Copyright Explained Musically
from the copyright-does-inspire-some-creativity dept
For those of you who claim that copyright inspires no creativity whatsoever, perhaps you have not seen the following video, PandoHouse Rock: Copyright, explained, a collaboration between PandoDaily and Explainer Music’s David Holmes:
I usually find these sorts of things to be pretty bad. Copyright isn’t something that you can usually simplify down to a song, but this one actually does a pretty good job of making the key point: which is that copyright is a crazy mess and widely abusable and abused. There are a few minor points I might quibble with (it’s not clear that “It’s A Wonderful Life” is really
in the public domain for example), but on the whole it’s one of the better such videos we’ve seen. Oh yeah, also, Holmes has put the video itself into the public domain, which is something we do with Techdirt content as well, but which very few other people do. Nicely done.
So, yes, copyright may have inspired this song… to be put into the public domain.
Filed Under: complicated, copyright, fair use, music, public domain
Comments on “Copyright Explained Musically”
Interesting
I was unaware that Techdirt content was actually Public Domain. Is there a link to follow to the declaration of such? I was just curious.
Re: Interesting
How about right here where Mike Masnick just said that?
Re: Re: Interesting
Can you point me to where Mike unequivocally has dedicated this particular article to the public domain? What about the article before?
Re: Re: Re: Interesting
All articles
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0348223430.shtml
Done
Re: Re: Re:2 Interesting
Huh? He nowhere indicates that this post is in the public domain. In fact, he explicitly says he sees no point in putting a declaration on each post. His reasons for not doing so, I think, are silly. Why wouldn’t he declare each post to be public domain if that would actually make in so in some countries?
Re: Re: Re:3 Interesting
Seriously, that’s what you’re going with?
A statement staying that for all tech dirt content, they don’t give two hoots how you use or repurpose it, isn’t enough for you?
You want maybe some kind of Gutenberg project style PD declaration at the start of every article?
You don’t think that might perhaps just be an irritating distraction that wouldn’t make people rather eat their own intestines than slog through time after pointless time?
Okay Mike you have your pointers bluray this mothering site.
Re: Re: Re:4 Interesting
Must be a lawyer. “We don’t care how you use it” is enough for human beings, but lawyers can’t even breathe if there aren’t legal notices plastered over the air molecules.
Re: Re: Re:5 Interesting
Must be a lawyer. “We don’t care how you use it” is enough for human beings, but lawyers can’t even breathe if there aren’t legal notices plastered over the air molecules.
Dedicating something to the public domain is incredibly simple and easy. For some reason, it’s the anti-copyright folks like Mike and Kinsella who pretend like it’s difficult. They’re completely wrong.
In the post linked to by the AC above, Mike says: “we’re perfectly fine with people taking and repurposing our content.” That sounds like a grant of a nonexclusive license, not a dedication of the work to the public domain. If he wants to dedicate things to the public domain, the LAST thing he should do is publish articles like that where he grants a license and then says he sees no point dedicating things to the public domain explicitly. If anything, that article shows that things here are NOT in the public domain.
So what should he do? Mike mentions that CC licenses are no good because they rely on copyright. That’s true. But CC0 is not a license. It’s a tool: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 All he has to do is slap that on the end of an article, and boom, the article is thereafter unilaterally, unequivocally, and irrevocably dedicated to the public domain. It is literally that simple. It could not be easier.
Why doesn’t Mike, who purports to want his articles to be in the public domain, not do so simple of a thing?
Re: Re: Re:6 Interesting
It’s not a license, it’s a tool.
It’s not a tax, it’s a penalty.
It’s not a penalty, it’s a tax.
It’s not high, it’s just not close to the ground.
We’re not falling, we’re just going down really quickly.
Re: Re: Re:7 Interesting
Also, it says, in the description you just linked that “no tool, not even CC0, can guarantee a complete relinquishment of all copyright and database rights in every jurisdiction,” so… Yeah.
It’s SO damn easy to put something in the public domain.
Re: Re: Re:8 Interesting
Also, it says, in the description you just linked that “no tool, not even CC0, can guarantee a complete relinquishment of all copyright and database rights in every jurisdiction,” so… Yeah.
It’s SO damn easy to put something in the public domain.
I don’t know how it works in other jurisdictions, but that works in the U.S. No reason not to do it if his intent is to actually dedicate things to the public domain.
Re: Re: Re:9 Interesting
What a parochial view of the world. For your information the US is not the whole world, despite your governments attempts to rule the whole world.
Re: Re: Re:10 Interesting
What a parochial view of the world. For your information the US is not the whole world, despite your governments attempts to rule the whole world.
LMAO! What other jurisdictions does Mike have copyrights in that he’d like to abandon? Give me a break. He very easily could dedicate his articles to the public domain, but he’s clearly far too lazy to do so.
Re: Re: Re:11 Interesting
Every signatory to the Berne Convention, for starters…
Re: Re: Re:12 Interesting
Every signatory to the Berne Convention, for starters…
Can you explain how that works? I would think that if he abandoned his rights in the U.S., the country of origin, then that would carry over to the signatory nations.
Re: Re: Re:6 Interesting
Because secretly Mike Masnick loves every single aspect of copyright. All the articles pointing out how broken, illogical and out of touch withy reality copyright, all the public debates he attends presenting arguments against copyright… it’s all a cunning smoke screen.
In reality, his alter-ego Copyright Man ™ is Chris Dodd’s best friend and flies around the country with his x-ray vision looking into people’s houses and tracking down evil copyright infringers and setting fire to them with his heat vision (his one point of dissagreement with Chris Dodd as it turns out, who thinks this is not severe or invasive enough).
Re: Re: Re:3 Interesting
Idiotic waste of time. More than enough answers to your inane quibble already posted above!
Re: Re: Re:4 Interesting
Idiotic waste of time. More than enough answers to your inane quibble already posted above!
He links to an article where explains why he DOESN’T dedicate each article to the public domain, and you think that proves things are in the public domain? I don’t follow your logic.
Re: Re: Re:5 Interesting
quit it you fucking lawyer moron!!!
Re: Interesting
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0348223430.shtml
But please do not use the NC restriction!!
Argh, don’t suggest the NC restriction. It’s not a good thing. It fails to stop exploitation any better than SA and it divides the commons because it is incompatible with truly free licenses!
Summary: you *want* to restrict commercial use, so you use NC. Result: your decision has little or no impact on actual commercial uses, but you seriously hamper non-commercial users who you wanted to support. That’s what happens with NC. It’s a broken license, don’t use it!
See my example here:
blog.wolftune.com/2011/07/brain-parts-song-video.html
Or thorough discussion:
http://blog.okfn.org/2013/01/08/consequences-risks-and-side-effects-of-the-license-module-non-commercial-use-only-2/
free
its very interesting article. thanks for sharing and its very helpfull.
obat penyubur kandungan