Blaise Alleyne 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (334) comment rss

  • On the post: Toronto Copyright Townhall: Canadian Record Industry Mobilizes In Panic, Everyone Loses Out

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2009 @ 11:04am

    Re:

    I'm not sure what to think yet about Tony Clement. He and James Moore have made great speeches that show an understanding of various sides of the debate, and I'd bet Clement would be cautious to say anything negative about the record industry's presence, because there's real political pressure there and he can't get on their bad side... but I'm not quite pessimistic yet.

    It all depends on what the law actually looks like.

    I'm not optimistic either, but I think there's a chance that they won't repeat Bill C-61. Though, that doesn't mean they'll get things right...

    I don't know, I think what's most important now is to be active in the debate. Let's make sure the Conservatives know how much backlash there will be toward another Bill C-61, and what the better alternatives are. They may not care much about copyright, but they sure as hell don't want it to be controversial.

    I'm not sure we can get a good copyright law (though flexible fair dealing would be huge), but we might be able to get one that doesn't get in the way of innovation.

  • On the post: Recording Industry Lobbyists Says Politicians Worried About User Rights Are 'Disgusting'?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 01 Sep, 2009 @ 09:57am

    Re:

    "Basically, the core issues: Should there be copyright or not, and should people be obliged to abide by the laws?"


    If people should be obliged to abide by the laws (which I think they should), you need to ask other questions: how will you ensure they are following the laws, and how will you enforce the laws against people who don't follow them?

    If you can't enforce the laws and the common practice of consumers is to do other than the law allows, then you're creating a law that is going to criminalize the common consumer with no way of enforcing it.

    I think people should abide by the laws. So, it's a bad idea to create a law that most people aren't going to abide by. It's a bad idea to place common behaviour outside the law, because then people get used to breaking the law.

    And, since there's no way in hell to enforce any sort of law that would stop file sharing... what exactly do you propose?

    How would you enforce a law to ban file sharing? And how many people do you think would stop?

    Unless you have answers to those questions, I think you may want to reconsider your take on Charlie Angus, who's simply trying to support a more reasonable approach for a law that people can be expected to follow, that can be enforced, and that can actually help creators (since an unenforcable law that few follow isn't exactly going to help anyone).

  • On the post: Recording Industry Lobbyists Says Politicians Worried About User Rights Are 'Disgusting'?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 31 Aug, 2009 @ 02:16pm

    Re:

    "In fairness, it should be noted that what was called "disgusting" was not the comments, but the departure from an established party line"


    Thing is, Charlie Angus is the party line on this issue. He's their digital affairs critic, he's the NDP spokesperson on copyright, it's his file. Willaert accused Angus of not "ensuring appropriate copyright protection so that creators are fairly compensated for their intellectual property" -- but I'd bet that resolution has little to do with Willaert's maximalist copyright ideas, and much more to do with the sorts of levies that Angus and the NDP favour.

    Willaert seems to find it "disgusting" that anyone's ideas of how to "support Canadian creativity" might differ from his own. I think he's got some research to do on the NDP party line.

  • On the post: Hacked Recap

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2009 @ 12:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Opensource

    "I'm not trying to say this blog is as important as e-voting machines. If you got that out of what I wrote then I think there are bigger issues. All I'm saying is if making the code of e-voting machines opensource is supposed to make them more secure, why not do it to the blog?"

    I think it's a legitimate question. Thing is, it takes work to open source code. To clean up code and make it generic enough to be used elsewhere, to maintain a software project... it takes effort to release code, and it's not quite as simple as 'giving it way'.

    Also, I think it's important for web services to be free (like libre.fm or identi.ca), but the Techdirt blog isn't a web service. The code is just their publishing platform. That could be useful to others... but, with mature open source publishing/content management options like WordPress, Drupal, Joomla!, etc, there likely wouldn't be a ton of interest from developers.

    I'd say, IMHO, (1) it's not essential (like e-voting machines, or web services) and (2) the benefits of freeing up the code might not be worth the effort it would take to do so.

  • On the post: Hacked Recap

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2009 @ 11:49am

    Re:

    This will probably be my only other reply, because this topic is so ridiculous and I'm already guilty of feeding a troll.

    "Someone changed the IP that was stored *on* the servers, which is exactly what Mike has said repeatedly is in the public domain."

    They didn't change the "intellectual property" (copyright here), they modified the contents of Floor64's database. That doesn't change any copyright claims (the "intellectual property"), or lack thereof, on the database. It changes the Floor64's actual database, specifically.

    The expression on the Techdirt blog is essentially considered to be in the public domain -- that's what would be covered by copyright. That means anyone can use, adapt, built upon or modify that expression. That doesn't mean that anyone can use or modify Floor64's database.

    I seriously hope that distinction isn't beyond your comprehension.

    "you shake your finger about not knowing the difference between the "website" (which is IP) and the "software that manages it" (which, BTW, is also IP)."

