http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/snatching-rights-playa
QuoteIn a few weeks, tens of thousands of creative people will make their yearly pilgrimage to Nevada's Black Rock desert for Burning Man, an annual art event and temporary community celebrating radical self expression, self-reliance, creativity and freedom. Most have the entirely reasonable expectation that they will own and control what is likely the largest number of creative works generated on the Playa: the photos they take to document their creations and experiences.
That's because they haven't read the Burning Man Terms and Conditions.
Those Terms and Conditions include a remarkable bit of legal sleight-of-hand: as soon as "any third party displays or disseminates" your photos or videos in a manner that the Burning Man Organization (BMO) doesn't like, those photos or videos become the property of the BMO. This "we automatically own all your stuff" magic appears to be creative lawyering intended to allow the BMO to use the streamlined "notice and takedown" process enshrined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to quickly remove photos from the Internet.
These kinds of ToC seems to be a virus flooding the Internets and now apparantly the "real world". Private interests capitalizing on the commons and also restraining cultural expressions.
Just disgusting.
crap like this is written into the terms of almost every music site.
when some song released on soundclick or garageband becomes really big there will be trouble.
Don't panic. Their claims are almost always based on silly bluff.
M$ tried the same with copyright on every mail written at Hotmail. Ridiculous of course.
Most of these things would not stand up in court.
yes, assuming the court was fair.
this is not always the case unfortunately
It is funny that theoretically a lot of people seem to be very much against these things, but in practice we encourage the same kind of proprietary thinking. And when Tassel of Blue has released her music with an insulting license, not a lot of people even noticed the problem.
I think the difference is she created the content and can restrict to high heaven.
But burning man is in effect stealing control of content they did not create.
If you look deeper, there is no difference at all.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"It is funny that theoretically a lot of people seem to be very much against these things, but in practice we encourage the same kind of proprietary thinking. And when Tassel of Blue has released her music with an insulting license, not a lot of people even noticed the problem.
I was going to send you a PM, but i want everyone to read this. My apologies beforehand to uncloned for hijacking this thread, but this idiot's opinion has been bugging me (and Yjana) for a long time, and since he keeps bringing it up, he will be answered.
As far as the subject at hand, unless the attendees were told AHEAD of time that no pictures or audio could be recorded (and if there were, they would be the property of the entity that held the event), then the holders of the event don't have a legal or moral leg to stand on.
But it seems Mr Verona is drawing a comparison between Tassel of Blue's No-Sharing policy and this one held at this event. It's NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Everyone knew before downloading ToB's album the Terms of Agreement -- or rather TERM (singular) of Agreement: simply don't give it to anyone else. ToB believes that this is the same as claiming it as your own so you can give it to whomever you want. She is not giving you anything; she is SHARING it. Only idiots, potheads, and the retarded can't distinguish these two very different concepts.
But there is an even bigger issue here: Louigi, you (and others) have constantly shown a blatant disregard and disrespect for people and their right to own what's theirs. It's not yours, you have no claim to it, and you have no moral authority of any kind to back you up. All you own is what's in your brain; you don't own the object (unless it was given to you, whether or not for monetary exchange), you have no claim to its transmission (unless it was publicly transmitted, or otherwise privately transmitted to you or an object that can store the transmission), and you don't get to come up with your own morals on whether or not someone has a right to their art (or can restrict you from what's not yours) and then demean them for not abiding by your standards. If you didn't make it, or it wasn't given to you, IT'S NOT YOURS.
What's worse is that you denigrate other people for holding on to something they actually HAVE a claim to. What's "insulting" is that she's FORCED to spell out this request into some sort of legalese, PRECISELY because people like you think they can do whatever they want with stuff that wasn't given to you. She's the first to admit she has trust issues, but it's only because of people like you, whom she has no trust in. And neither do i.
As i understand it you've caused problems elsewhere as well. I have so little respect for you that i don't even listen to your music anymore, even though it may be very good. Your opinions to me are worthless now, because they show a lack of respect for other people and what's theirs. Your beliefs smack of socialism, which takes away people's individuality and personal ownership. And as someone who was raised in an environment of respect for others (and what's theirs) as well as individual liberty and expression, i and most Americans find your opinions backwards and failed.
I'm sure you want to nitpick away at things i've said, but if you have a disagreement, LV, let's talk about the big picture, which is the overriding principle of right to self-expression and individual ownership. And don't bother PMing me, say it here.
