SOPA is NOT censorship. Let me be clear - America does not Censor!
We all have to realize that we can only win the war on Infringerism by accepting that Enhanced Internet-Abrogation Techniques are a necessary and effective method to control those who hate us for our creativity.
Congress should expand their search for systems that need dismantling or breaking up due to bigness. Take their own two political parties for instance. Not enough competition. If one goes out of business all you'll have is the other one.
Every picture, every expression, every thought is naturally born into the public domain.
Copyright (similarly to patents) is an artifice introduced by humans to alter the natural course of free and open knowledge transfer. In order to accord benefit to the product's creator, they are provided with a legal construct which allows them to restrict other humans' use of their product and demand compensation.
Nobody *owns* the right to copy. They temporarily hold the right to restrict other humans' behaviour with respect to their product.
Copyright is an oddly fitting glove for a foot such as this. There seems to be some conflation between copyright and ownership and the waters are very murky.
I'm struggling to grok how if I as a code monkey click the shutter button on your camera, I have extended control over the resulting image that's on your memory card. If you never choose to do anything with that image or to send it to me, would I have a right to demand it from you? If you copy that image from your memory card to your computer and print it out or post it, do I have some magical dominion over your ongoing behaviour? If it were a film camera where you actually paid for the film that my click caused to be exposed, and you had to pay to process the film, would things be any different?
I'm inclined to say that it's his camera, he owns the pics on it. The person who took the pic should get credit for taking it and perhaps share in ownership somehow, but I have a feeling that somehow it crosses some line to give that person full ownership and control.
Finally! Apple, EMC, Microsoft, RIM, Ericsson & Sony have been languishing too long without any impetus to innovate. These patents will at last enable them once and for all to promote the heck out of the progress of Science and useful Arts. Huzzah!
As Congress is demonstrably no longer a necessary element to enter into wars, is it unreasonable to think that "Congress shall make no law..." might possibly someday become irrelevant if an administration, present or future, decided to assert unitary lawmaking authority?
If NYT and their dog Muttley would stop sawing through axles and switching road signs and instead turn their considerable efforts to updating their jalopy, they might just catch up and have a chance of winning this race.
Somebody does bad things.
Somebody makes decisions on how to react, chooses expensive solution.
Lots of money is transferred from the state to somebody who is the chosen solution provider.
The solution is not only ineffective but accelerates the situation.
Who is each of the somebodies?
How to each of them benefit?
Follow the money.
Unless it's a rural setting, 20 miles is a bit far to be claiming that a pizza place is in direct competition. In even the smallest of cities there would be at minimum 10 or 15 other pizza joints much closer than that.
I don't see why the press doesn't just stop reporting on these teams altogether, and see what the fans and team decide to do about it. The press would have to express to their audience that the teams precipitated this action and entreat upon them to complain to the team if they wanted to see them back in the press, but that they would respect the team's wishes to not be reported on in any meaningful way. After the shitstorm died down, I think some sense would reign.
Sorry, don't mean to include everyone in my rant there. There has been some illuminating discussion, notably I found Eugene and Scott's interaction to be optimistic about seeking better understanding and finding balance.
"As with many anti-sampling people, you assume that this is all that happens."
Hello, MacFly?!?! Are you even reading the same thread?
I'm not anti-sampling. I've iterated and reiterated that I fully recognize the innovation in making something creative from samples, despite the many extant examples of sampling done with marginal transformation or added value.
What I've been trying to do is expand the conversation to fill the chasm of reality that seems lost in such discussions and lies between the diametrically opposed entrenched positions of "sampling-good" and "sampling-bad".
Copyright is in a ridiculous state. The complete 1950's rock and roll and doo-wop eras can be reduced to a handful of riffs. The entire 12-bar Blues world would come to an end (or perhaps never have begun) if copyright were to be taken to the extremes advocated by some.
The haute-couture fashion industry survives quite well in the dog-eat-dog mix-and-copy market economy despite the counterfeiting and edge cases. They take the hit and move on, knowing that freshness and authority is their currency. We could learn something from it if we cared to open our minds.
The conversations necessary to solve it aren't happening though, because any time a cogent thought is expressed, it's drowned out by dismissive polemic.
Yes, I know I'm being subjective. No, I do not need it pointed out that my opinion is not likely 100% correct, I work on the assumption that I'm very likely somewhere between 13% and 87% correct and that I'm open to have my position shifted within that vast apparently unoccupied space between 100% in one direction and 100% in the other direction.
No, I'm not saying thru-you requires no innovation. It requires tons of innovation. I had hoped I was being clear that the composition of things is innovation. My personal opinion as to the relative merit of different art forms, while expressed in my original reply, is not my central point.
What I am trying to explore is that the creators of the original works that are remixed into this work, having had their performance included in it, might be said to be performers in the context of the new work in a way that is not true where a new work is created from entirely newly performed material.
There is an ownership of the original work which includes the performer, the composer, the producer and others. One of the established outcomes of this is that somewhere between one and all of those participants are entitled to credit and possibly compensation when their work is reused.
Any new mixed work contains innovation by the original participants, and innovation by the new participants. The remixer, whose role may include any or all of composition, production and artistic performance, is now one of a number of players involved.
Back to the Jazz representation of an existing work, when a musician reinterprets the music, whether or not he/she makes it sound exactly the same, the contribution by the previous performer and producer are not directly included in the new work. I agree that there is moral value in positing that George Martin's production or Ravi Shankar's accompaniment on a recording materially influences subsequent interpretations, but their involvement is no longer in the DNA of the output, and any legal interpretations will take note of that.
Sure, I'm being pedantic, but I'm hoping a dispassionate dissection of the issues can lead to some clarity.
Perhaps the notion of a traceable genealogical thread from one work to another could be an analogy that helps to separate out what credit people get from derivative works, sampled or unsampled.
It's not patently false. Taking an exact copy of something requires no innovation. I pointed out in the next sentence that the lack of innovation in taking an exact copy of something is orthogonal to the innovation which I recognize is required to then mix that copy with something else. I agree that the mixing takes innovation but it doesn't detract from the fact that the mix contains someone else's copied original content. By orthogonal I mean that the one fact has no impact on the veracity of the other fact.
Based on your misunderstanding of my statement, your subsequent paragraph is moot in that we don't disagree on the point that creating a new work from original and/or copied sources requires innovation.
I'm not arguing the current legality of it, I'm pointing out the difference between innovation and copying. I'm fully aware of fair use, I'm just trying to show how the comparison of the Jazz culture of reusing music to the sampling culture is inexact enough that it cannot be a useful analogy to support legal arguments.
Sampling is direct copying and requires no innovation. The innovation in mixing it with other sounds is orthogonal to the undisputed source of the copied sample.
Playing your own interpretation of someone else's music is innovation. Even playing it in exactly the same style takes some talent and personal effort and is closer to a hand-drawn facsimile than a direct copy.
Referencing another's music in Jazz usually results in a finely tailored pastiche worthy of its own accord, whereas in my experience a preponderance of the current sample-based popular fare is a cut-and-paste hodgepodge, resembling a ransom note more than a patchwork quilt.