A bogus SoundCloud takedown reveals a much larger issue with private sites and the public domain. The sound in question--the famous "Houston, we have a problem" snippet of the Apollo 13 mission--is incontrovertibly available to all, for any use, without copyright restrictions. The fact that it's been yanked from a SoundCloud page, though, is a sad demonstration of how completely many online services have swallowed the fallacy that "unauthorized" means "unacceptable."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Houston, We Have a Public Domain Problem
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 67 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by enharmonix on Friday June 27 2014, @01:06PM
It seems like the option "The copyright work has been mistakenly identified" is the one to go with. I would imagine that the MPAA would like to prevent anybody from saying "Houston, we have a problem" in Tom Hank's voice, but the author didn't use that clip. It's the wrong copyright.
I agree they could use more options, and somebody should bring this to SoundCloud's attention. However, they are probably compliant with the law, so I would be surprised if they feel inclined to add any options that aren't signed off on by their lawyers, and if they're compliant with the law, I don't see the lawyers caring.
I would really like to know who the requester was, though. The author of the story doesn't identify them, and I really hope that is the author's omission and not SoundCloud's, because a person definitely has the right to face their accuser.
(Score: 3, Informative) by choose another one on Friday June 27 2014, @01:27PM
Seconded (beat me to it).
In a DMCA takedown I believe they have to claim (on penalty of perjury) that they have a valid enforceable copyright to the work that they claim in infringed - but we don't know what that work was without seeing the notice. Since they can't possibly have such copyright (since it is public domain), it must either be a misidentified work, or prosecute them for falsely claiming to own it.
So simply check "these are not the copyright works you are looking for" and move along.
The bigger issue that is missed out by this author is that there is no option for "do not need a license fair-use, satire etc.".
(Score: 2) by RaffArundel on Friday June 27 2014, @02:38PM
Has that ever happened? Specifically, has anyone ever been charged, let alone penalized, for making false claims of ownership?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27 2014, @02:59PM
> Specifically, has anyone ever been charged, let alone penalized, for making false claims of ownership?
No, they haven't and they never will. Because the first round in a DMCA takedown isn't even perjury. Due to the way the law is written it can only qualify as perjury when the poster responds that is not a violation and then the original complainer files suit.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Friday June 27 2014, @03:02PM
I don't think so - but then that (claim that you own copyright in a work) is the trivial bit to get right "we are/represent the copyright owners of foo".
The bit where they claim that some other work bar infringes your copyright on foo is the bit where it normally goes wrong - and that is not stated under penalty of perjury or anything.
(Score: 2) by RaffArundel on Friday June 27 2014, @03:42PM
Yes, that "next step" is specifically what I was wondering - false claims of infringement having some penalty, other than a generic civil suit. I can imagine Sony DCMAing negative reviews that include clips of their songs, movies, and video games, ignoring fair use, because 1) there is no penalty for misusing the law and 2) most people wouldn't fight back.
I am unaware of any case (or even a countersuit reward during the RIAA dragnet) that was successful. Without penalty (and morality) there is no reason for media companies NOT to abuse this law.
I am missing one other thing - which is probably why I am on this thread. Who asked for the clip to be removed? Why did they think it was theirs? Is his only complaint that he couldn't say "HEY! Public Domain you MORON!"? Perhaps his problem is the service - I vaguely recall searching for Creative Commons or Open Source audio for a different forum and getting quite a few that in fact supported Public Domain correctly.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday June 27 2014, @09:15PM
One might think so, but apparently not. Nobody at all can claim copyright over the famous "Houston...we have a problem" because government works are public domain. We have also seen claims over bird song overheard in an outdoor video.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday June 27 2014, @07:30PM
Actually, no. They have to either claim that they have the copyright, or that they are acting on behalf of someone that they have a good-faith belief has the copyright. And lawyers are allowed to have a "good-faith belief" in their clients, even when they are obviously lying.
So the DMCA takedown isn't better in that regard. OTOH, I believe that for a DMCA takedown you are required to be able to dispute the claim. Whether this requires that your material be reposted...I don't think it does. It does, however, make YOU liable for perjury if you are wrong.
