If the link between IP and identity (and therefore legal liability) is "laughably" easy to obfuscate such that it shouldn't be used by a court for establishing guilt/liability, then doesn't the same logic follow for other reasons? Isn't it an easy defense to maintain that that IP is NOT tied to your identity?
Much more likely, Dropbox itself will come down like a tonne of bricks on these guys so they don't have a "Youtube v Viacom" moment. Dropbox is popular, but I doubt it has a warchest like Google's ready to back it up in court.
Specifically because this is a third party taking advantage of their API.
Well, to be fair, the term is "not-for-profit" not non-profit. It's not that they're not allowed to make money, just that it's not supposed to be their primary goal. I still think they're a bunch of attention hogging idiots who haven't actually done any good.
I also purchased a Time Machine device from Apple, yet was bitterly disappointed that my plan to quickly and cheaply find myself among Morlocks and Eloi did not pan out! How was I to know that only digital files would be sent back and forth through time? Now if only I could save up money for a Wacom digitizer.
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comment, and in such depth as well!
"One of the points usually discussed is that there's hundreds of models possible."
Well fair enough! The reason why I'm thinking of these big acts is that I think there are some performances/concerts/videos that wouldn't have been possible without the amount of financial and social clout that they possess. It would sadden me for the music world to be reduced to a stream of "mom-and-pop" and "starving" artists. It takes all kinds, and the big, rare, super-stars just seem to be more vulnerable in some ways, than the small indie artists thick on the ground in europe and north america.
What you say about Beyonce, well though I am a fan, fair enough it's all subjective. But there is a reason she holds the record for "most grammy's won by a female in a single night", though admittedly it would not be apparent listening to her radio singles. For Kanye, well, that track never really blew my mind either. It's his production skills, and the fact that he tends to pre-empt most of his genre-mates that's so crazy to me. Kanye is actually a pretty mediocre rapper, just like Beyonce is a pretty mediocre song-writer.
I agree with most of the sentiments on this site, that copyright is getting to long, that laws surrounding it are getting crazy, that record labels have too much power over artists, and treat them unfairly. I'm just wondering about how my favourite artists are going to weather the storm, that's all. It's true that if they can't survive, then they can't, no one owes them a living. But I'll be sad...
While I realize Imogen Heap IS a pretty big deal, by Hollywood standards, she's still a small fry. How would this scale for bigger artists, like Beyonce or Kanye West? How would this apply to genres like those two artists record and perform in? Beyonce's fanbase is global, yet her musical "flavour", especially in her concerts are very "louisiana/deep south" or at least, a take on it that is easily commodified. How about Kanye's music, most of the reasons why it is good is because it is so very unexpected. I'm just curious...
Well, as I understand it, creative works such as the arts or sciences should be shared, for the common good, and the betterment of humanity, etc, etc. But these are not art as a public good, but a private piece of prestige and recognition. They do not contribute to progress, they are a piece of identity.
While this does not mean they should be protected, I think it supports why they should not be shared as other's classes of creative works are. Also, because they are signifiers of identitiy, maybe the display of them by individuals outside the group/tribe/clan could be seen as fraud, as they are not authentically what the tattoos are proclaiming they are.
This has been done before with regards to words. Lego made a series called Bionicle, where they butchered a whole shitload of polynesian words. So some maori council sued them, and got them to stop making bionicle (something like that, details elude me)...
Why would this be considered public domain? The families/clans/tribes would have a communal right to the patterns, just as they have communal ownership of their tribal lands.
In polynesian countries, an emerging problem is the appropriation of culturally significant tattoos (traditionally, tattoos are used to signify status and lineage, and generally incorporate themes and symbology unique to one's own culture and family) by outsiders, either other pacific islanders from other traditions, or most commonly, by white people and other westerners looking for the next cool fad. Such examples are the samoan pe'a and malu, for men and women respectively, and the maori Ta Moko, which has experienced rather more appropriation, being practiced in a large industrialized country like New Zealand.
What rights would a clan/tribe/family unit have regarding an outsider copying and using their tattoo patterns in their own bastardized tattoos.
Interesting Fact: The english word 'tattoo' comes from the polynesian word 'tatau', and describes both the percussion of the bone needles striking skin/etc etc (old british usage), and the ink marking left behind when the process is finished.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by samoanbiscuit.
Re: Re: Piracy
If the link between IP and identity (and therefore legal liability) is "laughably" easy to obfuscate such that it shouldn't be used by a court for establishing guilt/liability, then doesn't the same logic follow for other reasons? Isn't it an easy defense to maintain that that IP is NOT tied to your identity?