Uncloned, if you don't like us threadjacking your post (no matter who you agree with) or if you don't like the tone of my post, send us to a new thread, and i apologize for the intrusion. Obviously LV's idiocy would make itself known here, even though there is a big difference between someone controlling knowledge and someone claiming rights to a single work.
Honestly I think you two should talk it out and find middle ground - or at least understanding.
I post items like this for people to discuss them so please have at it.
My position:
1.
Burning Man is claiming ownership of something they do not own. I'm surprised their lawyers did read the part of the (US) copyright act that says that the creator is granted copyright at the time of creation.
2.
I think you and Yjanna (spelling?) have every right to place *any* condition you wish on what you create.
I have in my time made preview version of material I was working on for friends and colleagues to receive their opinion. These files were clearly marked "do not distribute" and of course I asked for the listener not to distribute.
On the other hand - posting a preview you wish to control distribution of on a well known international forum could be considered a dubious move.
Also to be considered is the fact that not every condition you may place on your work is actually to your benefit.
3.
What I really object to is technological attempts to control distribution that cripples what I bought. Especially bad are the Sony root kits that install silently when you play certain CDs.
A case in point is that I'd like to get rid of our VHS tapes. I have a combination VHS DVD recorder... but it prevents me from copying certain VHS tapes to DVD - it comes right up on the TV - you can't copy copyrighted material. This is stupid. This sucks. It is unfair. They want me to buy another fricking copy!! It is not like I'm going to sell that DVD I burn. But fair use be damned - I'm prevented.... (I have a way but its not pretty)
So please discuss
Edit : this post crossed the previous one.
Hm.. and again Hm..
I understand, and accept Harbinger intrusion in this post.
First because the subject of the topic isn't that heavy as an issue, so 'anywhere it goes..'.
Second, because Harbinger is reasoned by the "insulting license" remark by LV.
Which was not directly relevant to the Burning Man topic.
I haven't denied Tassel of Blue the right to make any restrictions about using the works.
Let's not forget our common idea here : Personal rights about personal things.
The free will to decide to share some expression will also mean the freedom to and/or describe some restrictions about the use.
Rules which, in this freedom, aren't restricted to the officially established ones. One can set one's own.
If another one thinks, it's a ridiculous setting, don't nag, but accept it, and regard the consequences.
I just want a reasonable discussion about this, without flaming elements.
This apart from the fact, that I have my zen-doubts about the 'ownership' of a song or a performance.
If you want to 'own' a song, don't publish it.
Edit : in fact, don't even record it.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"
Edit : in fact, don't even record it.
don't even think it! :evil:
About Burning Man
I don't see it as that bad, it's a closed event and basically they say they don't let you take pictures or shoot film to use commercially or do stuff to harm their image. It's worded in a clumsy way, but I don't think they mean to possess the copyright of any and all things.
There are a lot of rumours about things like these, such as facebook owning all images, myspace owning all music and et cetera. I think it's good that people read terms and conditions, but as far as I know there still hasn't been a case where this has actually happened.
About Harbinger vs Louigi Verona
While I agree with Louigi in some ways, I believe he could be a little bit more diplomatic. Personal attacks are not the way to change the world.
On the other hand... "Your beliefs smack of socialism, which takes away people's individuality and personal ownership. And as someone who was raised in an environment of respect for others (and what's theirs) as well as individual liberty and expression, i and most Americans find your opinions backwards and failed."
I sincerely hope most Americans have a more nuanced view of the world than that.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"I just want a reasonable discussion about this, without flaming elements.
We would like that too. But LV's assessment of ToB's license as insulting leads one to the conclusion that she's an idiot for restricting dissemination of HER work.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"
If you want to 'own' a song, don't publish it.
Edit : in fact, don't even record it.
Are you serious? You believe that a creator or producer of anything gives up ownership when it is made real? Perhaps this is at the core of our disagreement.