Caution: IANAL. This is just my understanding of the law.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by multisync on Friday June 27 2014, @02:02PM
That option "The copyright work has been mistakenly identified" may be appropriate in this particular case, but the author is correct that the lack of the options "the work is in the public domain" and "I am making Fair Use of the work" are necessary in order to be consistent with US copyright law. The fact that those options are missing is likely an indication of the influence the media companies wield over companies like SoundCloud, and that should be of concern to everyone.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 27 2014, @03:53PM
However, the .gov line, on their page about copyright, going "Anyone may, [do stuff]" is your licence.
So there are at least 3 suitable options. However, because of them all being an approximate match, the form is indeed screaming for a "( ) You fucked up, doofera" option.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 27 2014, @04:21PM
"Cover photo: photo NASA, used without permission"
In what way is:
"""
Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws:
* reproduce the work in print or digital form;
"""
not permission, 'cos is sure looks like permission to me?
He's trying to be cute, but he's doing that at the expense of bullshitting. It's not a good trade when attempting to present a factual piece.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Friday June 27 2014, @05:46PM
That's more or less his whole point: he didn't ask for permission, so he doesn't have permission.
And for (according to him) too many sites on the internet, this is sufficient to revoke the content.
His use is not restricted, but if you ask him to produce any proof that he was given permission (e.g. some signed form), he cannot produce it because it's not necessary.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday June 27 2014, @07:32PM
the very nature of the Public Domain is that anyone and everyone has permission to use everything in it at all times. permission is de facto granted, and cannot be revoked, full stop. if somebody is saying they're using a public domain work "without permission", they're either intentionally lying or just ignorant of the fact that its impossible to not have permission.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday June 27 2014, @09:22PM
I may seem to be splitting hairs, but public domain means no permission is needed at all. That is actually the default in the absence of copyright law. It matters because permission is a thing to be granted or withheld. To say that public domain is permission granted implies that it is some sort of boon or grant. In fact, it is simply the natural order.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 27 2014, @09:46PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 28 2014, @01:32AM
How do you figure? All of the discussion that surrounded implementing copyright revolved around granting a temporary monopoly on reproduction. Once that temporary grant expires, the works return to their natural state of being freely copy-able for the rest of time. Before copyright existed, all works were in that state from the moment of creation.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday June 28 2014, @08:04AM
If the law changes, my statement may change. It is a statement about how things are, not how they could be.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 28 2014, @08:53AM
The law is still but an overlay over the natural state. Are you really unable to break out of the idea that all that is not permitted is forbidden, even for a moment? Not even hypothetically?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday June 28 2014, @10:33AM
That has absolutely nothing to do with the precise matter in hand. The matter in hand is about the legal status of an item of intellectual property. And you have no grounds to assert that I am "in that idea" in the first place.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 28 2014, @07:26PM
It is not intellectual property because it is not anyone's property. It is not owned.
I do have such grounds because you have demonstrated that you do not understand that the audio in question might not have authorization at all and not require it. You seem stuck on the idea that someone authorized it somehow.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday June 29 2014, @08:31AM
Why can you not get that into your thick skull?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday June 29 2014, @09:28AM
Because NOBODY authorized it. The public domain is not authorized.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday June 29 2014, @10:05AM
False. Placing in the public domain is an explicit and legally recognised authorisation.
> The public domain is not authorized.
You're approaching "not even wrong" levels of meaninglessness.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday June 29 2014, @06:28PM
Government works are not placed in the public domain, they are born there.
When copyright expires, the work enters the public domain. That is not the result of a creator making a grant, it is the result of a grant to the creator expiring.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday June 30 2014, @07:07AM
That is mere sophistry. That's like saying big macs don't have cheese put in them, as they were born with cheese in them.
> When copyright expires, the work enters the public domain. That is not the result of a creator making a grant, it is the result of a grant to the creator expiring.
Yes, that's the law. I am aware of that. That's the context in which all my comments have been made.
