The point of the article is not that she did anything wrong in quoting Mike. It was that, while criticizing someone else for allowing other's to take their material, and saying that no one should ever allow others blanket permission to take their stuff, she took Mike's stuff.
According to copyright law, however, even if you have a blanket statement on your website saying, "Please, take this content and do what thou wilt with i," it doesn't matter. The material is still copyrighted and you did not request permission to use it.
On the other hand, using any material, even material you have been given permission to use, without attribution is plagiarism. Even though Mike has given permission to do that, it doesn't matter much.
The point here is, Lily Allen was criticizing a man for letting other people 'steal' or copy his material. She accused him of being selfish for not demanding that his material be bought, because it hurts everyone else in his distribution chain. While making this argument, she 'stole', or copied the material of someone who was also saying that anyone could take his stuff.
This is hypocrisy. Stating a belief or ethic while violating that ethic is rank hypocrisy.
Unfortunately, while that would be ironic and bring a lot of attention to the issue, it would be the wrong kind of attention. Mike would, himself, be labeled a hypocrite, and no one wants that.
We aren't discussing her lack of education, Kate. We are discussing the fact that she has put herself into a position where she is acting hypocritically.
Lily Allen feels that no one, ever, should ever copy anything put up by anyone else. No one should ever violate copyright, because it hurts the person who created it.
And then, possibly ignorantly, possibly not, she violated copyright and copied something made by someone else. Now, Mike has said it is fine to take his stuff and do things with it, but that is his choice. He has said it is okay. Lily Allen has said that is not okay. She has violated her own code of ethics.
Now, does that mean she did something wrong? Not as far as Mike is concerned. Hell, not even as far as I am concerned. But, as far as SHE is concerned, she has done something wrong. And that is what makes her a hypocrite.
Exactly! Can you imagine what the world would be like today if, back in prehistoric times, some guy had slapped a patent on Farming? Or making ceramic pots?
I can't imagine such a world, but I bet if you said that to a music industry exec, dollar signs would replace his irises.
Actually, that is part of the problem. Her utter ignorance of what she is parroting is making her look bad. If she would get a little educated, she might turn on her employers and maybe even make a little more money in doing so.
Unless, what you meant was that there are a lot of posts about the absurdity of patents and copyrights. In which case you would be correct. But I just read a little while ago a post about that guy who followed his GPS off a cliff. Nothing about copyrights or patents there.
Because copyright applies whether you are giving something away for free or charging for it. If you don't site the person or persons you got something from, it is called plagiarism(sp?). The fact is, it does not matter who she took it from, but that she took it while complaining about people who take things. It is hypocritical, and that is all that Mike wanted to point out.
Chronno S. Trigger: "Since people in Europe drive on the opposite side of the road than the US, wouldn't it be better to have a sign saying "Look Right"? You know, since when you step off the sidewalk the traffic is coming at you from the right. Maybe that's why the Americans are looking the wrong way when they start to cross the street, they're just following your signs."
That's a good point! They're trying to kill us, those sneaky europeans!
I just want you to know, the idea of a car screaming on an endless loop, "Turnin' left, motha fucka!" is now my sole reason for liking the idea of silent cars being given noises.
If they are making these laws for the consideration of blind people, doesn't it seem strange to you that blind people are 'walking across streets without a guide?'
At stop lights, they have been putting in those loud beeps that let the blind person know that it is safe to go across. Beyond that, blind people should not be walking across streets without a guide who will look both ways for them. Like, a seeing eye dog.
The idea of mandating car noises for silent cars so that blind people walking across the street don't get hit is similar to the idea of putting braille on drive through atms so that blind people can use them while driving.
Actually, another mike, they do. A legislator is only as effective as the last bill he introduced. A lot of these bills seem to be introduced with no expectation they will actually be voted upon or passed. They do it, so they can go back to their constituents, shrug their shoulders and say, "I tried."
Now, if they really do get passionate about something, they will try the same bill over and over and over again, year after year, trying to get it passed. They never give up, and they fight like the dickens not to get tossed out of office. Eventually, when you have such a persistent idiot running around, something he does will get voted in. Then, they will point to that and say, "See! See! You agreed with me on that! Now, agree with me on the next step!" And away we go.