    The website isn't itself "intellectual property." It contains content that would be covered by copyright. Because anyone can do what they want with the content doesn't mean that anyone can do what they want on Floor64's server or its database.

    Is that hard to understand?

    (And the software that manages the site is covered by copyright, but Floor64's copy and running instance is a different matter, and I specifically wrote "breaking into" the software -- i.e. unauthorized access.)

    "And yet, you seem to not know the difference between a "free license"... and "public domain".

    The distinction between public domain and freely licensed doesn't matter here since both allow the freedom to modify that you're having trouble understanding here. (Public domain content is also free content.)

    "Mike likes the idea of deciding what happens to other people's IP; but, not so much when it happens to him."

    If you have to try this hard to find some sort of hypocrisy, maybe you're searching for something that doesn't exist. I think you want to believe it exists, but you seem too smart for me to be convinced that you actually believe there's any kind of hypocrisy here.

  • On the post: Hacked Recap

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2009 @ 09:34am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Your "site" isn't something that physically exists, it's just intellectual property like any other IP.


    It was the physical instance of the site that was vandalized, the Techdirt servers that were broken into, through the site and affecting the site contents stored in the database. That's not intellectual property -- it's the machine, the admin interface, the data, etc.

    I release all the code I write under a free license, but that doesn't mean anyone can use my my laptop -- nevermind vandalize it. I release all the songs I write under a free license, but that doesn't mean someone can use my guitar -- nevermind vandalize it.

    I can only assume, for the sake of my own sanity, that this is a poor attempt at searching for hypocrisy, rather than believe that you actually don't understand the difference between copying a website and breaking into the software on the server that manages it.

  • On the post: Are Parents Making Facebook Uncool?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2009 @ 09:28am

    Favourite Facebook Bio

    Best little short about me bio thing from a mother I know with 5 kids (3 or 4 on Facebook).

    It simply says: "I want to spy on my kids."

    Love it.

  • On the post: The 'Creative' Technology Behind The AP's News Registry

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2009 @ 09:24am

    Re:

    "The problem is not with the AP in this case, the problem is the fact that you and a lot of other news sites and blogs jumped to an unsupported conclusion about the AP wanting to use DRM, when they never actually said that, based on a vague and widely misinterpreted flow chart... The whole article is a strawman argument."

    Of course it's not actually DRM. But the aims are very similar -- to "protect" content with some sort of special digital format.

    Take the term "DRM" out of the blog post and it'd still be the same. I based my criticism on the AP's press release and their microformat draft, not on a concept of DRM.

    Forget DRM. If it's based on a microformat, how is the AP news registry supposed to...

    • "assure compliance with terms of use"
    • "employ a built-in beacon to notify AP about how the content is used"
    • "manage and control digital use of their content, by providing detailed metrics on content consumption, payment services and enforcement support"
    • And how is this supposed to support pay walls?

    To paraphrase the post: microformats have little to do with "encapsulating," "built-in beacons," "enforcement support."

    And the diagram makes even less sense once you realize it's just a microformat:

    • "apply protective format to news"
    • "Format protects content everywhere"
    • "the tracking beacon sends signals back to the news registry"
    • "A platform for protect, point and pay"

    A microformat isn't going to "protect" the news. It doesn't protect, it merely expresses.

    I don't think that's a strawman argument. It's a criticism of their claims for the technology.

  • On the post: Are Parents Making Facebook Uncool?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 07 Aug, 2009 @ 01:21am

    So True

    A few months back, my mom signed up for Facebook. She started to get the hang of it, and eventually tried to add my siblings as friends.

    She says to my 18-year-old sister, "will you be my friend on Facebook?" My sister says, "um... no." My mom: "why not??"

    She replies: "... you're too lame."

    Then, she turns to my 15-year-old brother: "will you be my friend on Facebook?"

    He responds: "I'm not on Facebook." (he is)

  • On the post: The 'Creative' Technology Behind The AP's News Registry

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2009 @ 09:58pm

    Re:

    "Could they be using this tagging as a way to claim DMCA tampering..even though it's not really DRM?"


    You mean, tag it with restrictions on use, and claim that it's anti-circumvention to remove those tags?

    Yeah, the thought crossed my mind too, but I think that'd be a huge stretch. Microformats don't stop you from doing anything, they only notifies you what supposed rules govern usage.

    There's nothing to circumvent.

    The only difference between a microformat and an 'All Rights Reserved' style copyright notice is that it's meant to be machine-readable rather than human-readable. But that's all the metadata is for -- reading. It's just targeted at different readers.

    I'd be really surprised if something was considered a TPM simply because it's machine-readable...

  • On the post: The 'Creative' Technology Behind The AP's News Registry

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2009 @ 07:19pm

    Re:

    "As a software engineer, I've been here. Someone upstairs asks, "How can we do A?" And you go back to your cube and you work on stuff until you can go back and say, "I think A can be accomplished with B". And you are told, "Build it"."


