I cannot believe this. What the fuck am I reading?
Is THAT all it takes to capitulate to fascist death threats? A fucking slippery slope of copyright?
And to THINK! All this time these Islamists were pushing for fatwas against Salman Rushdie, boycotts against Denmark, threats against South Park...
Sorry, but I also need to stress this: has anyone else forgotten that the Obama administration caved into election pressure and disgracefully asked Google to take the video down? While Google stood its ground and refused?
But THIS IS WHAT IT TOOK? A fucking delusional economic system with a fucking GAG ORDER TO BOOT?
What the fucking fucking fuck? What the FUCK?
Is there anyone now who will dare say that copyright has no slippery slopes? Is there anyone here who will now seriously claim that "ownership of expression" has any superiority over "freedom of expression"?
What's it going to take? The absurdities are right in front of our noses.
"It's easier to forge a license plate than an IP address."
Yeah. If there's one thing we need more of, it's more campaigning against car organisations that recklessly dish out replacement dynamic license plates for people who get out of their cars and back in again.
"You must be a thief" is the justification for both unjust taxes as an alternative to avoiding the enforcement of utopian copyright while still holding copyright in law (which, by the way, will not target the actual people it is supposed to in the guise of the heavy duty pirates who make tons of money through advertising, because by definition they will not pay a tax on illegal profits - Al Caponism/drug-cartelism in a nutshell) and for Digital Rights Management philosophy that thinks its necessary to break core functionality of your computers and make them more vulnerable to hackers. You must be taxed because "you must be a thief" - your computer must be broken because "you must be a thief".
No. The only way forward is to make your end consumers know that the existence of your creativity depends on their payment, and let the crowd realise they have a responsibility to pay their dues if they want any creativity whatsoever - if they don't pay up, they will not get what they want. Which ultimately means crowdfunding. Amanda Palmer made a terrible mistake in her TED talk by saying that Kickstarter was a way of "letting" people pay for music instead of "making" them pay. To the contrary, crowdfunding websites, like tickets, subscriptions, pre-orders and other assurance contract economies, are the most heavily underrated and underestimated paywalls out there.
There's a terrific irony here that copyright advocates like to praise every form of paywall conceivable except the ones that actually work. Policing every copy through copyright-paywalls is a silly way of going about things when paywalls stand their grounds far better without copyright by forcing payment as a condition of the creation's existence.
Defamation is something that can be answered on its own terms, without the need for copyright. And it is rather simple: include "official" and "unofficial" labelling/signatures on works in a way that is similar to trademarks. The best use of a trademark is defining what is "approved" by a person or business, so they can work just fine here. That way, if people end up listening to some abysmal AMV with Aerosmith music cut up into horrendous pieces and distorted something awful, and that AMV were to have the "unofficial copy of Aerosmith" signature on it, if such an audience goes away thinking that Aerosmith genuinely sounds as horrible as that, that's the audience's problem. No copyright can save artists from audience stupidity like this.
Let me give you an example of why you cannot stop the stupidity. It does not matter how beautifully George Orwell wrote Animal Farm as a means of showing the utopian nature of communism, and crucially it does not matter how Orwell wanted to be seen or heard upon releasing this book: we still got idiots yelling the straw-man that he was an apologist for fascism because he attacked communism. They did not have to infringe on a single copyright to portray Orwell as a crackpot. And hence, that is how his book was treated (and even censored) for a while.
The speech is enough to distort how an artist is "seen by the public", not remixes. If speech cannot do anything to change what an artist actually said in his works, then neither can remixes.
But nobody is dumb enough to suggest that because people might, just MIGHT, go off with an image of their music "sucking so much ass" that they will therefore not make that music.
The better question is this: can anybody name ONE artist who has NOT had the fear of being seen as low quality? Or a fear of simply being perceived in a way in which he would not favour?
And did the punk movement not teach us ANYTHING? Nobody gives a fuck what others think in the end! And people especially do not give a fuck if money and/or moral duty is involved in expressing themselves. In the end, the original works always come through.
Stupid fallacy. I take it we must now also shut down deviantArt for all the horrendous (profitable for deviantArt!) My Little Pony mutations that occur there, or fan-fiction sites in case a mediocre Twilight fan-fic suddenly branches off to become 50 Shades Of Grey after having all the Twilight content removed from it? (you'd have to ban fan-fics even on a non-commercial level on that basis, in case its popularity allows the author of the fan-fic to suddenly change character names and make millions overnight - profound "infringement" without actually infringing, such is the absurdity of copyright philosophy).