However, notice that because creators of copyrightable works automatically have copyrights granted to them, that one might say "they are born there" too. Would you say that the author has been granted those rights in that case? Expecting an answer that's inconsistent, what's the difference between these two automatic things?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday June 30 2014, @08:48AM
It certainly is not. When a government work is created, nobody signs any declarations placing it in the public domain because it is already there. No authorization ever happens.
However, notice that because creators of copyrightable works automatically have copyrights granted to them, that one might say "they are born there" too. Would you say that the author has been granted those rights in that case? Expecting an answer that's inconsistent, what's the difference between these two automatic things?
Yes, if the author has had something granted to them then I would say it was a grant to them, wouldn't you :-)
Beyond your amusing slip of the keyboard, the author has been granted that right and the work is born copyrighted. It remains a grant because it will one day go poof. When that happens, there is no taking by the government and so no compensation is due.
(Score: 1) by enharmonix on Saturday June 28 2014, @03:22PM
That is a dangerous sentiment among nerds. I am guessing you have a Karma bonus because there is no +1 Troll, so I'm going to reply under the assumption you really mean that.
The natural order is that information is free. When the US was founded, things like patents and copyrights were (from a human history perspective) relatively recent. The natural order was people ripping off other people's ideas. The founders considered this normal but not great for society. However, if they would give artists and inventors a temporary monopoly on a specific idea, it would reward them for producing more ideas, which would benefit society a bit more. However, the new ideas would, after the monopoly ended, revert to the public domain, allowing the natural order to resume, where anybody could make use of an idea however they pleased, and that benefits society even more. I am inclined to agree. The natural order is not an information oligarchy.
Once upon a time, works were always in the public domain unless the work specifically stated the work was copyrighted and the copyright was actually registered with the Library of Congress. After a while, the law changed to where a work was in the public domain unless the work stated it was copyrighted, although registering the copyright with the Library of Congress became optional (but was still strongly encouraged so as to establish ownership (of the copyright, not the work itself)). Later on, the law was changed again so that every new work was automatically copyrighted when it was created and stating the work was copyrighted was optional as it was now implied, and registration with the Library of Congress remained optional as well. At this point, however, an automatic copyright required anybody who intentionally wanted to release a work into the public domain to explicitly waive the automatic copyright in the work. This is what NASA did*.
* Works produced by the government have always been in the public domain and that has never changed. The author doesn't need NASA to waive permission. I think what NASA was doing here by including that line was just a courtesy to the public in case they weren't aware how it worked, and judging by your sentiments, I have to conclude that this is not widely known.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday June 29 2014, @08:44AM
I dislike what has become of the concept of intellectual property at least as much as any other nerd. (Everything I write which I think anyone might have any interest in I release under as CC-SA, GPL3, or PD. I'm staunchly pro-Debian for their purist attitudes towards non-free code. I proudly wear my "USPTO - selling monopoly rights to common sense for 130 years" t-shirt.) But a question about the legal status of something must be answered within that legal context, whether you like it or not, anything else is a category error.
> anybody who intentionally wanted to release a work into the public domain to explicitly waive the automatic copyright in the work
This is what I have been saying all along.
> This is what NASA did
I KNOW. That is why I've been saying that's what they've done all along.
Sheesh, has a cloud of stupid suddenly hit Slashdot^H^H^H^H^H^H^HoylentNews?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by enharmonix on Wednesday July 02 2014, @03:16PM
Okay. Silly of me to get confused on that point. The rest of the comment is pretty much based on the assumption that you were referring to the natural order when you said "natural order", so the history lesson was probably not necessary. (Wow. I actually feel pretty dumb now.)
Thank goodness I didn't notice that I never said you didn't until just now, or I'd feel even stupider than I already do. At this point, though, I was still hung up on the whole "natural order" thing and was actually trying to point out why NASA might feel it would be a good idea to do that, so you'll just have to forgive me because we've established that I was very confused.