Re: Piracy
Thank you! I logged in to ask this question, but I'm pleased someone else thought of it too.
Re:
A6 chips are made by Samsung, what are you talking about? They're made by Samsung in their factory in Texas to be more precise.
Re:
Much more likely, Dropbox itself will come down like a tonne of bricks on these guys so they don't have a "Youtube v Viacom" moment. Dropbox is popular, but I doubt it has a warchest like Google's ready to back it up in court.
Specifically because this is a third party taking advantage of their API.
Re:
Well, to be fair, the term is "not-for-profit" not non-profit. It's not that they're not allowed to make money, just that it's not supposed to be their primary goal. I still think they're a bunch of attention hogging idiots who haven't actually done any good.
I want to sue Apple too!
I also purchased a Time Machine device from Apple, yet was bitterly disappointed that my plan to quickly and cheaply find myself among Morlocks and Eloi did not pan out! How was I to know that only digital files would be sent back and forth through time? Now if only I could save up money for a Wacom digitizer.
Re: Re: How well would this scale?
Also: thanks for not giving the patent pending indie/hipster sneer when I mentioned two big label commercial artists...
Re: Re: How well would this scale?
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comment, and in such depth as well!
"One of the points usually discussed is that there's hundreds of models possible."
Well fair enough! The reason why I'm thinking of these big acts is that I think there are some performances/concerts/videos that wouldn't have been possible without the amount of financial and social clout that they possess. It would sadden me for the music world to be reduced to a stream of "mom-and-pop" and "starving" artists. It takes all kinds, and the big, rare, super-stars just seem to be more vulnerable in some ways, than the small indie artists thick on the ground in europe and north america.
What you say about Beyonce, well though I am a fan, fair enough it's all subjective. But there is a reason she holds the record for "most grammy's won by a female in a single night", though admittedly it would not be apparent listening to her radio singles. For Kanye, well, that track never really blew my mind either. It's his production skills, and the fact that he tends to pre-empt most of his genre-mates that's so crazy to me. Kanye is actually a pretty mediocre rapper, just like Beyonce is a pretty mediocre song-writer.
I agree with most of the sentiments on this site, that copyright is getting to long, that laws surrounding it are getting crazy, that record labels have too much power over artists, and treat them unfairly. I'm just wondering about how my favourite artists are going to weather the storm, that's all. It's true that if they can't survive, then they can't, no one owes them a living. But I'll be sad...
How well would this scale?
While I realize Imogen Heap IS a pretty big deal, by Hollywood standards, she's still a small fry. How would this scale for bigger artists, like Beyonce or Kanye West? How would this apply to genres like those two artists record and perform in? Beyonce's fanbase is global, yet her musical "flavour", especially in her concerts are very "louisiana/deep south" or at least, a take on it that is easily commodified. How about Kanye's music, most of the reasons why it is good is because it is so very unexpected. I'm just curious...
Re: Re: Re: Re: From Another Angle
Well, as I understand it, creative works such as the arts or sciences should be shared, for the common good, and the betterment of humanity, etc, etc. But these are not art as a public good, but a private piece of prestige and recognition. They do not contribute to progress, they are a piece of identity.
While this does not mean they should be protected, I think it supports why they should not be shared as other's classes of creative works are. Also, because they are signifiers of identitiy, maybe the display of them by individuals outside the group/tribe/clan could be seen as fraud, as they are not authentically what the tattoos are proclaiming they are.
Re: Re: Re: Re: From Another Angle
This has been done before with regards to words. Lego made a series called Bionicle, where they butchered a whole shitload of polynesian words. So some maori council sued them, and got them to stop making bionicle (something like that, details elude me)...
Re: Re: From Another Angle
Why would this be considered public domain? The families/clans/tribes would have a communal right to the patterns, just as they have communal ownership of their tribal lands.
From Another Angle
In polynesian countries, an emerging problem is the appropriation of culturally significant tattoos (traditionally, tattoos are used to signify status and lineage, and generally incorporate themes and symbology unique to one's own culture and family) by outsiders, either other pacific islanders from other traditions, or most commonly, by white people and other westerners looking for the next cool fad. Such examples are the samoan pe'a and malu, for men and women respectively, and the maori Ta Moko, which has experienced rather more appropriation, being practiced in a large industrialized country like New Zealand.
What rights would a clan/tribe/family unit have regarding an outsider copying and using their tattoo patterns in their own bastardized tattoos.
Interesting Fact: The english word 'tattoo' comes from the polynesian word 'tatau', and describes both the percussion of the bone needles striking skin/etc etc (old british usage), and the ink marking left behind when the process is finished.