People who claim this fallacy also must in turn make the extraordinary claim that internet memes must be stopped if the memes mash up their music in a way they do not approve of. Some of these memes can spread everywhere around the internet within a few hours. Good luck with that.
Ahhh, the EU. Loathed by the Right here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Dialectical flow of cultures between states? Check.
Healthy attitude towards democracy? Check.
Healthy attitude towards human rights? Check.
Stable currency? We are working on that. Soon enough we will learn that each state is better off managing its own state currency, as opposed to an unnecessary accumulation of power under one Eurozone currency. But make no mistake we will learn that mistake and correct ourselves.
Silly UKIP fools, for example, loathe any and all unions except the construct of the UNITED Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Or even worse, equate the European Union with the Soviet Union. OR even worse, decide to pander to the worst forms of nationalism, isolationism and xenophobia whenever their "stable" culture is challenged.
Euroskeptic is actually a good title for anyone to adhere to, however, provided you avoid the mutated meaning of it (Eurohysteria would better describe such a mutation). Because it of course must follow that nothing is sacred, and the EU is no exception. But make no mistake about it: all its faults can be best tackled without having to throw away the good of it.
Facebook indeed can legally choose what opinions ought to stay on their website and what opinions should not stay. So they therefore have a legal basis to take away any talk about Syria it chooses from its property.
But they absolutely have no moral basis to do so. Let that be clear. Morally, it is contemptible.
I don't care if people posting from Syria are supporters of the monster Assad, Al-Qaeda civil-war-hijacking fascists, moderate Muslims or the (always forgotten) secular democratic resistance and socialist democratic resistance.
They have a right to speak their minds. And, extremely crucial: they have a duty to inform us of the events of this tragic civil war that the rest of the world would rather shun away from by any means necessary.
"I can accept that such works may contribute to the wealth of works that help define our culture, but to say that someone makes culture is inapt."
Where else do you think culture comes from?
Look, my reason for banging on about the unresolvable "overlapping of property" that copyright creates, in particular how original art forces derivative artists to give up their rights and ability to bring about new expressions, is because no copyright supporter CAN resolve the paradox of this overlapping. If fools are content with saying that even one second samples of music cannot qualify as fair-use because the musician may have invested the vast majority of his money into that one second, it must then follow that any and all fair-use, and hence free expression, is unjustified. No critic would be able to quote from a movie on the grounds that a penny stolen from a safe is still theft nonetheless, which is an absurd way of thinking about property in this context.
And the reason why I keep banging on about treating intellectual property as a service and not a product is that you don't get the overlap with this lens. Originals and derivatives can then both invest in their works without having to hold each other prisoner.
Well, from Sonic 2 all the way to Sonic and Knuckles, Dr Robotnik's main flying fortress was something that resembled the Death Star and had his glasses and huge moustache built onto it to scale, and it was called the "Death Egg".
And particularly in Sonic 3, Michael Jackson's music and beats can be heard in derived tracks in some zones, most notably in the Ice Cap zone where a track that sounds quite parallel to Smooth Criminal is played.
And Super Sonic's "transformation" is obviously very similar to Goku's Super Saiyan transformation, and the 7 Chaos Emeralds can very well be a liking to the 7 Dragonballs.
I thought the point made here was fucking incredible:
"If Google is proven wrong, pretty much that entire software stack -- and also many popular third-party closed-source components such as the Angry Birds game and the Adobe Flash Player -- would actually have to be published under the GPL," he writes."
In other words you can't actually know if certain licenses are going to be legit... to the point where you cannot even copyright your works safely. So much irony! So much utopianism! So much nonsense!
But yeah, I'd be happy to learn if I am mistaken about this. The probability of a corporation becoming corrupt, however, is always high. So I have good cause to be suspect.
Re: Re: Re: And lets have a list of how often the public borrows from Disney...
And still, none of your rhetoric about defending artists' rights has been applied towards defending derivative artists. They are expendable, I take it? You haven't attempted to address my points, while I clearly addressed yours.
Let me repeat, then. Both original artists and derivative artists are protected when you throw away copyright and embrace assurance contracts. Disney's artists are not being opposed here. They are being treated equally with derivative artists, who are hard-working artists just as much as they are.
