Its mine, so I don't want other people profiting off it.
Sorry, but that just sounds childish and unneighbourly to me.
I am for fair use, it someone is writing critique or social/cultural commentary, ok, or even part of a commercial work (such as a documentary)
Those are some of the most common forms of fair use, but hardly an exhaustive list. They common denominator of them all is the first-factor fair use standard of a "new expression, meaning, or message" -- and I don't see how sampling audio in the creation of an entirely new and different song fails to qualify.
BUT If your are going to embed a part of my song in yours (because it sounds cool), sorry, that's copyright infringement.
Well, in the 6th Circuit it is, and in any courts that follow that example it's likely to be -- but, sorry, no, the clear line of copyright infringement does not exist where you think it is. Also keep in mind that only the de minimis defence was rejected, not fair use. The degree to which sampling is covered by fair use is still a largely open question, just one that (sadly) hasn't been explored much since there's a lot of money being made by ignoring it (and mostly not by musicians, but by sample trolls like Bridgeport and Tuf America).
The question you should ask is never "how successful is the sampler" but rather "how much did this hurt the original artist". And usually the answer to that latter question is "not at all"
The only reason to care about someone else succeeding by using your work is... well.. there is no practical reason. Just the useless instinct of "but it's MINE and I don't like the idea of someone else profiting off my work!" -- but if their profit doesn't effect yours, if all their customers weren't lined up at your door before they came along, then what's being served except the most base and selfish pride?
Might be best to concentrate on the disease rather than the messenger.
Limiting disease vectors is a key part of preventing epidemics.
(I don't disagree that you have to be incredibly careful when removing an entire species from an ecosystem, because there's a huge danger of unintended consequences -- but, if we only concentrated on the disease rather than the messenger, we'd all be a lot sicker/deader-from-plagues)
There's a distinction to be made between the language we use to describe patterns and the patterns themselves, though...
The way we describe the speed of light is arbitrary -- but the physical constant is real. "Pi" is an arbitrary label, but the ratios inherent to circles are real (even if the concept of "ratio" is, again, an arbitrary way of describing it).
Indeed. Ideally it should not, in fact, matter at all who funded the study or even who wrote it -- because its validity should be determinable just by looking at its contents. But I suppose, at the moment, funding serves as a useful red flag.
Having now brushed up on the story -- which was really about the school's actions -- I will indeed take this opportunity to defend the bullies:
Sounds like kids being kids. In such situations I hope someone intervenes if they go too far into seriously abusive territory, but not before. I'm not in the camp that thinks we can create a world where no kid is ever teased by another kid. (And as the former perpetually-smallest-and-weirdest-kid-in-every-class, I'm not saying that as someone unfamiliar with being picked on.)
I think you are straying rather far from what we're talking about here, and taking my comment to mean things it doesn't.
I'm not saying nobody should ever question the prevailing view. Nor am I saying it's always easy to determine what's worthy of consideration. Nor did I say that only experts or elites can have valuable ideas.
I'm saying that when a particular point of view has been disproven over and over again, but is clung to by some people for patently fallacious reasons, the world is better off dismissing -- and yes, even ridiculing -- those people than continuing to pay them any attention. But if you want to continue respectfully arguing with people who think the earth is 6000 years old, or who deny evolution (or if you in fact are one of those people) then that's your prerogative.
Didn't really read much about that story, not sure of the details. Certainly didn't write it. But, as far as I can tell, it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about here, which is the ridicule of bad science. And, er, at no point did I say "all ridicule of anything is always wonderful". So honestly I don't see what you're trying to get at here.
Knowing more about what is true means knowing more about what is untrue. Valuing truth means finding untruth ludicrous. Passionately pursuing truth means passionately rejecting untruth.
Ridicule, like it or not, is part of this process, and a tool by which society increases its standard of truth and knowledge. When David Icke proposes that the royal family is all lizards, his ideas remain on the fringe -- not because most people consider them seriously and collect evidence to reach the conclusion that they are incorrect, but because most people have a kneejerk reaction of "that guy is clearly insane or stupid". If someone claims the world is flat or revolves around the sun, we don't need to run through the the evidence in our heads to remember it's untrue -- we simply think "that's dumb".
We're reaching that point now with people who claim the earth is 6000 years young -- people are feeling less and less inclined to explain why that's not true, and more and more inclined to simply roll their eyes and tell the person making the claim to get some education. General denial of evolution isn't too far behind. And, in time, those who deny climate change or who claim vaccines cause autism will join the same camp.
Knowledge would never grow at all if every point had to be re-proven every time anyone questions it, and every fringe theory had to be addressed with respect in perpetuity. But you don't have to argue with morons -- and that's why we need to label some views as moronic.
As an example: the Flat Earth movement, though it amazingly does in fact exist, has never gained any genuine steam. And if you ask me that's because people rarely let it get to the point of a bunch of circular arguments and logical fallacies that trick people into thinking it might be true -- they stop it dead the moment it's brought up by looking at the person who said it like they are a complete idiot, and calling them one too.
But if news shows and science journals started regularly covering Flat Earthers and treating them with respect, bringing in experts to calmly refute their theories as though they are worthy of refute, and never ever mocking them because of the sanctity of "balance", then how long would it be before the movement started growing?