You seem to have stopped reading at that point, though, because I had gone on to say, in reference to the OP's and submitter's points (you know, the ones that you had originally taken issue with):
Now, I just noticed that when you quoted me above, you forgot the *. That's probably why you didn't see the paragraph after it. It's easy to miss. Not that it matters, though, because I probably would've just stopped reading at that point anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.
I think we're in agreement here, but I had always thought it went without saying. Shows what I know, though. I'll be sure to point it out next time.
Anyway, it's been enlightening, but I've really got to run. Keep up the good work and have a terrific day!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 27 2014, @09:42PM
Which bit of "Anyone may, ..." isn't "granting permission"?
> if you ask him to produce any proof that he was given permission (e.g. some signed form), he cannot produce it because it's not necessary.
Total bullshit. He can cite the .gov copyright page that he linked to. And the logic in "He cannot produce it because it's not necessary" is hilarious. It's not necessary that I call you a fucking moron, agreed? However, I certainly can do that, despite it not being necessary. (And clearly not necessary, it's an obvious conclusion from your post.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27 2014, @03:54PM
"because a person definitely has the right to face their accuser"
Sure. Try that with any state department of children and families or department of human services when some anonymous bugger, your ex, decides you are abusing your kids because they, the anonymous bugger, hasn't called them in 6 months. Crazy exs, family, any random person, it doesn't matter. They will come investigate any and every call with no idea who the accuser is. My ex harassed me this way for months. No recourse available.
I know this is off-topic. But just pointing out that you definitely do not have that right in the US anymore.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Horse With Stripes on Friday June 27 2014, @01:13PM
First, let's establish who is making this complaint. It's not an artist who thinks they know what's what, or a butt hurt blogger who can't express themselves without "borrowing" from other's work. This complaint is from Parker Higgins, the primary copyright activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and a former Sound Cloud employee), m'kay?
So with that out of the way, I am not sure I agree with the fallacy that "unauthorized" means "unacceptable.". Since we're talking legal (or at least pseudo-legal) documents here, shouldn't we concerned first with "unauthorized" does not mean "illegal"? And "unauthorized" is a little murky too. Since this audio clip doesn't require authorization to use labeling it "unauthorized" is a bit misleading.
Why am I splitting hairs? Accurately conveying this all too common problem is important in order to win over the general public and gain the backing of the court of public opinion. Saying "the audio use wasn't authorized but that doesn't mean it's unacceptable" doesn't ring true to most people. "Unacceptable" could mean inappropriate, profane, vulgar, etc which will not get the same public support.
Until the masses push back on these things they will continue to happen. And the public won't care if they hear "unacceptable" rather than "not illegal".
(Score: 1) by bzipitidoo on Friday June 27 2014, @02:09PM
The hair splitting is one reason why I think copyright should be abolished. This entire discussion would be moot if there was no copyright.
As to who, the mystery person is not Parker Higgins, it's whoever complained about the public domain sound clips. Whoever that person is ought to face some kind of censure, perhaps a fine. It could also be an algorithm, in which case we ought to go after the people who put it in place. One thing we do see is that SoundCloud has not accounted for enough possibilities, and someone should call them on that. What are they trying to do, promote a culture of extreme ownership? I think it's inadvertent, but in a way that's worse. They never questioned the implicit assumption that all sounds have owners. Should we ask someone for permission to breathe? Breathing does after all make noise which could be copyrighted.
I put my hopes in youth. They routinely trample all over copyright, and often in blissful ignorance. They're simply putting new devices to rather obvious uses that happen to violate a bunch of copyrights. When they get called on it, most are shocked, surprised, and disgusted. In short, they reject the rules because those rules seem stupid and pointless to them. The rules seem that way, because they are. They should seem that way to everyone, but the older generations don't really get it, and I suppose they never will.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Friday June 27 2014, @06:04PM
Abolishing copyright would have a severe negative impact on the creation of new quality content such as music, movies, books, etc. The artists, authors, et al would probably still be driven to be creative but no one is going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to record a high quality album, or to print copies of a new book. And we're talking millions of dollars for a movie.
