A documentary about the current state of copyright and culture.
http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/
The film is available for no price - you can either watch it online or download through torrents. If you like the movie - do donate! At least 5 bucks )
When you did watch, post your opinions here.
What did you think of the movie in general?
Were there any quotations that stuck in your mind as interesting?
How does copyright law and views influence your life?
A 1992 copyright propaganda video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyAY06IcH4Y
What I really like is what the lady says at 4:43. It really sums up the problem.
Also, I just love how she casually states that you cannot share a copy of the software with a friend. I wonder if she has any friends. Perhaps not.
Congratulations, you have found the most ridiculous video on copying floppies that you can find on the web.
If you type "copyright propaganda" in YouTube - it's one of the first videos. So I did not search for long.
However, what that woman says is still true today. Moreover, the DMCA made it even harsher. (and dumber, too) And today with a charming smile they tell you that you cannot give a copy of whatever to your friend.
QuoteIf you type "copyright propaganda" in YouTube - it's one of the first videos. So I did not search for long.
It is
very popular, I don't have to search for it. :P
Hm. I've decided not to watch.
I want to keep my blood pressure at a normal level.
But watching that retarded dancer is fun! :D
Yep, you're right.
The lady at 4:43 indeed sums it up. One program on only one computer.. Geez..
Yes, the whole copyright thing did came into my life, whether I wanted it or not.
I just became to despise the whole system, because it has degraded to a form of aggresive tax.
So I refused to take part in it. No trying for big contracts of record companies, Just my own label.
With my own rules of publishing. (A bit like Creative Commons)
And I have my doubts about the concept of 'intellectual property'..
And I also have strong doubts about the whole 'royalty' thing.
Just a copy of your work is played on the radio. So what ? You didn't have to make any effort for this..
Here's the same vid in better quality and subtitles (the best is still "[retarded dancing]"): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2kwkTpzfAI
And yeah, that lady at 4:43 is a bitch (sorry) with what he's saying. I can imagine her telling this to her children all day long, in the same tone, and that she buys nice games thrice, for every child. :lol:
Nice "remix" of the vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2kwkTpzfAI
Another ridiculous attempt - Don't Copy That 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHaAFqoVLtI
You know Sam, after being involved into all this copyright business, I've decided not to worry about it. It is all about money. Artists who go for money and who don't feel ashamed taking money for not doing anything - there is nothing we can do about those people.
But since the law takes the same stance and turns morality upside down, I believe raising awareness is important. Because most people in the world are good decent people, they just do not have all the information.
The second one by Jojo is not only ridiculous, but quite a mean way to manipulate kids.
So it's not only the RIAA, but also the SIAA. Record companies and big software business.
2 Louigi
Sure it's about money, and I decided not to worry about it.
But then I was invited twice for a national radio program about contemporary electronic music.
Two times an hour long with some talking and they played many pieces of me.
Afterwards I discovered that the broadcaster had to pay royalties to the copyright mob.
While I was not a registered member... (so I never could have recieved a share)
They didn't check this, and just cash the money.
When I realized that I wouldn't be the only case, it made me quite angry.
This is probably about millions a year, money of which they just don't have any right to cash.
Yeah, same organization is in Russia. I've checked - to solve the problem you have to come to them and explicitly tell that you do not want them to take money on your behalf. And you have to sign something - then they will stop taking money when your music is played. But by default the law allows them to take money, even if you did not register with them. Which, I believe, is a very flawed decision. Or perhaps a deliberate one.
Haha! Watched the alternate ending - good stuff!
Also, keep in mind how casually the original video slips in the idea that it is normal if your computer is not controlled by you and instead shows you something you didn't ask for. It's so proprietary in every sense!
it will get worse.... if microsoft has its way with putting every application and even the operating system on the web and charging you by the hour to use it.
I recently saw an article, in the new york times or washington post, on how it is reasonable to charge say $5 a month for a "good" website. Right.... and just how many $5 do they think normal people have a month to spare?
It won't get worst. There is no need to worry about it. Cloud computing is something Microsoft is speaking about for a long time, but it is a project that failed before it started. No matter how much hype they create, most people will not buy it.
"Pay for view" idea is self defeating. All they will do is divide the Internet into the official Internet and underground with official Internet being a boring corporate part. Also, I doubt it is possible technically. As time goes, techniques of anonymity only get better. Did you know that now you can use a torrent program and not be detected at all? Even your IP cannot be obtained if you use a special utility. And beating this utility is as easy as finding the one number in a haystack of a billion others.