It does my heart good to see a politician actually making sense, and a newspaper actually supporting him for making sense. What really bugs me is this: If the courts can see these things are unconstitutional, why can't the legislatures? We need the courts to give oversight, but that doesn't mean the legislatures should mosey along like a drunken hobo, while the courts hover about like a mother hen, guiding them on the right track. Good on the Governor for having the foresight to actually protect children.
Seriously, does anyone have their email? The idea of losing my Gmail account makes me all cold inside. I want to send them an email telling them to stop what they are doing, because I need that account.
I have two email accounts, Yahoo and Gmail. I use Yahoo for job searching and dealing with the internet at large (for instance, I use my Yahoo account here). I use Gmail for talking with my family and friends. If Gmail goes down, I'd lose all my conversations with them! The very idea makes me all cold inside.
Unfortunately, it is a truism that 'The system has flaws'. Equally unfortunately, the very things that are flawed keep worse or unexpected flaws from coming into the system. This is true of the judicial system and it is true everywhere else.
Lawyers are corrupt, it is true. Life is unfair. If we didn't have certain protections in place (which, at the same time that they protect, they allow this corruption) then the system would be as deadly as any third-world legal system. This is not to say it can't be changed, but some people tend to take a very defeatist attitude. "This is bad, so we should scrap the whole thing." "This is wrong, and so the whole system doesn't work." Sure, it can and probably should be changed. If you think of a way, call your congressman and lets get to work on getting it implemented. But throwing up your hands and saying, "Screw this, I'm taking my ball and going home," doesn't help anything.
As to what American courts are trying to hide: Public opinion, which is not supposed to have any place in the court. Juries 'can' ask for evidence, during deliberations. Did you think they just lock them in a room and throw away the key, expecting them to use their memories to recall all hundred or so hours of the case? No! That is why they make detailed recordings of everything, and carefully label things, so the jury can bring things into the room. Juries don't ask questions of witnesses because that is the prosecutor and defender's job. And, if a juror asks a stupid question, they won't feel slighted when they get a stupid answer (as does happen with prosecutors and defenders). Jurors are supposed to be calm, outside observers, seeing what is going on and making a determination upon it. If the defense doesn't give a good case, or the prosecution doesn't, that is for the judge to decide (by declaring a mistrial, by striking evidence, by giving instruction to the jury and by assigning a new attorney if the current ones prove incompetent).
As to whether or not it is more just, just is not a seeming, or a feeling. Justice is truth, pure and simple. And now I will get off my soapbox and go play.
Ack! I forgot the defender. Sorry, what I really meant, was the lawyers in the case, both for the defense and prosecution. Though, really, they can't discuss it with them, they can only listen as the lawyers try to explain what happened and why they should think one thing or the other.
Well, if you weren't boffing susan, then she can sue you for defamation. However, if you were boffing her, I don't see how the suit could stick, as you were simply telling the truth, and you didn't mention anything concerning her character.
As to her suing the company, we don't know the details. Were you the only businessman boffing her? Was she threatened by you or others if she didn't boff you? Etc.
And yes, I know you were being sarcastic. I just thought it would be amusing to respond as though you were being truthful.
Well, this is a clear violation of the law. Jurors are not allowed to discuss trial with anyone but the judge, the prosecutors, or other jurors. Sending out twitter messages during the trial is illegal and should call for an appeal and possibly a mistrial.
"That will undoubtedly have an effect on people's online behavior, and could hamper the growth of social networking and online life-sharing."
I am not sure this is necessarily bad. It isn't good, but it isn't bad, either. It is simply a fact of sharing your life online. If people realize that sharing their entire life online is going to take away their privacy, and they value their privacy, they are going to stop sharing their entire life online. It is a choice that people just haven't been thinking about till now. Hopefully, this will lead to more thoughtful business models for social sites in the future.
I don't know what those might be (I'm not in the business) but I am sure more intelligent people then I will figure it out.
RSS
Twitter
Re: (as Michael Talpas)
Actually, Brent, his point is sound.
The point of the article is not that she did anything wrong in quoting Mike. It was that, while criticizing someone else for allowing other's to take their material, and saying that no one should ever allow others blanket permission to take their stuff, she took Mike's stuff.
Re: (as Michael Talpas)
According to copyright law, however, even if you have a blanket statement on your website saying, "Please, take this content and do what thou wilt with i," it doesn't matter. The material is still copyrighted and you did not request permission to use it.
On the other hand, using any material, even material you have been given permission to use, without attribution is plagiarism. Even though Mike has given permission to do that, it doesn't matter much.