Without any real hope for a profit no one is going to invest money to create content that others can simply sell in direct competition to the original creators. I'm not saying that copyright laws shouldn't be reformed, they absolutely need a major overhaul. But let's not look at copyright as a black or white issue. If we do it will ether be black, or white, which ever your preference is for an empty space devoid of quality content.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27 2014, @07:24PM
I say screw it all, if there is demand for a product, someone will find a way to make money off of it copyright or not, as it stands copyright and patents are a net negative for society and even worse, humanity.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday June 27 2014, @07:53PM
its not copyright thats the problem. given our economic system, [short] copyrights are needed. the real problem, which is so ingrained in society that people dont even notice it or realize something else might be possible, is the fact that you cant participate in society or really even live and be healthy without money. slave labor, sweat shops, child exploitation, etc, would never exist if not for being optimal solutions to the situation we've created and forced on everyone. the truly unfortunate part is that everyone is dead-set on continuing down this self-destructive, dead-end path instead of even trying to patch up any of its glaring flaws. society is sick; we need to stop focusing on the symptoms and start treating the actual sickness, but we cant do that until people actually realize there's truly something wrong with us.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Friday June 27 2014, @10:31PM
of course someone will, especially if they don't have to spend a dime to create it. If you have the option of selling it without any costs then of course you're going to make a profit. The company that made it? They can't compete with the $0 cost competition, and they won't want to invest their money. They'd be better off buying physical items and selling them for a profit. Even with competition they know that no one is getting those goods for free.
The current copyright system is a net negative, but no copyright laws at all will result in content & media that is worth exactly what it cost to make it.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 27 2014, @08:33PM
Yes! This is why we have a plethora of high quality music, movies, and books lately! Thank you, insanely selfish artists and the profit motive, for giving us the cultural paradise in which we live today!
(For the snark impaired, this is sarcasm. The main premise is false, you see? And you know you cannot avoid copyright violation by just renaming the zebra you copied as a "Horse with stripes"! Et tu quoque, Brute? )
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Friday June 27 2014, @10:26PM
The fact that most of the movies, music, books, etc produced today is utter shit (at least in my opinion) doesn't mean that a) other people aren't buying it, b) that it's not generating a profit, and c) that it didn't cost money to make and market.
What is your favorite movie? Favorite book? Band? Video game? If you could get all of your favorites for free would you have paid for them? What about the multitude of other things that didn't make the top of your list? Would you have spent money on those? Do you believe that any of them were made for free? Does anyone involved in their creation and distribution deserve to make a profit for investing the time, creativity and capital to create them up front?
Many movies, books, albums, games, etc, etc don't make a profit (and no, I'm not talking about "Hollywood accounting"). Who would take a chance on creating anything that requires a significant upfront investment when they know that others can simply copy it and sell it, or even give it away, without investing a dime?
Yes, yes most of today's pop culture is a waste of money (both the purchase and the creation thereof), so eliminating copyright would have prevented the pukefest that is popular with today's media buying population. But think back to the things that you like. In your opinion, were they worth making? Were they worth the investment the company that created them made? Did they deserve to make a profit from them?
This "we own it forever and we'll sue you for even mentioning its name without paying a royalty" shit needs to be burned at the stake. Do we really want to have to pay for the right to be able to say "Super Bowl"? Should Disney be able to glom a story they didn't even create and then own it for eternity? But some reasonable term copyright law needs to be in place if we want investors to take the gamble on the next <insert your favorite movie here>.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Friday June 27 2014, @09:41PM
Some of the greatest works of all time were produced when there was no concept of copyright at all.
No copyright gave us Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart as well as the complete works of Shakespeare. Copyright gave us Justin Bieber and "Dude, where's my car".
In practice, some very limited copyright might be beneficial, but what we have now has gone way past anything like a proper balance.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Friday June 27 2014, @09:59PM
Very, very true. But they all had financial backers or benefactors. They weren't working a day job and trying to knock out some work late at night.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 28 2014, @01:27AM
Sure, but the point is that the works did get produced all the same. You still need to have a wealthy patron to produce the grand majority of popular media. Even the youtubers depend on a wealthy patron providing the bandwidth. They couldn't likely afford it themselves.