Well I'm not too worried because stupid business models will never work so something good has to come along...
Here's a podcast of stephen fry talking about the history and future of copyright. (http://fry.positive-dedicated.net/fry-podcast2-episodes-04.mp3)
Got that podcast too,
g, and it's very good.
Quote from: "Louigi"But by default the law allows them to take money, even if you did not register with them. Which, I believe, is a very flawed decision. Or perhaps a deliberate one.
It's a deliberate one, and completely based on bluff.
There's no law (I have done lots of research, asking experts,etc.) giving permission to demand this money.
This would be idiotic. The local hockeyclub then could demand contribution from you, while you're not a member.
As many of their methods are based on bluff.
Along most bands/musicians here there's the idea that you have to become a member of the mob,
otherwise it is not allowed to publish your music. This is brainwashed via the media.
Another brainwash : They would protect your copyrights.
Nonsense, And they had to confirm that on their website.
Your copyright is already covered by national law. So you don't need their membership for that.
Their task is just to cash the money and distribute it to the big mediaconcerns, that's all.
Btw : the article
The Internet Debacle (http://www.louigiverona.com/webarchive/samzen/oxsite/janis_ian.txt) by Janis Ian.
good article by Janis Ian Sam
it brought to mind what my friend Mike said - who performed many years and toured the world in various bands - that most of the music "professionals" he met were just interested in making money off of him - not helping as they tried to make him think.
QuoteThere's no law (I have done lots of research, asking experts,etc.) giving permission to demand this money.
Well, in Russia there is. I am not sure if it is in a form of a law or whatever contract type statement, but the society of authors in Russia does this - if you explicitly do not state you don't want them to collect money for you, they will.
Haven't listened to the podcast - will now.
QuoteBtw : the article The Internet Debacle by Janis Ian.
Yeah, it is a nice article, but it's problem is that it tries to talk about the problem from the position of money - it basically tries to tell RIAA - don't worry, sales won't really go down.
But I would say this - it doesn't matter if sales do go down. People's freedom to share information is much more important than sales and money.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"QuoteThere's no law (I have done lots of research, asking experts,etc.) giving permission to demand this money.
Well, in Russia there is. I am not sure if it is in a form of a law or whatever contract type statement, but the society of authors in Russia does this - if you explicitly do not state you don't want them to collect money for you, they will.
In Sweden they (STIM) will collect royalties whether you want it or not. This is presented as an extra service in case you will become a member you can receive royalties retro-actively (I think 3 or 5 years back). I don't think you can even stop them.
There are indeed differences in local law, so also in the way these organizations may collect money.
Is there a list of national organizations somewhere ? I would like to collect one.
I know RIAA (USA), BUMA (NL), now STIM (SE).
add tax collectors, microsoft, the mafia and yakuza to that list Sam...
Right on..
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"There are indeed differences in local law, so also in the way these organizations may collect money.
Is there a list of national organizations somewhere ? I would like to collect one.
I know RIAA (USA), BUMA (NL), now STIM (SE).
RSA - (Russia)
the acronym is actually Russian and the name of the organization translates as the Russian Society of Authors. But I am not sure if this is the official translation.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"RSA - (Russia)
the acronym is actually Russian and the name of the organization translates as the Russian Society of Authors. But I am not sure if this is the official translation.
RSA stands for the Republic of South Africa
I hate acronyms
RSA stands for quite a lot of things. :P
Quote from: "Jojo"RSA stands for quite a lot of things. :P
According to acronymfinder, 92 things to be precise.
more fuel on the fire
Quote"Buying DRMed content, then having that content stop working later, is fair, writes Steven Metalitz, the lawyer who represents the MPAA, RIAA in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office. 'We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works.' In other words, if it stops working, too bad. Not surprisingly, Metalitz also strongly opposes any exemption that would allow users to legally strip DRM from content if a store goes dark and takes down its authentication servers."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/big-content-ridiculous-to-expect-drmed-music-to-work-forever.ars
I come to think of how corporate conglomerates "copyright" / patent crops that have been commons in indeginous cultures for hundreds of years.* There is actually huge similarities in how the copyright lobby works and how other buisness sectors profit from the commons and using alturistic excuses for protecting very narrow interests.
(see Intellectual property in this article)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Growing_GM_crops
take all of our conversations together - its all bluff and bluster
Perhaps I should patent the Sun.
I am sorry, but I have patented the word "of", which you have just used. You owe me 7$.
I'm sorry, I have patented money. You must give them all to me.
I just patented the concept of protecting intellectual properties
all your everything are belong to us
:evil: