I think it's wonderful that Amanda Palmer raised $100k, but it's by using a super paywall called Kickstarter. How do you think the Kickstarter funders are going to feel if one of them just makes a zillion copies for their friends? Someone will feel ripped off.
Actually so far Amanda Palmer has raised ~$700K.
I am one of the backers of that project, and I fully expect that the album she's planning on producing will be available on the internet for free, and you know what? I don't care. I didn't back the project solely to get the album and artwork. I backed it because I really like what Amanda Palmer does and I wanted to support this next creation of hers.
The fact that tons of other people will get to experience what she creates because I helped fund her is a positive for me, it doesn't make me feel ripped off.
Actually, I think that postage stamps sell at a loss otherwise the post office wouldn't be losing money. So perhaps the percentage of the profits is a loss and Frank Gaylord owes the Post Office some money?
After all the price you pay for the stamp is for the stamp itself plus the delivery of a piece of mail.
The argument I frequently make when discussing this with friends and family is that the culture of your childhood should be in the public domain for you to use to create new culture when you're in your 20's and most likely to be creating new culture.
Having read through that page, I think it should explicitly state something it implied about commercial use.
If one of the big traditional media producers wants to use your content commercially, say in a Hollywood movie or TV commercial, they will not just use it with a BY-SA licence any more than they would use it with a NC license.
Instead if they want to use it and not release their containing content with a BY-SA (which we know they don't) then they will still contact the creator of the content to arrange for different licensing terms (probably with some financial agreement).
This is why the BY-SA is just as effective as the BY-SA-NC at preventing the exploitative use the people selecting the NC license probably wanted to prevent.
I have to say that patronage is useful for new video producers, but once you've got fans, you've got potential patrons.
I really believe that there are some canceled shows that could use something like kickstarter to get $10 million for 5 new shows. That's only $10/fan if there are a million fans.
I'd pledge $25 for 5 new episodes of Firefly!
As long as they get produced and I can obtain them (on DVD or download) for my patronage, it doesn't matter to me if the producers can get more money from those episodes. Actually that can only benefit me by creating more fans and lowering my needed contribution to additional episodes.
I have to disagree with this stated purpose of patents.
The function of the patent system isn't to maximize the profits of inventors. Rather, it's to provide inventors with sufficient incentives to ensure they continue innovating.
While the purpose of patents is not maximize the profits of inventors it also is not to provide inventors with incentives to invent.
The purpose of patents is to encourage inventors to PUBLISH the details needed for someone else to recreate their non-obvious invention.
The idea is that in return for a limited time monopoly, the details of the invention are made public for everyone to use and build upon after a time. Otherwise inventions would always be closely guarded trade secrets, and many would be (in the past, probably not as much now) when the person guarding the secret dies without passing it on.
This is why patents should only be granted for tangible non-obvious inventions. (and this is where our current system has become incredibly broken).
Can someone explain why copyright extends to a character from a story?
I guess it comes from how copyright covers derivative works, and I'm still not sure why that is.
At least I understand copyright as applied to the original expression, but why should it cover a brand new creation which just takes ideas from that expression and builds on them?
I think I'm venting and these are rhetorical for this audience, but if you've got something to add, please do.
Well I learned the 1st way as well, and I have to say that this new method still seems harder to me.
If you're multiplying a 3 digit number by a 4 digit number, you'll either end up adding 12 numbers or 3 numbers. Adding 3 numbers is easier to deal with.
Except pretty much no one has ever had to pay to read a book, they could borrow it from a library, or they could borrow it from a friend.
I tend to buy books for 2 reasons, first I like to own a copy of a book I enjoyed so I know it is available for me to read it again and lend it to others, and second, I want to support the author so they'll write more books that I can enjoy.
In that 2nd case, I don't actually look at it as recompense for the book already created, but more as support and encouragement for a future creation.
I don't think anyone here feels that Amazon shouldn't be allowed to decide which books it wants to sell and which ones it doesn't.
The issue most people here have w/ this story is that it is yet another example of DRM causing issues. In this case allowing Amazon to "come into your house and take back a book that they don't think you should have".
That isn't to say that people don't agree with fogbugzd (above) that a company is restricting its customer base and thereby losing potential profits by acting as the "Morality Police".
I agree with him and with you. For example I was very happy to hear about Google deciding that they would no longer censor results for the Chinese government. That could be considered a moral stand that would cost the company money. (I'm not sure I know how that has played out in the end.)
OTOH, I don't like Amazon censoring what books it sells (although I believe it is totally their right to do so). But that is mostly because I liked to think that if I wanted to buy any book, it would available at Amazon. Censoring books like this means that is less likely. It also means I may look elsewhere first when looking for a book, even if they do carry it.
