1. Write/pass bad law at the behest of your biggest campaign contributors.
2. When people complain about bad law, raise a boatload of cash on the promise to fix it.
3.... well there is no step 3 because you don't actually DO anything about it, because then what would you campaign on and raise cash for?
Actually I agree that this is not derivative enough...
To use the Kutiman (which I love and totally agree with as fair use) analogy, this would be the equivalent of taking a Metallica song and during the solo dubbing over me saying "Hey look at the cow!" but leaving 90% of the song in tact, AND THEN TRYING TO SELL IT!...
Kutiman basically sampled bits and pieces, even whole works, of posters to YouTube. As we've seen before, people who post their own uncopyrighted videos to youtube are basically submitting them to public domain-- as it should be. I still wouldn't look too kindly to someone who took an entire post to YouTube or any other way of submitting an artistic work to public domain, overlaying a small icon or snippit of audio, and then calling it copyrighted and trying to sell it.
Unfortunately, good luck trying to define what would be generally "acceptable" use of existing works-- even before we involve lawyers and copyright holders.
"Simply put: DON'T GIVE THE MONEY TO PRIVATE COMPANIES! It's time for the government to do the building up of the internet backbones ourselves and then lease out access to these companies."
Yes, because the government never funnels money meant for something good into the general funds and blows it on other crap. Social Security... Medicare... Pensions....
We handed out fresh popcorn out of a popcorn machine this weekend. Granted, we run a home haunt, so people KNOW where they got it from, but it was interesting to see the reaction as people were handed fresh food. (The haunt was themed after classic horror movies, so the popcorn--especially the smell of it--was very appropriate.) At first, the old FUD came welling to the surface with looks of shock, horror, disgust, and sometimes a polite "no thanks", but then they thought for a second and took it anyway.
Want to reverse this? If you want to distribute something homemade, include your name and address. Maybe email. People will feel a lot better if they can trace the source. Even if it's fake. (j/k)
Over a dozen years ago, the cable companies already had the technology to be able to stream shows. Like the new Netflicks or podcasting, the shows we "subscribe" would be sent to us automatically and be saved to our set top boxes, and we could watch them at our leisure. Instead, cable (probably because of fears of the media companies) stick to the old "broadcast" model where if you aren't home when it airs, or if more than one show you want to watch airs at the same time, you're screwed. This is completely outdated, and as I said the technology to prevent this has been in place for over a decade. (I've had cable modem service for what, 15 years?)
Commercials can be shown in the menu while we're deciding what to watch, or after a show is done, show commercials until we reactivate the menu. As it is, my current DVR goes back into the menu when a show is done, and the menu screen sits there doing nothing while I get up for a snack, or while I'm waiting for the girlfriend to get back from a wee. Hell, when I pause the show to answer the phone or talk to someone, show ads while the content is paused-- I might be more inclined to pay attention to commercials because I'm not currently engaged in the content! Instead they stick to interleaving commercials between content and because when I'm watching content all I want is content, I definitely want to skip commercials to get back to the content.
If they really want to stick to this model, maybe make the DVRs just a little bit smarter-- instead of blindly skipping 30 seconds, where I might skip into the middle of some ad I don't care about (or worse, skip into the middle an ad that I might actually watch but because it's in the middle I don't know what it's for) skip to the beginning of the next commercial. That way, commercial makers are guaranteed that the first second of a commercial WILL be seen, so they can put all their eye-catching images/phrases there so I can decide immediately if I want to watch or skip the commercial.
Or here's another idea-- check the client's referrer and make sure it's coming from your own home pages, and if it's not, piss off your customers by sending them to your home page instead of the content they actually wanted.
It's pretty simple why the recording companies are so against lyrics online. The RIAA is protecting it's business. Since the only value-added reason anyone would buy the CD as opposed to iTunes or say... BitTorrent... is to have the physical media, book/insert, etc. If you can get the lyrics online, one less reason to buy the physical media.
