Donny's Techdirt Profile


About Donny

Donny's Comments comment rss

  • Jan 09, 2013 @ 05:39am

    Re: Re: Bob Dylan of all people

    Fair point. From what I've gathered, his attitude reflects theirs and he'd behave much the same if he owned them. But true, he's not to blame really.

  • Jan 08, 2013 @ 01:33pm

    Bob Dylan of all people

    Goddamit, what really pisses me off about this is that this is Bob Dylan, copier extraordinaire, whose music is being locked up.

    As it happens, this very night I was listening to The Times They Are A-Changin'. Small coincidence. But let's go through that album quickly so:

    Track 1. 'The Times They Are a-Changin' - by Dylan's own admission, based off various Irish/Scottish ballads.

    Track 2. 'Ballad of Hollis Brown' - based off an Appalachian tune called 'Pretty Polly'.

    Track 3. 'With God on Our Side' - based off a song of Dominic Behan's called 'The Patriot Game'. (Interesting side-note: the melody is not Behan's own. Which just shows that such borrowing is an ordinary, even healthy, way to go about songwriting and none of this is meant on an attack on Dylan's character.) (Say that to Behan though: he considered Dylan a "plagiarist and a thief").

    (To my ears, tracks 5 and 6, 'North Country Blues' and 'Only a Pawn in Their Game' sound like developed melodies Dylan came across somewhere, the former especially seems Irish/Scottish with its i->VII->i progression. No solid sources on them though, so I'll pass over.)

    Track 7. 'Boots of Spanish Leather' - based off Dylan's own 'Girl From North Country' which in turn was based off the English song 'Scarborough Fair'.

    Track 8. 'When the Ship Comes In' - based off a more contemporary (well, 1928) operatic song Pirate Jenny.

    Track 9. 'The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll' - based off the Child Ballad Mary Hamilton (no. 173 in that collection).

    Track 10. 'Restless Farewell' - little more than a personalised rewrite of a (still popular) Irish tune called The Parting Glass.

    Now I don't mean to denigrate Dylan. I think he's one of the twentieth century's greatest songwriters, I've huge personal respect for him. But he depended heavily on other people's creativity to achieve what he did (let's not even get started on how derivative the b-sides and outtakes are).

    So that he's locking up all these songs, all this culture, claiming it as his own, and demanding dues for its's simply wrong of him. And not only for its inequality of sharing, but for culture to come: how can the twenty-first century's great songwriters hope to achieve even half what he did, if they can't lean on inspiration such as his but are expected to create all of their own songs whole cloth?

  • Jun 20, 2012 @ 06:13am

    But...but...America's advantage! We can't risk leveling the playing field, then we might lose!

  • May 04, 2012 @ 02:49pm


    Yeah! Maybe it was coincidence! We can never see this hidden power of causation anyway! (Right Hume?)

    Heck, personally I don't think sales went up at all, seems more plausible to me that I'm a brain in a vat who's being made think sales went up.

    (Philosophical scepticism: When reality proves you wrong, just deny reality exists. Boom. Who's wrong now?)

  • Apr 12, 2012 @ 04:05pm

    Very good point: If admitting you were inspired by someone gives them power over your creation, amn't I better off denying that inspiration altogether?

    How can you cultivate an atmosphere of sharing, of openness, of honesty under those conditions?

  • Mar 07, 2012 @ 12:17pm

    Coppola's got it

    Art shouldn't cost any money. Yes! He hit the nail on the head.

    But...artists should cost.

    If I want coffee freely available in my own kitchen, I need to get a coffee machine. Or (a better analogy) if I want delicious meals freely available in my own kitchen, I need to employ a chef.

    Likewise, if I want movies, music, stories, freely available to me, I need to "employ" an artist. The costs are enormously distributed sure, but if he can afford to stand there all day until somebody requests a poem, it's got to be because his basic living expenses are looked after for him.

    It's like back in the 18th century, how classical composers were employed by courts or commissioned by wealthy patrons. Only the richest could afford such an extravangance like art back then. But with the internet, we're all aristocrats now.