Beyond youtube making a movie or recording an album generally requires getting backers on board.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Saturday June 28 2014, @02:21AM
The works did get produced ... how many years/decades/centuries ago? We live in a different time now. The world revolves around money ... and separating you from it.
We have strayed far from the original intent of copyrights and patents as defined in the Constitution. That is where we need to start in order to fix this mess.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday June 27 2014, @09:44PM
Funny how all sorts of restaurants manage to serve very similar food items in a highly competitive environment and yet still make money without each suing the other one over the rights to "steak au poivre".
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Friday June 27 2014, @10:02PM
They all have to invest their own money (or someone else's) for the location, equipment, staff and raw ingredients for the food ... and they cannot make a digital copy of another restaurant's meals.
(Score: 1) by bzipitidoo on Friday June 27 2014, @09:47PM
I disagree about the harm to artists and art. There are enough other ways to make money from art that abolishing copyright would not harm artists at all. Indeed, it would help. Big corporations could no longer strongarm artists into giving up their rights, as they have done so often in the past. And people still would invest millions in art and science. We already do so, through various forms of patronage. Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Humble Bundle, and the like are the future of art. No DRM. We may want to ease into it gradually, but fast or slow, it will come and it will be good for everyone, even the artists. Well, the only losers are the current content cartels. Good riddance to them, they won't be missed.
Imagine our public libraries going completely digital. They could store much more art and science, and having to disappoint patrons because all copies are checked out would be an unmissed relic of the days of paper copies. No more losses from damage to physical copies, no more returns, no more late fees. No more having to travel to the site, at great expense in fuel and time. And most of all, the art would be way, way more searchable. But we can't do it, because of copyright. Every time I see library shelves full of DVDs and CDs, I cringe at the thought of how costly it is to maintain a collection like that on such fragile, space wasting physical media, and swear that copyright must get out of the way of the digital library, or die.
Eventually, we will have multiple high quality public domain or copylefted recordings of every piece of classical music, and ultimately current music as well. It is just incredible the lengths that the music industry has gone to, to keep music out of the publics' hands. They've done this not out of respect for careful analysis that shows there is value in locking up our culture, but out of a gut feeling that hoarding art is the key to wealth and this despite all evidence to the contrary. They're not rational about it. Still can't get sheet music for a great deal of classical music that is definitely out of copyright. The industry keeps it in copyright by constantly revising the scores and letting old scores go out of print. Symphony orchestras have behaved ridiculously, trying to maintain a blockade on all recorded music. I've seen "no recording allowed" signs plastered all over their concert halls, as if that's going to stop anyone. Until fairly recently, every one of them has refused to release any recordings of theirs at all, fearing that if just one does so, people will suddenly not want to go to concerts any more. Why listen to your local orchestra play the 1812 Overture when you can just download a recording of it by a top orchestra like the New York Symphony? It was a foolish fear, and it was wrong. The public and wealthy philanthropists always have funded orchestras. Why are they so worried about income from recordings when it is concert tickets and philanthropy that provides the most? If anything they're denying themselves good advertising. But the wall is at last cracked, and some orchestras are offering free recordings of some of their playing, and also sites dedicated to the preservation of freely available sheet music have launched. They haven't quite embraced bittorrent, but at least some like the Minnesota Orchestra are now offering music from their own websites.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Friday June 27 2014, @10:10PM
I agree that there would be a huge benefit to the public if everything were free from copyright. So many digital books, music, movies, etc would be available for free. But getting people to invest in the creation of these works going forward would halt except for philanthropists.
The costs to create things will not go down, nor simply go away, if people can get everything they want for free. Do you think <insert name of your favorite movie here> ever would have been made without a studio paying for the production costs up front? Could they have pulled a Robert Rodriguez and created it for $6,000? Don't forget his 2nd movie cost a few million to make, and he only had the chance because his first movie made a profit.