How public policy works now
1. Write/pass bad law at the behest of your biggest campaign contributors.
2. When people complain about bad law, raise a boatload of cash on the promise to fix it.
3.... well there is no step 3 because you don't actually DO anything about it, because then what would you campaign on and raise cash for?
Derivitive?
Actually I agree that this is not derivative enough...
To use the Kutiman (which I love and totally agree with as fair use) analogy, this would be the equivalent of taking a Metallica song and during the solo dubbing over me saying "Hey look at the cow!" but leaving 90% of the song in tact, AND THEN TRYING TO SELL IT!...
Kutiman basically sampled bits and pieces, even whole works, of posters to YouTube. As we've seen before, people who post their own uncopyrighted videos to youtube are basically submitting them to public domain-- as it should be. I still wouldn't look too kindly to someone who took an entire post to YouTube or any other way of submitting an artistic work to public domain, overlaying a small icon or snippit of audio, and then calling it copyrighted and trying to sell it.
Unfortunately, good luck trying to define what would be generally "acceptable" use of existing works-- even before we involve lawyers and copyright holders.
Re: Re: Rural Areas?
"Simply put: DON'T GIVE THE MONEY TO PRIVATE COMPANIES! It's time for the government to do the building up of the internet backbones ourselves and then lease out access to these companies."
Yes, because the government never funnels money meant for something good into the general funds and blows it on other crap. Social Security... Medicare... Pensions....
Popcorn
We handed out fresh popcorn out of a popcorn machine this weekend. Granted, we run a home haunt, so people KNOW where they got it from, but it was interesting to see the reaction as people were handed fresh food. (The haunt was themed after classic horror movies, so the popcorn--especially the smell of it--was very appropriate.) At first, the old FUD came welling to the surface with looks of shock, horror, disgust, and sometimes a polite "no thanks", but then they thought for a second and took it anyway. Want to reverse this? If you want to distribute something homemade, include your name and address. Maybe email. People will feel a lot better if they can trace the source. Even if it's fake. (j/k)
How Cable Screwed Up.
Over a dozen years ago, the cable companies already had the technology to be able to stream shows. Like the new Netflicks or podcasting, the shows we "subscribe" would be sent to us automatically and be saved to our set top boxes, and we could watch them at our leisure. Instead, cable (probably because of fears of the media companies) stick to the old "broadcast" model where if you aren't home when it airs, or if more than one show you want to watch airs at the same time, you're screwed. This is completely outdated, and as I said the technology to prevent this has been in place for over a decade. (I've had cable modem service for what, 15 years?)
Commercials can be shown in the menu while we're deciding what to watch, or after a show is done, show commercials until we reactivate the menu. As it is, my current DVR goes back into the menu when a show is done, and the menu screen sits there doing nothing while I get up for a snack, or while I'm waiting for the girlfriend to get back from a wee. Hell, when I pause the show to answer the phone or talk to someone, show ads while the content is paused-- I might be more inclined to pay attention to commercials because I'm not currently engaged in the content! Instead they stick to interleaving commercials between content and because when I'm watching content all I want is content, I definitely want to skip commercials to get back to the content.
If they really want to stick to this model, maybe make the DVRs just a little bit smarter-- instead of blindly skipping 30 seconds, where I might skip into the middle of some ad I don't care about (or worse, skip into the middle an ad that I might actually watch but because it's in the middle I don't know what it's for) skip to the beginning of the next commercial. That way, commercial makers are guaranteed that the first second of a commercial WILL be seen, so they can put all their eye-catching images/phrases there so I can decide immediately if I want to watch or skip the commercial.
(untitled comment)
Who?
Referrer!
Or here's another idea-- check the client's referrer and make sure it's coming from your own home pages, and if it's not, piss off your customers by sending them to your home page instead of the content they actually wanted.
Illinois!
Ha, this is Illinois! None of our public officials are aware of the law.
Figure it out...
It's pretty simple why the recording companies are so against lyrics online. The RIAA is protecting it's business. Since the only value-added reason anyone would buy the CD as opposed to iTunes or say... BitTorrent... is to have the physical media, book/insert, etc. If you can get the lyrics online, one less reason to buy the physical media.