It goes without saying that this guy is clueless. If he wants to be paid, and paid consistently, he should be seeking people willing to pay him to do what he does. If it takes him X number of hours to make something and he requires Y quantities of income to live on, then he should be seeking people that will collectively meet that threshold so that he can release it directly to the public domain. Then he has his income and he can extend it even further by touring.
If things like Kickstarter have taught us anything, is that people will pay to have stuff created and earn VIP/premium benefits for increasingly larger contributions. It's probably the least risky path for anybody to get paid for their work. If nobody pays you, you're not obligated to produce anything. If the threshold is met and you deliver on your promise, you're guaranteed to get paid. It's a distributed version of a work for hire model. Instead of one client, you have many and they all want the results of your work, which they are willing to pay their share for.
The biggest convenience is that I don't have to have a local copy of every movie, show, song, or book in existence. Imagine if you had to download every work that exists in a digital format to your hard drive in order to access them at you whim. Downloads are cheap, but you have to wait for them and you have to have space to store the download. So yeah, the selling point is remote storage and instant access.
I don't think anyone who cares about the subject is incognizant of the fact that DRM is a tool to make people buy more copies of the same thing when they ought to be able to make their own copy after they've paid for the first one. It's quite apparent that is what they sought to achieve.
As the AC said, the answer isn't "NO!", it's "give us more money and we'll think about it."
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Re: Absolutely IS! "I made it, therefore I own it", and ALL rights to dispose of it.
"Vote with you money."
What a laughable and impotent platitude! If money gets you "votes" in the market, then who has the most votes? The people with a war chest the size of the Exxon Valdez, you twit! If your influence is contingent on how much money you have, then it's pretty plain why nothing changes. The status quo has the money. The status quo has the votes. The status quo has the most influence and they can leverage that influence to make sure they get to keep it. So you can take your "vote with your money" excuse and stuff it up your atrophied posterior until you can tickle your adenoids with it.
Do you even know what an ad hominem attack even is? No, you don't. "You can't trust John's recommendations on tax policy, he doesn't even have a job!". That, is an ad hominem. Calling you out on your bad behavior is not an ad hominem.
Culture is also about the influence it has on you. A person given a new idea is never the same as they once were before, so even an unpublished work contributes to culture because that person was changed culturally when they created it.
Culture is the norms, mores, symbols, beliefs, and customs of a group of people. They don't have to be communicated directly to influence culture so long as one person is influenced by it, namely, the author. If even one person is influenced, it propagates throughout a society and culture is changed.
"What you want to do is to take away the rights of artists to do what they want in favor of forcing them to do what you want. You don't care about artists and you are in no position to take the moral high ground. You have absolutely no regard for morality and are only self interested (assuming your post isn't sarcasm which is hard to tell)."
That's a hefty presumption there. You forget that to grant artists those rights, they had to take them away from the public. So, to use your own argument: You don't care about the public and you are in no position to take the moral high ground. You have absolutely no regard for the freedom of speech and are only self interested.
Don't pretend that arguing that copyright is broken means robbing people of their freedom. Freedom was taken away when copyright law was written, presumably, to promote the creation and distribution of more useful works for the public to assimilate.
Copyright was a compromise between the public and the author in order to form a mutual exchange of one benefit for another. As time went on, one side gained more and the other lost more. But, fortunately, technology caught up to copyright and has made great strides in returning to the public what was lost and even making it evident that in an environment of ubiquitous copying, copyright is not only ineffective at serving its intended purpose, it actually inhibits it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Re: "Copyright Week" is actually Piracy Week.
Enough of the diatribe. Just shut up. I'm through arguing with people that spit out the same bullshit every day. Do us all a favor and just shut up. You're not a hero of copyright, you're a sad, annoying, pain in the ass that doesn't do anything but throw a fit like a two-year old. Take your toys and go home little baby.
Well then, the system needs to be restructured, doesn't it? Create a single public network that ISP's are permitted to sell access in exchange for administering the network. So the network is the public, but the ISP's provides the service of running it for the public's benefit.
