This is a blog, not a board or a platform or a magazine... Submissions are accepted, but everything goes through our editors. No need to provide an email if you don't want to -- comments are open to all.
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Shouldn't Have a Media Player in the First Place, and Possibly, Not Even Podcasts.
Do you not comprehend that different things can both have value? That there is much to be said for a well-rehearsed performance or discussion in some contexts, and that at other times people very much enjoy listening to an unrehearsed conversation among people they find interesting or insightful or funny or what-have-you?
I am not "startled" by the concept of career progression in an artistic field. I am baffled by your direct connection of Shakespearean acting to a podcast about technology and media, as though the purpose of and standards for the two are identical.
*loyal reader for over 10 years, who values your service greatly
Then perhaps you could value the insight of the people who run the blog, including the person who has been running it for over 10 years, instead of telling us all our reasons are stupid and essentially accusing us of lying.
If you need Squarespace, you shouldn't be building websites.
If you need Soundcloud, you shouldn't be distributing audio.
This is a new world where content gets created without thrid party overloards. Join us.
If you think any of those things are true, then you're living in a fantasy-land and have no idea how the modern web works.
Firstly, we're a very small team with a large number of projects. It's not easy for us to just take on the management of entire new things on a whim, no matter how simple those things might seem to you.
Secondly, the internet ad market is not as easy or as simple as you presume. Try selling ads for a blog of this size - while keeping a commitment to quality ads that don't piss of your readers and are never deceptive - and you'll see that.
Thirdly, the fact that we use third-party services has nothing to do with a "hipster aesthetic" (honestly... look at our still-not-updated site design... how hip are we right now?) but that we actually believe that sort of networking and work-distribution is one of the greatest things about the internet, and an extremely powerful way to fuel innovation and growth. We chose SoundCloud because we like a whole lot of what that company does and stands for and found they offered an clean and easy out-of-the-box solution for our needs — if we feel we really have to re-think that, we will.
Re: You Shouldn't Have a Media Player in the First Place, and Possibly, Not Even Podcasts.
The truth is that unless you are the sort of person who goes and does Shakespeare in the park, for no pay, and with a stage consisting of blankets which you have painted and stapled to thin pieces of wood, and the audience consisting of such persons as are willing to sit on the grass, or have brought their own folding chairs and picnic baskets, you are not really an actor, and you have no business doing podcasting.
But your initial argument here is that protecting the moral rights of creators -- such as not wanting a politician they disagree with to use their work -- is a key reason that we need copyright.
How can you say that, and then say you are not fond of moral rights? Do you mean that you don't think we should actually have a law to protect the thing you think is important, as long as creators are able to misuse another law to similar effect?
The point Cpt. was making is not that the photo would likely find such a use fair in those circumstances -- simply that it's absolutely possible and, if they did, the photographer's moral objections to the politician would not be relevant.
You've proposed that a creator's ability to make moral decisions about who can use their work is one of the reasons that copyright is important. We are pushing back on that, because the truth is that copyright makes no actual room for such concerns. The ability to use copyright in that way is a side effect -- it's neither the purpose of the law nor the ideal outcome of the law.
If you truly believe that situations like this are the ones that make creator control worthwhile, then what you truly believe in are moral rights, not economic copyrights.
No, but you're arguing that it's right and good for creators to make decisions about how to license their work based on their moral feelings about the use. Yes, that's possible under the current law — but I also think it's a bad thing, and essentially a misuse of copyright which is not supposed to be about moral concerns but about economics.
As for the compulsory licensing, yes, it prevents you from changing the song -- and that is a huge flaw in the system. It would work even better if people were able to get compulsory licenses for derivative works, alterations, remixes and everything else.
Another important question to consider: can moral rights be transferrable? In most countries that have strong moral rights, they are not — nor are they alienable or waiveable. Because if this truly is a moral issue, would it make any sense for a creator to be able to sell the right to make moral decisions about their work to another party? If that's possible, then clearly it's not a moral issue at all — it's just another artificial means of control to be bartered for its economic value.