    Yeah, agreed. If you check out the CC blog post, they begin their criticism with... "while Creative Commons is very sympathetic to the difficulty of explaining technical concepts in a short press release."

    And then, Jonathan Malek, one of the AP developers behind the format, actually leaves a comment. He seems to be pretty reasonable, and I think making a good design decision in incorporating ccREL into the microformat instead of reinventing the wheel... it's just not going to help do what the AP hopes it will. But nothing else will either.

    It doesn't seem like Malek is the problem.

  • On the post: Copyright Conundrum: Was 'Public Domain' Music Silenced On YouTube?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2009 @ 03:06pm

    Re:

    "A "cover" is when a band performs a song written and/or made famous by another band. Orchestral music is rarely associated with a single orchestra in that fashion."


    I think we're saying the same thing there.

    We identify orchestral music more with the composer, while popular music gets identified more often with the performer.

    Would someone say "the Toronto Symphony Orchestra covered Bach's Brandenburg Concerto?" The concept of a cover is more related to performer-focused styles of music, not composer-focused styles.

    So, I can understand someone getting confused about the copyright of a recording of a public domain composition. We tend to think about the composers, not the performers.

    "And the fact that the underling musical composition is copyrighted seperately from the audio recording is not evidence that copyright is designed around "covers." Our current system of statutory copyright owes much of its structure to the player piano industry, not to "covers.""


    I didn't mean to say its designed around covers, but around popular music, around performer-focused music.

    Hence, some of the confusion when confronting other types of music (liturgical music also comes to mind, as a type that isn't performer-focused).

  • On the post: Copyright Conundrum: Was 'Public Domain' Music Silenced On YouTube?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 05 Aug, 2009 @ 11:43am

    Re:

    Most people don't usually think of an orchestral performance as a "cover." That's a popular music thing.

    It's confusing because copyright is designed around that popular music model. It gets awkward for something like Ride of the Valkyrie's.

  • On the post: Catholic Archbishop Apparently Not A Fan Of Social Networking

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2009 @ 02:14pm

    Catholic New Media Conference

    The Catholic New Media Conference is another example of how this Bishop's views are not held by many within the Church.

  • On the post: Music Fans And 'Amateur Musicologists' May Impact Coldplay/Satriani Copyright Battle

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 31 Jul, 2009 @ 12:44pm

    Re: Re: Still glad

    "Both songs have the exact same chord progression and are in the same key and have the same rhythm... Both songs have the same melody."

    Cat Steven's is convinced that it's his. Who copied from who? I don't think it's as clear cut as you'd like to think.

  • On the post: EMI Claims Controversial Satriani/Coldplay Mashup Video Violates Coldplay Copyright

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 21 Jul, 2009 @ 05:03pm

    Re: To all the non-musicians who are crying foul...

    Did you miss the seven or eight other songs that have the same melody too? How can you call it a blatant rip-off with a straight face?

  • On the post: EMI Claims Controversial Satriani/Coldplay Mashup Video Violates Coldplay Copyright

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 05 Jul, 2009 @ 02:36pm

    Re:

    Did you miss the seven or eight other songs that have the same melody, including that Cat Stevens tune from the 70s?

  • On the post: Would King Lear Ever Have Been Written If Copyright Law Existed?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 24 Jun, 2009 @ 06:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: King Lear

    "True...but they don't make sense now because multimedia players did not unite when the Internet was born. It was every man for themselves and the opportunity was missed for positive growth putting them all on the nonproductive defensive for 10 years!"
    No, the rules don't make sense for largely technical reasons, rather than social ones. Copyright infringement was still illegal in the early days of the internet, but Napster flourished.

    It's not because of "it was every man for themselves."

    It's because the Internet is a giant copying machine. The function at the heart of computing is copying. Copying is at the heart of the communicating on the web. If stuff is online, it's going to be copied -- that's how the internet works.

    Even more to the point: the marginal cost of reproduction is essentially $0. It doesn't cost you anything more to have 3000 copies made than to have three, once you've got the first. In a competitive market, price approaches the marginal cost of reproduction, which in the case of digital files is $0.

    It's perfectly natural that the price of digital goods would approach $0, and that people using a giant computer network would engage in copying as they communicate.

    The internet is about copying because the technology is about copying. It's not because the entertainment industry was slow, it's because they actually thought they could stop the technology.

  • On the post: Would King Lear Ever Have Been Written If Copyright Law Existed?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2009 @ 01:21pm

    Re: Re: Profit

    There's a difference between profiting/benefiting from "intellectual property" and "intellectual property restrictions."

  • On the post: Would King Lear Ever Have Been Written If Copyright Law Existed?

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 23 Jun, 2009 @ 01:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: King Lear

    "why take away a writer's rules to go by?"

    Because they no longer make sense? Rules based around controlling copying and being paid for any copying and usage make little sense on the Internet -- for writers or for readers.

Next >>