And if you don't think it can be done with crowdfunding, take note: Rockstar recently recouperated all of their production costs for one of the "most expensive video games ever made" through a crowdfunding-like system called pre-orders. No copyright is needed when you force everyone to pay up first, and threaten withholding the game until everyone pays their dues - consumers and corporations alike. In fact, you STOP pirates from stealing with this philosophy because you make them responsible for their actions. You have no excuse for copyright in the face of this, and you certainly have no excuse to say derivative artists have no right to open up brand-new expressions to audiences.
Re: And lets have a list of how often the public borrows from Disney...
There is an easy way to completely falsify your position. If Disney had said "no" to the crossover/derivative work Kingdom Hearts, everybody would have missed out on a lot of added value to the video games industry. Many jobs would have been cast aside, and life, liberty and property in general would have been spat on.
But that nonetheless does happen. It happens to all the derivative works Disney is saying no to right at this moment, which far outnumber the singular original works. THAT'S what it means to trample on property rights (intellectual property rights, as a matter of fact).
My quarrel is this: they should not have the power to say no to such derivative works, let alone the ability to legally regulate their own power through lobbying. If it wasn't for copyright preventing assurance contracts from fully flourishing in the economy, both Disney's works AND the derivative works including Kingdom Hearts would have come about WITHOUT the need for Disney's permission. Crowdfunding "works without the assumption" of copyright, to paraphrase Laplace. And the projects will easily tally profits in the millions (billions?) once it becomes mainstream.
I happily accept that Disney had a right to derive from the anime Kimba the White Lion. They had a right to do so. So what? In fact I would defend Disney against anybody (yourself included) who tried to prevent them from bringing something great to many audiences. And even if I didn't think so, my hypothetical hypocrisy wouldn't say anything about the truth of your argument.
I'm not going to have it from you that Disney's permission on the creation of Kingdom Hearts is the determining factor of the fruits of labour of that product, and that their saying "no" to it somehow immediately revokes the work and effort of the hundreds of artists and musicians and programmers and designers, and thousands of hours of sweat and tears they poured into it. To say that their work "doesn't belong to them" if Disney says so is disgraceful. How dare you talk about these hard-working artists like that. How dare you deny the EXISTENCE of their work by so disgustingly claiming it is not their work at all.
You cannot one the one had claim that the unique symphonies of non-property musical notes, for example, entitles you to claim ownership over those symphonies, and then on the other hand immediately claim those symphonies are not unique after all, because they "overlap" with other possible derivative symphonies and therefore all those derivatives belong to you to. If symphonies are truly unique, no overlap should exist. This is copyright's great paradox that nobody will ever reconcile.
If somebody cobbles together a shit product - "cut and pasted" from the web as you say - that would have taken anybody 5 minutes to make, they will obviously not be able to sell it as well (or crowdfund it as well, in my economic philosophy minus copyright) because its value would be so bad, and they will not get far. You are acting paranoid over nothing.
The determining factor that separates 5 minute works from the much better stuff is not the "intangible" attributes of intellectual property as John Locke might say, but the SERVICE, which is the under-appreciated form of intellectual property. And crowfunding so beautifully captures this in the way that copyright cannot hope to do so.
I don't accept that parody should be the only form of permitted derivative work. Believe it or not there are other forms of deriving and adding value, and the only reason "parody" gets more favourable reception is because satire - irony and humour - are things that solidify freedom of expression much clearer than, say, serious stories of characters growing up and reflecting on their past tales, or alternative "what if?" viewpoints that add to the debate with the power of great metaphors. These things do exist, believe it or fucking not. And every time copyright stamps them out they attack the very core principles of the dialectic. When it comes to freedom of expression vs. ownership of expression, freedom has to win.
Somebody like you should really put your money where your mouth is and call for the mass-infringing, profit-making website deviantArt to be shut down. You know... in the name of "advancing creativity", and such. That is, if you have the guts.
Re: Because THIEVES always use it as easier way to steal!
Subway workers make sandwiches, too, but that doesn't mean they own them. Don't make the same mistake as the strict socialists.
And by the way, your philosophy is totally unprepared for the advances of technology in the future. 3D printer? No chance. Google Fiber? Dead philosophy walking. Tor exapansion? Luddite tantrums are calling.
I, however, do not suffer from such needless destabilisation and multiplication of unnecessary constants. Assurance contracts are the only moral solution. Crowdfunding is where the real revolution lies - not in Netflix or Spotify, or even Google.
And oh yeah, the derivative artists get their rights with my way, too. Long live deviantArt!