The whole PURPOSE (think about that word carefully -- the meaning is exact) of an artist is to make manifest what is in his mind. When it is transferred to the media of his choice, our moral tradition (at least since the Age of Enlightenment) is that the manifestation is still the artist's and he can claim it. He can disseminate COPIES of it either by gift; by exchanging for it goods, services, or an exchange medium (money); or by sharing it either with compatriots of his choosing, or with the general public. In every case (except the very latter) he can restrict its "re-dissemination" UNLESS he is releasing the rights of ownership. If the receivor of a copy of the work refutes the license by disabusing himself of it, breaking at the very least an implicit if not non-binding "contract", then we can say the recievor is doing something at the very least unethical and at worst illegal. The LEGAL aspect i am not interested in because each sovereignty sets its own laws. But there is a common morality that tradition has brought us. Myself, i like the tradition, because it is respectful of people's liberties and property.
I recount this not to educate the witless, but to clarify the issues at hand.
Now, not only has technology brought us new questions of ownership, but also a fading of common ethics. If the majority abided by a common understood tradition, then we could solve the debate of technology and how it interferes with the ownership of art. But with the ongoing decay of common acceptable morals and ethics, people are convincing themselves that producers of things have no proprietary claims and have no right to restrict others. This is the new school of thought from which LV has been attending, but it's an old school: piracy -- hence the term.
So for those who have respected ToB's simple license, she appreciates that i'm sure. But most folks here did not come to her defense, and LV's silly notions were instead supported, and now she only trusts a couple of forum members out of all this. (And she has demanded that i not ask her to give this website another chance.) My point is, when people do not respect the licenses of others, it STIFLES art, it doesn't spur it.
I think the preferred solution is the "star trek" future where people don't have to worry about money and the complications that it brings.
I also believe we should retain authorship of our expressions and that derivative should be allowed with acknowledgment of the work and author used in the derivation.
This is not for ego. There are practical reasons to know authorship - such as being able to find more work by the same author.
We all stand on the shoulders of our contemporaries and predecessors. This is an inescapable fact. Nothing is 100% new, we only add our own uniqueness to the experience of life as expressed in our work. So this too should bee humbly recognized (as practical).
Burning Man responds to the EFF
nice pictures too.
http://blog.burningman.com/?p=4599
QuoteFrankly, we'd rather gouge out our own eyes than get in the way of that kind of personal expression in our community. That's why we've engaged with groups like the EFF and Creative Commons to continue exploring and evolving our policies to reflect the evolution of intellectual property itself. In fact, Burning Man's lead attorney on intellectual property, Terry Gross, was the EFF's first General Counsel — and he wrote the very licenses to which Ms. McSherry objects in the post, but she unfortunately fails to mention that their ongoing conversation behind the scenes has, even before her post, been helping us to frame the next step in evolving the licensing of image use at Burning Man.
Ooh.. come one.!.. "fading of common ethics" - "ongoing decay of common acceptable morals"..
Are these the problems people suffer who oppose your opinion ? Talking about insulting...
QuoteEdit : in fact, don't even record it.
Are you serious? You believe that a creator or producer of anything gives up ownership when it is made real? Perhaps this is at the core of our disagreement.
Serious ? Perhaps the core here is a severe lack of humour..
Sorry, Zen, doesn't fly. I'm complimented for my sense of humor. You gave me no indication that were being humorous. And i'm glad to hear that you were being funny. I KNEW you couldn't be serious! But i'll be the first to admit, the stereotype of the European (in America) is a socialist druggie! :P
You do have a sense of humor, don't you? ::)
not my stereotype
mine is european people are those who graciously live with much less than americans - most americans don;t have a clue how lucky they are
but don't worry - soon our standard of living will be reduced
"Lucky?"
I think not. Neither the grace of God nor the blood, sweat, and tears of all who fought for our (American) liberties can be attributed to luck, no?
Blessed maybe is a better word. Oh but we can't say that. That would imply there's a God finding favor in us. Can't have that! :evil:
I'd rather be stereotyped as a socialist druggie then a self-righteous, illiterate, right wing, close-minded, Christian warmonger. :wink:
Quote from: "Harbinger""Lucky?"
I think not. Neither the grace of God nor the blood, sweat, and tears of all who fought for our (American) liberties can be attributed to luck, no?
Blessed maybe is a better word. Oh but we can't say that. That would imply there's a God finding favor in us. Can't have that! :evil:
no... the luck is yours for being born an American
And why do you say America is blessed? Why should America be blessed? And what exactly is the form of that blessing?
And.... I guess America wasn't blessed for the Indians?
And then is Somalia cursed? Most people there have a very poor life materially. And if so why would God curse Somalia? What did the people of Somalia (or worse the very ground) do that was so bad?
