If anyone ever tries to tell you remixes have no real value, tell them to go on YouTube sometime and search for "Mark Chesnutt Friends In Low Places". They'll find a rather stereotypical sad country song about a guy making an embarrassing social blunder and slinking away to drown his sorrows in whiskey and beer. It would never have been particularly noteworthy, if it hadn't drawn the attention of an up-and-coming artist by the name of Garth Brooks, who recorded a remix of it.
He kept the basic melody and lyrics exactly the same, but radically altered the tone of the song, turning it from a sad lament to an upbeat, rocking anthem. His version catapulted him to superstardom practically overnight, kickstarting a career that eventually made him the most successful singer in history, and changed the sound of country forever.
Garth Brooks's Friends In Low Places is considered one of the most culturally significant songs of all time, and it was a remix.
To be more clear, I'm talking about a system designed to disadvantage and discriminate against everyone except the people who run the system. The US financial system as presently constituted, for example.
Plenty of things. In most cases these days, if you dig beyond knee-jerk cries of "RACISM!!!" by attention whores and political opportunists, you'll find one of two things: a system set up to disadvantage and discriminate against pretty much everyone, reaching well beyond whichever minority the group that happens to notice first and thinks they're being targeted represents--as in the case presented here--or a person trying to hide actual, serious wrongdoing behind a narrative of victimhood and persecution. (The second form takes plenty of other forms as well. Bill Clinton's infamous "vast right-wing conspiracy" immediately comes to mind. Same basic principle, though.)
And who is imposing restrictions on the speech? No one's saying they can't show the movie because this is a place where they sell alcohol; they're imposing restrictions on the sale of alcohol, which is not in any way restricted speech.
I must be missing something. How does this have any First Amendment implications whatsoever, when the offending act is not showing a movie (protected speech) but serving alcohol (not protected speech) while showing the movie?
You're really starting to make your critics look right with a post like this. You keep writing up annoyed posts about how police who caught actual criminals without getting! warrant end up screwing up the court case because of it, and emphasizing how they need to get a warrant. You rail against warrantless searches of phones, and say they need to get a warrant. You mock cops who talk about the burden that getting a warrant places on them, saying how a warrant is a minimal hurdle to be cleared, and you say they need to get a warrant.
And now they got a warrant, and suddenly that's not good enough?
It's goalpost-rearranging posts like this that lead critics to believe that Techdirt actually has a broad, general anti-police, pro-criminal bias. Please don't give them more fuel for their arguments.
Kind of reminds me of the story of the architect who wanted to build what he thought would be a magnificent tower in Barcelona, Spain for the World's Fair in 1888, but the people there rejected it and said it was too ugly. So he moved on and decided to pitch it in Paris, France, for the World's Fair in 1989. Everyone in Paris said it was ugly too, but in the end they relented and decided to let him set it up, on the condition that it be taken down again once the fair was over. That ended up not happening, though, because it turned out to be too expensive to demolish.
Parisians' public opinion of the aesthetic and cultural value of Gustave Eiffel's architecture has changed somewhat since then. ;)
Re: Re: Whatever .. St. louis sucks and Missouri in general sucks
No, he advocates that people making bad decisions should pay more in taxes. There are still plenty of poorer, less educated people who don't smoke, and even though you do, unsurprisingly, statistically see people making really stupid choices more often among the less-educated segment of society, there are still also plenty of educated and wealthy people who do smoke.
Let's pause for a moment to contemplate the forward thinking nature of his statement. This was 1994: a good six years before Silicon Valley entrepreneurs began to swoop in and avidly embrace free software, rebranding it as open source in the doing.
Can we please back off on the rewriting of history? Those of us who lived through that period know better.
The Open Source Initiative was founded in 1998 by several developers, including Eric S. Raymond, who wrote the seminal paper The Cathedral and the Bazaar in 1997. The term "open source" was already in wide enough use at that point that no one was confused by his use of it in the paper.
The basic open-source concept of code being shared around freely for people to use as they wish, including incorporating it into proprietary software, is older still; it's been the natural state of software development ever since programmable computers first emerged from being a government-only project to something mere mortals could work on. It only had to be formally re-branded as "open source software" and presented by the OSI because of all of the damage that the FSF's extremism was doing to the image of non-proprietary software.
Today, open-source software has found wide acceptance and is used everywhere, whereas Linux, locked away behind restrictive FSF licensing and a user-hostile community who are stuck so far behind the times that they still think a command line is a user interface, languished in obscurity for decades, never finding acceptance outside of the server world, until Google built a proper user-friendly OS out of it, (going well out of their way to avoid GPL entanglements as they did so,) and the rest was history; today it's well on the way to taking over the world.