Sigh. Yes, I know what MIDI is. And both of these song samples here were generated via MIDI through the same set of MIDI-controlled sound generators, in this case primarily an organ, which is why they both have the same organ. What about that do you not understand? These are not the original songs — they are the stripped-down example versions created for the jury. The jury is being instructed to ignore things like "how the organ sounds" and focus entirely on the composition.
And yes, this is entirely about the composition, and nobody is saying that means there's no ground for copyright. THey are saying nothing that Thicke did infringes on the composition of the original.
What is your point about the Beastie Boys? That there have been other disputes where the recording does matter? Because nobody is denying that. This is a situation where it doesn't matter because the original work was copyrighted before it was possible to copyright recordings, and thus the copyright only covers the composition.
Honestly, it seems like you haven't read even the first thing about this case. You are ignoring all its key aspects.
It might do? Not saying it's right, but it might do.
No... have you been following this case at all? The whole point of this dispute, and the whole reason these MIDI versions were made in the first place, is that the Gaye estate only holds copyright on the sheet music, not on the recording or any recorded elements like the specific style of instruments or their sound.
Moreover, these two examples are not the original songs — they are played on the same MIDI generator, using the same MIDI organ. So of course they sound the same. And of course that has nothing to do with this.
I think it's true that the recordings are mislabelled here and in the Ratter post... will try to figure that out. It definitely sounds like the songs with the vocals swapped.
But, unrelated to that, one key point: the timbre and sound of things like the organ have nothing to do with this, and are not even the sounds from the original songs. They sound similar probably because they are both being played by the same MIDI instrument. But this is entirely about the notes, not the instruments playing them or anything specific about a given recording, which is the whole reason for this stripping-down exercise in the first place.
It's not saying "beheading videos are illegal" that undermines the internet. It's saying "platform providers can be criminally liable as though they directly provided 'technical expertise' to anyone who simply makes use of their platform" that undermines the internet, and that's not at all an exaggerated or sensationalized assertion.
Actually no. It's cleverly written to make it SOUND like it says that, but it doesn't. Read the exact language again closely, and notice how it's structured and where the commas and periods are placed -- in reality, the penalty of perjury applies to ONE THING ONLY, and that's that the person sending a notice is the copyright holder or representing the copyright holder of the work they are claiming is being infringed.
As for the links they target, those can be anything -- the notice is worded such that you only sign your name to a "good faith belief" that the links are infringing, and you're NOT explicitly under penalty of perjury on that part.
Yeah, I know what you mean. On the one hand, it makes perfect sense to utilize the smartphone for that purpose -- on the other hand, it's a little frustrating when there is no alternative. Especially if it's a network device that absolutely should be controllable by desktop software or a firmware interface in the device itself.
I dunno. I've backed lots of things on Kickstarter, and while most of them did end up taking longer to produce than planned, I've never been "scammed" by someone who was trying to take the money and run.
Perhaps we were a little vague, but this is just an initial announcement and we'll be bringing more details as we get a bit closer to the event. But, for now, let me try to flesh out a few things:
Copia has several concrete goals both general and specific. One obvious element is to continue and expand our role, established through Techdirt, of helping to shape the conversation about policy and business models related to innovation (such as long-standing Techdirt conversations about media businesses, patent issues, etc.). A big element of that will be expanding our research efforts — for example, Techdirt's Sky Is Rising reports have been very useful to people in the policy world pushing more sensible copyright policy, and we'd like to be producing far more research like that, in the copyright area as well as lots of others, in order to be constantly arming those people with good, solid data to back up their arguments.
So one of the things you can count on seeing from Copia is research — an event like this, where we bring together lots of experts to discuss these topics (see the website for some of the specific discussions at the Summit) is also about laying the groundwork for future research -- as we identify people with interesting ideas or knowledge or data on various topics, we'll be continuing to work with those people to produce relevant research and other publications (things like education campaigns, guidebooks, reference tools) in the weeks and months following the Summit.