I believe in God.
And I believe in reason, rational thought and common sense.
Every army in WWI and WWII had the blessing of a pope, minister, or priest. (Yes, I believe even the soviets.)
So... who's side was God on?
People say and do a lot in God's name. Not all of it is good or even rational.
Wow, what discussions.
I think a lot of problems arise from the fact that people try to look at everything from a perspective of ego and personality. However, life is more interesting than that. I have clearly expressed my views in the appropriate topic before, so I will not go into any discussions whatsoever here.
I do not know Harbinger personally, so when mentioning Tassel Blue case I did not mean any personal insults or anything - for that I am sorry. I brought up the case because I believe that it is relevant. If nobody sees it, I may wish to discuss it in a calm and respectful manner.
A discussion between mature people doesn't have to go calm all the way.
We're not having a cosy cup of tea here with a bisquit talking about the moss on the paveyard.
So no problem with that.
People can have different perspectives.
But if my arguments are considered weaker because I'm not a reli person..
Well.. Haughtiness comes before the fall.
But I'm glad that I can strongly confirm Harb's stereotype :
I'm an anarchist druggie for about 45 years now..
Edit: never mind the bollocks, let's get back to more spiritual things, like music.
To clear the matter up, this evening I will record a podcast on this exact situation. It will discuss property (intellectual), authorship, copyright and then comment on this exact situation - explain in what way this situation is similar to us being presented a music with a restrictive license.
I do not aim for everyone to agree with me, but rather see my reasoning. A lot of what I would say, though, is obvious to people who gave "intellectual property" any serious thought.
I'm a little startled by the personal attacks, so I'll stay away from that.
I read through the Burning Man Terms and Conditons, and found that you can label a photo "Burning Man 2009" for non-commercial, private use. I'm pretty sure that posting a picture from Burning Man on Facebook, labeled as "Burning Man 2009" would qualify as private, non-commercial use. The article in question seems to be steeped more in paranoia than genuine concern, IMHO. The contract only prohibits the use of the images by a third party for commercial use, which would, I guess, be you post the picture online, and the online service uses the image for profit, which is unlikely, anyway.
Well. if it's no problem copying data for private, non-commercial use, what's the point of labeling it ?
Because that's already permitted in most countries under normal law.
I could declare having the 'Burning Woman 2009' label would protect you from commercial purposes,
if you would upload there... duh..
M$ declared that all email content at Hotmail would be their copyright. Which is silly of course.
Quote from: "arinlares"I'm a little startled by the personal attacks, so I'll stay away from that.
What?! You simply cannot do that, either pick Louigi's or Harbinger's side and flame the other one to the ground. Now you made me angry with your unreasonable actions.
LOL
:lol: :haha: That's hilarious psishock! Leave it to you to take the sarcastic approach. I like your sense of humor!
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"I think a lot of problems arise from the fact that people try to look at everything from a perspective of ego and personality.
I agree completely. Too many are only thinking about themselves and not about a higher principle.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"I do not know Harbinger personally, so when mentioning Tassel Blue case I did not mean any personal insults or anything - for that I am sorry. I brought up the case because I believe that it is relevant.
The points you were making may have helped your argument, but you slipped in the word "insulting". That can only be taken personally. Hence my defensiveness.
But if you're going to apologize for a lack of sensitivity, then i shall lower the hairs on my back and stop hissing. Tassel of Blue is a very close friend and i will defend her God-given rights any day. Even if it makes me sound like a hyper-sensitive knee-jerk in the process. I can't believe you wouldn't do the same for your best friend. :wink:
I think it's safe to say, Louigi, that you and i will never agree on this point (concerning artist's rights to license restrictions). Perhaps it's a topic we should BOTH steer clear of in this forum, just so you don't feel like you're climbing uphill, and i don't feel like i'm battling the forces of evil (okay that IS a bit of hyperbole, but you get my drift. :) )
And for the record, i apologize for personalizing my attacks. (The points i made still stand.) 8)
This is great! Let's just consider the matter to be an interesting philosophical discussion.
I plan to record a small podcast which will explain my views in detail. It is possible you will not agree with my views but at least you'll understand what exactly do I mean.
Please do post the podcast in this tread, it would be interesting to listen to a forum writer instead of reading for once.