  • Feb 03, 2012 @ 05:27am

    Re: Re:

    What about accurate or supported information being carefully reworded or removed from the article?

    THAT'S what I find unsure about this. Not which information PR-folk would add, but which they'd take away.

  • Jan 25, 2012 @ 07:11pm

    Can I stop us a moment.. appreciate that one line:

    "A good idea doesn't need protection".

    Besautiful and true.

  • Jan 16, 2012 @ 01:18pm

    Re: Re: Hrm


    But you're conflating "wikipedia the website & reference tool" with "wikipedia the organisation & people who maintain it".

    Should the latter get involved in politics? Definitely.

    Should the former? I kinda think 'no'.

  • Jan 16, 2012 @ 12:45pm


    But guyz what if the ends don't justify the means? What if using a reference tool as though it were political activism tool is not ok? What if 'effectiveness' is not a measure of what's acceptable? What if doing all this is some kind of transgression of duty?

    Also, can someone explain what's to stop this decision opening the door for subsequent political abuse of wikipedia? Pleading special circumstances? Isn't that the same logic behind why it's ok for PIPA to mangle established law and muzzle free expression?

  • Jan 15, 2012 @ 04:31pm

    Re: Re: Dissenting Voice

    I'm making a distinction between "Wikipedia as a thing in itself" and "the people who care about, run, maintain it".

    I think the latter, the people, should do all they can to stop SOPA/PIPA because they're horrendously stupid pieces of legislation.

    But I don't think the former should be involved. I don't think those people should USE their encyclopedia as another weapon to make their side win the debate.

    Wikipedia is not a political tool. It's an encyclopedia.

  • Jan 13, 2012 @ 07:54pm

    Dissenting Voice


    Wikipedia's purpose isn't to preserve its own existence. It's just to exist, as an encyclopedia. It's sullying its own function with this political grandstanding.

  • Dec 01, 2011 @ 09:21am

    Re: Re:

    That's kind of the point...

    But ok, we don't want consumers being ripped off. So standardise it: Same packaging as the Tesco Value brand (like this:, the only difference between different companies' offerings is the name.

  • Dec 01, 2011 @ 07:52am

    Slight tangent: This makes me wonder how things would change if it became illegal not just to advertise tobacco, but even to display logos, images, slogans, brands within each company as well.

    Would such a ban affect smoking's perceived desirability?

  • Nov 30, 2011 @ 04:06am


    Irony much?

    "We need this law in order to keep making quality content"

    ...yet the video they make in order to express that is nothing but poorly put-together docu-style amateurism.

  • Nov 08, 2011 @ 02:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But he didn't say "share",did he?

    "Ownership of your work"

    I'm sorry, maybe I'm stupid. But what's that phrase mean? How can you cash it out?

  • Sep 29, 2011 @ 03:52pm

    This is Dylan.

    Interpret the character behind it however you want, but this is how Dylan makes his art.

    So how ought he be dealt with?

  • Aug 24, 2011 @ 03:23am


    Now I know real life's not so simple and naive, but aren't the public represented at these meetings by, uh, y'know, their politicians? Isn't that the idea of a representative democracy?

    There's no need to have a bunch of consumers advising the government because the government are (/are representing) the consumers already.

  • Aug 17, 2011 @ 04:19pm

    Well it's true what they say

    No atheists in fox holes...(cos they get torn to pieces down there)

  • Aug 15, 2011 @ 12:50pm


    "Of course, one could argue that these sites are no different than conversation was for previous generations, and that conversation seldom generated big ideas either, and one would be right."

    No, man, NO. One would be horribly wrong to argue that. Conversation is where a GREAT number of big ideas are born. From the Parisian cafes of Sartre and Camus, to the English coffeehouses in the 17th century, to pubs, gelaterias, salons - where people met, ideas came about.

    How could you want less conversation, and give your reason as being for the sake of more ideas??

More comments from Donny >>