But we also don't want to be limited to just research papers, nor are we solely focused on policy. One of the biggest focuses is ways to route around policy issues. Some examples of this include things like Twitter's patent licensing system (to route around the issue of future patent trolls somehow abusing defensive patents), Creative Commons (providing easy copyright opt-outs and open licensing where automatic copyright law does not really allow for such a thing), or ContentID. We want to identify ways that programs like these can be expanded, and new ideas for things like this that can be created/built, and act as promoters and project coordinators among Copia members to make that happen. For example, we'd love to see more companies adopt open licensing systems for their patents, and we'd love to see there be more CC-like options (including stronger public domain dedications) for content creators.
The General Counsel roundtable also has a very specific goal. We want to create a "statement of innovation principles" that for companies that provide services and platforms and other things, as for how they will promote/protect innovation. This includes things like how they structure their terms of service and their content policies, ideas like not abusing patents or other IP, commitment to things like data portability and open API access, and so on. This is a project that will develop over time — first the GCs from major tech companies will discuss it and start to flesh it out at the event, then we'll open it up for discussion with everyone present, then afterwards we'll be setting it up online for public comment. The end-goal is to turn it into something that companies openly, publicly adopt and agree to — and which users begin to respect, and then expect — and that it will have a real effect on how they do business.
And there is more. So, trust us: though some of these topics are big and nebulous and hard to pin down, our goals aren't the same — in fact, bringing these big-think discussions into the realm of reality, and making real plans for the immediate future, is central to what we want to do.
Re: Re: Re: Absolute Free Speech is an American value
Though it's true that some of the french Declaration was based on American ideas, that's because America was playing the role of a proving ground for new ideas that were coming from enlightenment thinkers in Europe.
Let's not forget that the French are the ones who funded the American Revolution. They didn't do that just for kicks and then say "oh, hey, some of those ideas are god too" -- they did it because the ideas of freedom and equality were emerging from their own enlightenment culture and could be put into action in the new world a lot faster than they could in the old.
So it would be more accurate to say that both revolutions were influenced by the politics/philosophy/culture of the enlightenment era (which itself had much of its roots in France) than to say that one was the direct precursor to the other. Indeed, even your quoted Wikipedia page continues:
"The concepts in the Declaration come from the philosophical and political duties of the Enlightenment, such as individualism, the general will, the social contract as theorized by the French philosopher Rousseau, and the separation of powers espoused by the Baron de Montesquieu. As can be seen in the texts, the French declaration is heavily influenced by the political philosophy of the Enlightenment, by Enlightenment principles of human rights, and by the U.S. Declaration of Independence which preceded it (4 July 1776)."
One thing's for sure: DH is absolutely right when he says America owes a great deal to France — the popular sneering & mocking attitude of Americans towards the French is baffling and unfounded.
So I don't really blame the MPAA, I blame the member companies.
I think it has formed a weird two-way street, though. As humans we are really great at at making ourselves slaves to damaged systems that we ourselves built. So while the MPAA's existence and overall attitude is the fault of the studios that forged it, it's now an entity with its own momentum that feeds back into and shapes the attitudes of its member studios.
"Ownership culture" is no joke. If studio behaviour was purely rooted in cynicism and greed, it would look different: twenty years ago they would have seen the changing winds and by now they'd be experts at rapidly adapting their business model to the online world. Instead they are fixated on this delusional idea that the best way to make money is to enforce copyright, and it's not working -- but it persists because the culture of ownership is so deeply engrained.
So now the MPAA keeps them all trapped. Any one studio could enter revolution-mode and update itself for the times at the hands of one smart, savvy CEO with the guts to try it. But what are the odds of that happening at six studios at once? It won't. And if one tries, the other five become its united opponents. And so the culture of ownership lives on, with the whole industry orbiting the MPAA.