit...

In addition to auto-narking, with electronic enhancements to vision and hearing, people watching or listening to unlicensed music will have their eyes, ears, or both disabled/significantly distorted. (think blurry faces on google maps, or the anti-piracy feature of the operation flashpoint series which gradually ruined the game over time, to make it serve as a timed demo)


Pretty awesome, huh?

This post has been edited by Python_4_President: 28 January 2013 - 08:37 AM

[h4nnib4l]

Quote

License -> database
database -> google glasses

I don't have any comments or anything to add, I just thought that this logical progression should be highlighted.

[jon.kiparsky]

h4nnib4l, on 28 January 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Quote

License -> database
database -> google glasses

I don't have any comments or anything to add, I just thought that this logical progression should be highlighted.

Yeah, I looked at that for a minute, and then I realized it wasn't supposed to mean anything. It's just typing to hear the pretty clicking noises.

[h4nnib4l]

Typing -> keyboard
Keyboard -> bacon

I'm hungry for lunch.

[supersloth]

Lemur, on 26 January 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

So basically we're expected to dumb down? The goal is to raise averages, not pander to twits. The internet came from geeks, and without us it will fall. Simple as that.

lol, no. it will just be changed by geeks willing to work with other people. just like always.

[depricated]

jon.kiparsky, on 28 January 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

h4nnib4l, on 28 January 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Quote

License -> database
database -> google glasses

I don't have any comments or anything to add, I just thought that this logical progression should be highlighted.

Yeah, I looked at that for a minute, and then I realized it wasn't supposed to mean anything. It's just typing to hear the pretty clicking noises.

That's the exact reason I bought Das Keyboard. It clicks so prettily!

[WolfCoder]

Atli, on 28 January 2013 - 06:14 AM, said:

WolfCoder, on 28 January 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

CTphpnwb, on 26 January 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

...
Freedom without responsibility is just chaos. Every system needs rules in order to function, and the problem these days is that we have all kinds of bad people doing all kinds of bad things in the name of "freedom" but what they're really bringing is anarchy.

This sounds familiar in an eerie way. Something about how it is in human nature that we must be governed.

"but what they're really bringing is anarchy."

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I'm pretty sure your picture was funny but it just says "Posted Image" for me. I had to copy/paste the URL shown when I clicked Quote + Reply to see the picture and I realized the link isn't directly to the image but another web page with the image inside it. This is why I re-upload my pictures to something I can direct link with.

[AnalyticLunatic]

depricated, on 28 January 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

That's the exact reason I bought Das Keyboard. It clicks so prettily!

I just got a DAS S-Ultimate over Christmas. Love it!

[depricated]

High five!

o/