Other large companies censor what they sell. I don't believe that either Netflix or Blockbuster offer any "adult" titles.
Either way, neither he nor his agent (publisher) have the legal right to sue people who share the work.
Well I don' think that's true. If it is case 2 (his entire work is in violation of copyright law), that doesn't give anyone else the right to share (copy) the work.
As I understand the facts as things currently stand, his work is in violation of copyright law. Period.
He could probably negotiate a settlement by placing his work under the same CC-BY-SA license, and adding attribution, thereby bringing future copies of his work into compliance, but it seems the violated authors (wikipedia) would have to agree that was acceptable.
I thought that the copyright on creation was part of the 1975 copyright law changes.
If I'm right (and please correct me if not), then it's highly unlikely that Steinbrenner registered for a copyright on letters he wrote, and they should be in the public domain.
No one else has said this, so I must be wrong somehow, please let me know where.
OK, first of all cooking/recipes is not the same concept as food.
Given our current concept of copyright, it makes as much sense to have recipes copyrightable as it does music or books.
Your statement is equivalent to saying stories have been around for thousands of years so stories are in the public domain and therefore are not copyrightable. Or the analogy could be that writing has been around for thousands of years...
Next, "the public domain" is an artificial concept created by the laws defining copyright, if there were no copyright/patent laws (an artificial concept created and enforced by government) then the concept of public domain would be meaningless as all thoughts/ideas/expressions of ideas would be usable by anyone who encountered them.
The food industry and the fashion industry are both really good examples of how copyright may be unnecessary, and perhaps counter productive to to goal of increasing creativity for the general good.
Re: What a nightmare!
Actually so far Amanda Palmer has raised ~$700K.
I am one of the backers of that project, and I fully expect that the album she's planning on producing will be available on the internet for free, and you know what? I don't care. I didn't back the project solely to get the album and artwork. I backed it because I really like what Amanda Palmer does and I wanted to support this next creation of hers.
The fact that tons of other people will get to experience what she creates because I helped fund her is a positive for me, it doesn't make me feel ripped off.
Re: Re:
Actually, I think that postage stamps sell at a loss otherwise the post office wouldn't be losing money. So perhaps the percentage of the profits is a loss and Frank Gaylord owes the Post Office some money?
After all the price you pay for the stamp is for the stamp itself plus the delivery of a piece of mail.
Herding cats
I believe herding cats works something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8
(my favorite superbowl commercial from a few years ago)
7 years renewable for 7 more
That sounds reasonable to me.
The argument I frequently make when discussing this with friends and family is that the culture of your childhood should be in the public domain for you to use to create new culture when you're in your 20's and most likely to be creating new culture.
Re: Re: Re: License: CC by NC SA(aka Creative Commons, Non-Commercial Sharealike)
Thanks that was very informative.
Having read through that page, I think it should explicitly state something it implied about commercial use.
If one of the big traditional media producers wants to use your content commercially, say in a Hollywood movie or TV commercial, they will not just use it with a BY-SA licence any more than they would use it with a NC license.
Instead if they want to use it and not release their containing content with a BY-SA (which we know they don't) then they will still contact the creator of the content to arrange for different licensing terms (probably with some financial agreement).
This is why the BY-SA is just as effective as the BY-SA-NC at preventing the exploitative use the people selecting the NC license probably wanted to prevent.
Patronage
I have to say that patronage is useful for new video producers, but once you've got fans, you've got potential patrons.
I really believe that there are some canceled shows that could use something like kickstarter to get $10 million for 5 new shows. That's only $10/fan if there are a million fans.
I'd pledge $25 for 5 new episodes of Firefly!
As long as they get produced and I can obtain them (on DVD or download) for my patronage, it doesn't matter to me if the producers can get more money from those episodes. Actually that can only benefit me by creating more fans and lowering my needed contribution to additional episodes.
Purpose of patents
I have to disagree with this stated purpose of patents.
While the purpose of patents is not maximize the profits of inventors it also is not to provide inventors with incentives to invent.
The purpose of patents is to encourage inventors to PUBLISH the details needed for someone else to recreate their non-obvious invention.
The idea is that in return for a limited time monopoly, the details of the invention are made public for everyone to use and build upon after a time. Otherwise inventions would always be closely guarded trade secrets, and many would be (in the past, probably not as much now) when the person guarding the secret dies without passing it on.
This is why patents should only be granted for tangible non-obvious inventions. (and this is where our current system has become incredibly broken).
copyright on a character?
Can someone explain why copyright extends to a character from a story?