The vast majority of people are not going to pay for something if they can get it for free. A movie studio that keeps spending millions on production & marketing costs that doesn't recoup its investment cannot make movies for long.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 27 2014, @11:06PM
Yes, and this would be a bad thing? I am disturbed by your lack of faith! I have to be, because if I said "I find your lack of faith disturbing", I would be accused of copyright violation. Or is it the other way around? Oh, snap, "Houston, we have a problem!" On noes, again?
The assumption that art is based on a profit motive, that it is an "industry" subject to the same neo-classical model of a market economy, is extremely doubtful. In fact, the argument could be made that copyright and the associated property rights in culture have had a net negative effect. Bad money drives out good, and shlock drives out real art. But that is not my point. The necessity of the profit motive is merely assumed, there is no evidence for the assumption, so it would be nice if you could provide some. Thank you.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Saturday June 28 2014, @12:07AM
Art? Art is not normally created with a profit motive. But we are not talking about art; we are talking about entertainment.
Here's some evidence of a profit motive for entertainment:
- News Corporation - owns 20th Century Fox [cnbc.com]
- The Walt Disney Company - owns Buena Vista, Walt Disney Studios and Miramax/Dimension Films [cnbc.com]
- Viacom - owns Paramount Pictures [cnbc.com]
- Sony - owns both Sony Pictures and MGM (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer) [cnbc.com]
- Time Warner - owns both Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema [cnbc.com]
- Comcast - owns NBC Universal which owns Universal Studios [cnbc.com]
You're disturbed by my lack of faith? What does faith have to do with entertainment or billion dollar multinational corporations?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 28 2014, @07:16AM
Again, point granted. But the original question remains: if all these producers of "entertainment" ceased production, because of loss of copyright protection, would this be a bad thing? Entertainment is, as the philosopher Aristotle said, a distraction from boredom. And boredom is the result on not having anything meaningful to do. So if all these people in the "entertainment industry" actually found something significant and meaningful (art) to do, we would not have to support them with the completely artificial construct or copyright law. Copyright is basically for prostitutes, oh, excuse me, I meant, entertainers.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Saturday June 28 2014, @09:26AM
Is your argument that the entertainment industry isn't necessary? That if it weren't for movies, tv, music, books, etc from being produced by companies who are in the business to produce them that people would be better off because they would be forced to find something meaningful to do?
OK, let's start with you: when was the last time you watched a movie that was not produced using only donated funds? Same for a TV show, book, and music - last time you consumed any of those items that were not produced using only donated funds? How often do you consume entertainment that was produced by companies who are in the business to produce it? When was the last time you watched a movie that produced using only donated funds? How about a TV show, book and music produced using only donated funds?
Why are investors (or in many cases speculators) in production companies prostitutes? Are all investors in all industries prostitutes? Is making a profit inherently bad? Is your disagreement with capitalism in general or only with copyrights, patents and trademarks?
Aristotle's views are nice, but not realistic in today's world. Sure, Utopia would be nice too but it's not realistic either. Try taking a step back from your "any and all copyrights, patents, trademarks and other legal protections for the creation, production and distribution of products is inherently evil" position for a moment and ask yourself "without some form of legal protections how much of today's technology and progress would never have been developed?"
(Score: 1) by bzipitidoo on Saturday June 28 2014, @03:57AM
That's the beauty of the Information Age. We can fund art in ways that were simply not possible in Mozart's time. Then, he had to rely on the nobility of those times competing in a "culture race", rather similar to the kinds of competition we engaged in during the Cold War-- the race into space, the attempt to cultivate the best chess players, that sort of stuff. Today, the public can pay for art efficiently through "efunding" so to speak. It's still early and rough. Like, I think Kickstarter rakes too high a percentage of the donations and gets away with that because there isn't enough competition. But I think the business model can work, and copyright will not be needed. There are also endorsements and advertising for a little extra.