The point here is, Lily Allen was criticizing a man for letting other people 'steal' or copy his material. She accused him of being selfish for not demanding that his material be bought, because it hurts everyone else in his distribution chain. While making this argument, she 'stole', or copied the material of someone who was also saying that anyone could take his stuff.
This is hypocrisy. Stating a belief or ethic while violating that ethic is rank hypocrisy.
Re: (as Michael Talpas)
Unfortunately, while that would be ironic and bring a lot of attention to the issue, it would be the wrong kind of attention. Mike would, himself, be labeled a hypocrite, and no one wants that.
Re: oh dear! (as Michael Talpas)
We aren't discussing her lack of education, Kate. We are discussing the fact that she has put herself into a position where she is acting hypocritically.
Lily Allen feels that no one, ever, should ever copy anything put up by anyone else. No one should ever violate copyright, because it hurts the person who created it.
And then, possibly ignorantly, possibly not, she violated copyright and copied something made by someone else. Now, Mike has said it is fine to take his stuff and do things with it, but that is his choice. He has said it is okay. Lily Allen has said that is not okay. She has violated her own code of ethics.
Now, does that mean she did something wrong? Not as far as Mike is concerned. Hell, not even as far as I am concerned. But, as far as SHE is concerned, she has done something wrong. And that is what makes her a hypocrite.
Re: Re: (as Michael Talpas)
Exactly! Can you imagine what the world would be like today if, back in prehistoric times, some guy had slapped a patent on Farming? Or making ceramic pots?
I can't imagine such a world, but I bet if you said that to a music industry exec, dollar signs would replace his irises.
Re: (as Michael Talpas)
Actually, that is part of the problem. Her utter ignorance of what she is parroting is making her look bad. If she would get a little educated, she might turn on her employers and maybe even make a little more money in doing so.
Re: copyright-patentdirt.com? (as Michael Talpas)
It is just you.
Unless, what you meant was that there are a lot of posts about the absurdity of patents and copyrights. In which case you would be correct. But I just read a little while ago a post about that guy who followed his GPS off a cliff. Nothing about copyrights or patents there.
Re: Possible reason? (as Michael Talpas)
Because copyright applies whether you are giving something away for free or charging for it. If you don't site the person or persons you got something from, it is called plagiarism(sp?). The fact is, it does not matter who she took it from, but that she took it while complaining about people who take things. It is hypocritical, and that is all that Mike wanted to point out.
Re: Re: (as Michael Talpas)
Chronno S. Trigger: "Since people in Europe drive on the opposite side of the road than the US, wouldn't it be better to have a sign saying "Look Right"? You know, since when you step off the sidewalk the traffic is coming at you from the right. Maybe that's why the Americans are looking the wrong way when they start to cross the street, they're just following your signs."
That's a good point! They're trying to kill us, those sneaky europeans!
Re: Re: Re: Proprietary Noises (as Michael Talpas)
I just want you to know, the idea of a car screaming on an endless loop, "Turnin' left, motha fucka!" is now my sole reason for liking the idea of silent cars being given noises.
Re: deaf law makers (as Michael Talpas)
If they are making these laws for the consideration of blind people, doesn't it seem strange to you that blind people are 'walking across streets without a guide?'
At stop lights, they have been putting in those loud beeps that let the blind person know that it is safe to go across. Beyond that, blind people should not be walking across streets without a guide who will look both ways for them. Like, a seeing eye dog.
The idea of mandating car noises for silent cars so that blind people walking across the street don't get hit is similar to the idea of putting braille on drive through atms so that blind people can use them while driving.
Re: publish or perish rules? (as Michael Talpas)
Actually, another mike, they do. A legislator is only as effective as the last bill he introduced. A lot of these bills seem to be introduced with no expectation they will actually be voted upon or passed. They do it, so they can go back to their constituents, shrug their shoulders and say, "I tried."
Now, if they really do get passionate about something, they will try the same bill over and over and over again, year after year, trying to get it passed. They never give up, and they fight like the dickens not to get tossed out of office. Eventually, when you have such a persistent idiot running around, something he does will get voted in. Then, they will point to that and say, "See! See! You agreed with me on that! Now, agree with me on the next step!" And away we go.