But on the other hand, if moral rights aren't transferrable, then it reduces the value of your economic rights, and creates a lot of messy situations. I am going to be far, far less interested in purchasing a license to one of your photos -- or purchasing the rights to one of your photos entirely -- if I know that you, forever, will retain the right to interfere with my use of it. Generally this includes your right to demand attribution, and to prevent me from damaging the "integrity" of the work by modifying it, plus anything else where you can make the argument that my use is damaging your relationship to the work as its creator.
I do not believe in "moral rights" for creators. And the US copyright system mostly excludes them as well, preferring to focus solely on the economic aspect, even though that makes America's adherence to the Berne Convention questionable -- which I approve of.
I just do not see what purpose it serves for society to give people the right to control use of their work, via copyright, but on moral grounds. How is that a good thing for anyone? For every photographer trying to block an anti-gay-marriage politician from using their work, there's also a politician trying to block a watchdog group from using footage of their stump speeches to highlight their self-contradictions, and a corporation trying to block the exposure of its bad business practices and toxic culture. See, that knife cuts in a lot of directions, and most of them aint so nice.
Copyright tends to work best when there such restrictions are impossible. For example, look at the compulsory license system for cover songs: a rightsholder can't stop you from covering their song as long as you pay the fixed prescribed royalty rate. It doesn't matter if they hate your style of music or think you are butchering it -- they get no say in the matter. That permissiveness has given us a rich history of genre-bending covers and reimaginings, and it's easy to find death metal bands covering golden oldies and crooners oldie-fying death metal songs. Our musical culture has, without a doubt, benefited hugely from this open exchange of songs between musicians. Would we be better off if musicians had the right to say "I don't want that band covering my song, but I'll let this one do it"?
This statement suggests that creators should not try to make a business from their creations because it causes problems, to which I could not disagree more.
I don't think that's what anyone is trying to say. The problem arises when you try to talk about creativity in purely business terms. This is why I like the Doctorow quote above about art being a non-market activity. That doesn't exclude it from having a place in the market, but it does change the nature of that place.
Creators who complain about piracy often include vague threats to the effect that, if copyright isn't more strongly enforced, somehow the world will evolve to be devoid of good music/film/art/what-have-you. But every single one of us knows that's not even remotely true — we know that people will continue to create regardless of the potential for reward (something they already currently do, since they know the potential for reward is low and has been for nearly a century of the entertainment business) because we know that, as Doctorow says, people create for intrinsic reasons starting from early childhood, and will always continue to do so.
This doesn't mean we can't create systems to help creators make money, or that creativity can never be a business. But it does mean that attempting to talk about it in pure market terms is incomplete at best and foolhardy at worst.
if someone is making money off of another's creation is that not of significance?
No. Why should it be?
If what they are doing is preventing the original creator from making money, that is of significance. But why should the mere fact that they are making money themselves matter, unless the original creator just doesn't like seeing anyone else succeed? Sounds petty and childish to me.
There is a great quote on this subject kicking off Cory Doctorow's review of Amanda Palmer's new book:
The question of "business models for the arts" is a weird and contradictory one. For one thing, the arts are a "non-market activity" - people make art for intrinsic reasons, starting from earliest childhood, and even the people who set out to earn a living in the arts are not engaged in any kind of rational economic calculus because virtually everyone who's done this has lost money. Of those who made money, most made very little; and of those who made a substantial sum, most had their careers quickly crater and never earned another penny from their work. Being a "professional artist" is about as realistic as being a "professional lottery winner" - there are lots of people who've tried, and though a few have succeeded, it's a statistical improbability on the order of, well, winning the lotto.
I agree they should have a PC version. But I don't know what you're talking about with Windows Phone. I don't even think "hundreds of millions" of units have ever even shipped -- at least, they only shipped 35-million of them in 2014. Compared to nearly 200-million iOS devices, and OVER A BILLION Android phones. Also Windows Phone's market share fell in 2014, and is now sitting at less than 3%.
Not sure where the windows phone takeover you foresee is supposed to come from :)