It's like this, we have this road that the people built. We need someone to provide transportation on that road because we don't want to do it. We ask that businesses provide transportation on that road, for which the businesses will have the opportunity to sell such a service to the public. Basically, you can use our stuff for your profit if you make it useful to us.
If the words have value in being retold, it doesn't matter who originally said them. Accreditation doesn't bear any measure of merit on the words, to take offense in their reuse is nothing more than an appeal to emotion that is fueled by a misguided concession to marketing concerns.
He shouldn't have to apologize, and we do not all agree that what he did was wrong on any level. Any line you can draw on what is acceptable can be argued as subjective. Thinking that you can tell sewage from water after the two have been mixed is self-deluding. (Yes, that was a pun.)
Well, maybe those that send a DMCA should have to pay fees to cover the costs of a service provider complying with said take-down? That is to say, if they want Google to use their time and resources to comply with a DMCA, they should be obligated pay them for it. I'm curious how much Google spends on complying with the DMCA notices they receive.
If everyone getting this wage doesn't have to work to live, don't you think people would have the time to set aside and do these things for themselves instead of being helpless? Without these jobs we rely on to exchange our labor for the currency we need to make a living, we have the time to learn and do things for ourselves rather than pay other people to do things we previously didn't have the time to learn and do.
Honestly, if every neighborhood took the time to help their community collect and deliver their waste, it would be a trivial effort spread among many people. It just asks of people to do a tiny bit more to reduce the overhead of the system that does the work that many people could do in a couple minutes a day. This all assumes that menial tasks won't fundamentally change into something wholly different that completely negates the infrastructure and labor applied to dealing with it. We may not even have need of "trash" collection anymore. Technology changes everything to the point that all menial physical tasks could become fully automated. Anything that requires rudimentary cognitive effort would be the realm of human minds and we would do that without an economic incentive because all physical needs would be addressed without trading symbolic units of value for labor. Our only currency would be social interaction that is inherent in what we do on a daily basis.
So I don't think society will fail to function because nobody is taking out the trash. For every hour you're not tied to a job, you're free to invest that time into doing the things you would have previously paid another person to do.
It is most definitely a factor, but so is the impact on the market for the original work. Will this parody usurp the market for the original? It's very unlikely since the song's long tail market value has tapered off a long time ago. So you have the transformative factor (new lyrics and recording), the parody factor (contradicting the original lyrics), negligible market impact (this song is not competing against the original), and it's reasonable to see this as fair use.
A determination of fair use is meant to slant towards the benefit of the public good rather than the benefit of the rights holder. This parody was created to promote a product that is intended to fulfill an educational gap in society, which is introducing science and engineering to girls, a lofty goal. Are they trying to make money on this? Of course they are, it's hard to make products for free and our economy is profit driven.
You are delusional to think it's a slam-dunk decision that this is not fair use just because it's commercial in nature. You make the massive presumption that commercial use is a major determining factor in fair use, but it isn't. It is one of many factors that all must be investigated.
You weigh commercial factors higher than all the others because of some misguided sense of moral property rights. But it isn't property. It's a grant from the government, a compromise between the public and the artist so that both can get something out of it. It isn't self-evident and it isn't inalienable. It's a granted right that can just as easily be taken as it was given. The goal, which is to provide an opportunity to make a profit, is not to give the power to prevent people from benefiting from it.
This is an example of such beneficial use. The more content we have access to, the more resources we have to create new works, regardless of the motivations for leveraging it. More access to more content to be used in the creation of more content is a good thing. More accessible content benefits us all so that we can expand our culture, our self-expression, and our knowledge, even if that content is used for commercial gains.
Your attitude is poor and it's very arrogant that you are so sure of your position that you can be condescending to anyone that argues against your presumedly superior opinion.
Your use of the phrase "read it and weep" is insulting because you have not sufficiently argued that your opinion has the most merit. Even if you had, it's still a dick move to be so immodest.