Good to see (as Michael Talpas)
It does my heart good to see a politician actually making sense, and a newspaper actually supporting him for making sense. What really bugs me is this: If the courts can see these things are unconstitutional, why can't the legislatures? We need the courts to give oversight, but that doesn't mean the legislatures should mosey along like a drunken hobo, while the courts hover about like a mother hen, guiding them on the right track. Good on the Governor for having the foresight to actually protect children.
Re: Re: (as Michael Talpas)
Seriously, how could it be anything else? Unless you are able to clone yourself, or something.
Still, the question made me laugh. Thanks Coward, I almost fell out of my chair.
Anyone have EPIC's email? (as Michael Talpas)
Seriously, does anyone have their email? The idea of losing my Gmail account makes me all cold inside. I want to send them an email telling them to stop what they are doing, because I need that account.
I have two email accounts, Yahoo and Gmail. I use Yahoo for job searching and dealing with the internet at large (for instance, I use my Yahoo account here). I use Gmail for talking with my family and friends. If Gmail goes down, I'd lose all my conversations with them! The very idea makes me all cold inside.
Damn the man! (as Michael Talpas)
Unfortunately, it is a truism that 'The system has flaws'. Equally unfortunately, the very things that are flawed keep worse or unexpected flaws from coming into the system. This is true of the judicial system and it is true everywhere else.
Lawyers are corrupt, it is true. Life is unfair. If we didn't have certain protections in place (which, at the same time that they protect, they allow this corruption) then the system would be as deadly as any third-world legal system. This is not to say it can't be changed, but some people tend to take a very defeatist attitude. "This is bad, so we should scrap the whole thing." "This is wrong, and so the whole system doesn't work." Sure, it can and probably should be changed. If you think of a way, call your congressman and lets get to work on getting it implemented. But throwing up your hands and saying, "Screw this, I'm taking my ball and going home," doesn't help anything.
As to what American courts are trying to hide: Public opinion, which is not supposed to have any place in the court. Juries 'can' ask for evidence, during deliberations. Did you think they just lock them in a room and throw away the key, expecting them to use their memories to recall all hundred or so hours of the case? No! That is why they make detailed recordings of everything, and carefully label things, so the jury can bring things into the room. Juries don't ask questions of witnesses because that is the prosecutor and defender's job. And, if a juror asks a stupid question, they won't feel slighted when they get a stupid answer (as does happen with prosecutors and defenders). Jurors are supposed to be calm, outside observers, seeing what is going on and making a determination upon it. If the defense doesn't give a good case, or the prosecution doesn't, that is for the judge to decide (by declaring a mistrial, by striking evidence, by giving instruction to the jury and by assigning a new attorney if the current ones prove incompetent).
As to whether or not it is more just, just is not a seeming, or a feeling. Justice is truth, pure and simple. And now I will get off my soapbox and go play.
Re: Re: Trial in Arkansas (as Michael Talpas)
Ack! I forgot the defender. Sorry, what I really meant, was the lawyers in the case, both for the defense and prosecution. Though, really, they can't discuss it with them, they can only listen as the lawyers try to explain what happened and why they should think one thing or the other.
Re: facebook should be illegal (as Michael Talpas)
Well, if you weren't boffing susan, then she can sue you for defamation. However, if you were boffing her, I don't see how the suit could stick, as you were simply telling the truth, and you didn't mention anything concerning her character.
As to her suing the company, we don't know the details. Were you the only businessman boffing her? Was she threatened by you or others if she didn't boff you? Etc.
And yes, I know you were being sarcastic. I just thought it would be amusing to respond as though you were being truthful.
Re: Trial in Arkansas (as Michael Talpas)
Well, this is a clear violation of the law. Jurors are not allowed to discuss trial with anyone but the judge, the prosecutors, or other jurors. Sending out twitter messages during the trial is illegal and should call for an appeal and possibly a mistrial.
I said possibly.
Is that necessarily bad? (as Michael Talpas)
"That will undoubtedly have an effect on people's online behavior, and could hamper the growth of social networking and online life-sharing."
I am not sure this is necessarily bad. It isn't good, but it isn't bad, either. It is simply a fact of sharing your life online. If people realize that sharing their entire life online is going to take away their privacy, and they value their privacy, they are going to stop sharing their entire life online. It is a choice that people just haven't been thinking about till now. Hopefully, this will lead to more thoughtful business models for social sites in the future.
I don't know what those might be (I'm not in the business) but I am sure more intelligent people then I will figure it out.