I guess it comes from how copyright covers derivative works, and I'm still not sure why that is.
At least I understand copyright as applied to the original expression, but why should it cover a brand new creation which just takes ideas from that expression and builds on them?
I think I'm venting and these are rhetorical for this audience, but if you've got something to add, please do.
Stopped looking back when Paywall was announced
So I pretty much stopped browsing the NY Times stories and columnists back when they announced they were planning a paywall.
Which I feel sort of sad about since I really did enjoy several of the NY Times columnists.
And of course this means that I no longer email friends and family to recommend that they read articles on the NY Times.
Who knows, maybe they'll get sane in a year or two.
Seems harder
Well I learned the 1st way as well, and I have to say that this new method still seems harder to me.
If you're multiplying a 3 digit number by a 4 digit number, you'll either end up adding 12 numbers or 3 numbers. Adding 3 numbers is easier to deal with.
Re: Re:
...$62,500 per song. This is almost 500% of the actual damages...
Minor quibble, I think you meant 500 times, not 500 percent.
Casino's encourage people to try to exploit bugs in slot machines
Actually I think they do.
Casino's actively encourage people to think they can come out ahead of a slot machine, and people think they're doing that all the time.
That' why some people get upset if someone takes their "warmed up slot", or why they'll wager more after they see certain sequences.
I really don't think a player should be penalized because they actually discover a way that works.
Re: Re: Re: Addtional Free Sodomy
Except pretty much no one has ever had to pay to read a book, they could borrow it from a library, or they could borrow it from a friend.
I tend to buy books for 2 reasons, first I like to own a copy of a book I enjoyed so I know it is available for me to read it again and lend it to others, and second, I want to support the author so they'll write more books that I can enjoy.
In that 2nd case, I don't actually look at it as recompense for the book already created, but more as support and encouragement for a future creation.
Re: Personal Morals?
I don't think anyone here feels that Amazon shouldn't be allowed to decide which books it wants to sell and which ones it doesn't.
The issue most people here have w/ this story is that it is yet another example of DRM causing issues. In this case allowing Amazon to "come into your house and take back a book that they don't think you should have".
That isn't to say that people don't agree with fogbugzd (above) that a company is restricting its customer base and thereby losing potential profits by acting as the "Morality Police".
I agree with him and with you. For example I was very happy to hear about Google deciding that they would no longer censor results for the Chinese government. That could be considered a moral stand that would cost the company money. (I'm not sure I know how that has played out in the end.)
OTOH, I don't like Amazon censoring what books it sells (although I believe it is totally their right to do so). But that is mostly because I liked to think that if I wanted to buy any book, it would available at Amazon. Censoring books like this means that is less likely. It also means I may look elsewhere first when looking for a book, even if they do carry it.
Other large companies censor what they sell. I don't believe that either Netflix or Blockbuster offer any "adult" titles.
Re: Re: Re: Re: He did not "alter, transform or build upon" the wiki stuff,
Well I don' think that's true. If it is case 2 (his entire work is in violation of copyright law), that doesn't give anyone else the right to share (copy) the work.
As I understand the facts as things currently stand, his work is in violation of copyright law. Period.
He could probably negotiate a settlement by placing his work under the same CC-BY-SA license, and adding attribution, thereby bringing future copies of his work into compliance, but it seems the violated authors (wikipedia) would have to agree that was acceptable.
Re: Kilts
OK, Now that was a great idea!
What I don't understand is with all the comment threads I've been reading on this topic, how can this be the 1st time I've seen this suggestion!
Automatic copyright started when?
I thought that the copyright on creation was part of the 1975 copyright law changes.
If I'm right (and please correct me if not), then it's highly unlikely that Steinbrenner registered for a copyright on letters he wrote, and they should be in the public domain.
No one else has said this, so I must be wrong somehow, please let me know where.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!
yeah you're basically agreeing with me.
Re: Re: Re: Big Mac or McChicken without McClown Approval!
OK, first of all cooking/recipes is not the same concept as food.
Given our current concept of copyright, it makes as much sense to have recipes copyrightable as it does music or books.
Your statement is equivalent to saying stories have been around for thousands of years so stories are in the public domain and therefore are not copyrightable. Or the analogy could be that writing has been around for thousands of years...
Next, "the public domain" is an artificial concept created by the laws defining copyright, if there were no copyright/patent laws (an artificial concept created and enforced by government) then the concept of public domain would be meaningless as all thoughts/ideas/expressions of ideas would be usable by anyone who encountered them.
The food industry and the fashion industry are both really good examples of how copyright may be unnecessary, and perhaps counter productive to to goal of increasing creativity for the general good.