Also have to take the reported costs of movie making with huge grains of salt. You know, Hollywood Accounting.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Saturday June 28 2014, @10:17AM
Yes, "funding" can get some creative projects produced. But ask yourself "how would that work?" Are you willing to pay for a movie before it's produced? The writers and producers would have to pitch the movie to the public and ask for money up front. One, two or three years later the movie would be released for free for download. No more movie theaters, unless you want a theater to be able to sell access to a movie they did not pay for. No more CD's, unless you want anyone to be able to resell a movie they did not pay for.
How many people will pay up front? Years up front for a movie? TV is a little different because of the shorter production cycle, but also because you'd have to donate every week (or weeks) to get a new episode that would come out a month (or months) later depending on how far in advance they would need to write the episode, secure additional performers, prepare sets, etc ... if/when they collected enough for the next episode. And how can you get actors to commit to a project that may or may not have funding to produce one episode, or a new episode?
What about books or music? Does an author or musician/band solicit money up front and then produce their work? How does an unknown artist generate financial interest in a sea of competition? Don't answer "marketing" because they'd need to solicit money for that as well.
Now, with all of these pre-paid forms of entertainment, how long are you willing to wait before declaring the solicitor a scam artist? If the movie hasn't been made yet after three years do you get your money back? What if they are still waiting for the actors who are willing to work for scale? What about a TV show? How long until it's considered lost money? What if an author has writers block? How long do you give them before you want your money back? A band didn't finish recording because they had a tour scheduled and won't be back in the studio for two years? They would have started sooner but it took them 6 months to raise enough to meet their funding goal. How can you get your money back if anyone of these projects has already spent it?
Let's not forget quality. Begging for money from the public for each movie/tv show/album produced is going to affect the quality. If a movie only collected $2 million then your special effects are going to be shit, your actors will be anyone who will work for scale, your locations will be garages and empty lots, your music will be songs that have already been recorded, etc. Ooh, and don't forget that I can solicit money and produce a sequel/prequel/spinoff of your movie without your permission. Will a handful of similar movies being made affect funding for all of them? What is to stop me from soliciting money for your idea? Your pitch isn't protected so I can go to moviefunding.org, put up a donation page and use your pitch - even your original presentation, name(s), etc - to raise money for "my" movie that may or may not be completed in three years.
Blah, blah, blah, blah ... imagine the wasted bits this horse could produce if given a week to think about this subject.
So yes, individual fundraising for each project can work and can produce more content with comparable quality results on a predictable schedule. So, how are you going to raise money for your marketing campaign to eliminate copyrights and encourage pre-paid media consumption? I hope it's via Kickstarter, et al, because I'm planning on using your pitch for the exact same thing.
(Score: 1) by bzipitidoo on Saturday June 28 2014, @02:55PM
There are and will be problems with patronage of course. Fraud is a potential problem with any activity in which money changes hands. But you have to look at the other side. How many problems does copyright have? And we know the answer: lots. Patronage doesn't have to be perfect, it only has to work better than copyright.
Movie theaters won't go away. Most of their profit is from selling overpriced popcorn and drinks to a captive audience that they insist is not allowed to bring snacks of their own. No more CDs would be a good thing.
I do want trade in data people did not pay for. I want piracy not just to be grudgingly accepted because its impossible to stop, I want piracy gladly embraced and recognized as a fundamental right and essential to civilization. Producers should want their works shared as widely as possible. And they should want to see them edited, modified and so forth.
How does an unknown artist generate interest, you ask? Well, we have the Internet. It can get the word out for practically zero cost. There will be and are online music and writing scenes.
As to your questions about up-front payment and lead times and that sort of thing, that's not the only way to fund works of art through patronage. We also can and do have prizes. I should like to see our systems for prizes and rewards greatly expanded and diversified. After a movie has shown a measure of merit and popularity, the makers would be awarded prize money. We'd have many different organizations applying different measures to determine which art is worthy of a prize.
I don't need to raise money to campaign to eliminate copyright. I think it will happen on its own. May take 50 years or more. Hope I live to see the day.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday June 30 2014, @07:02PM
One of My Dying Bride's more recent albums:
First I pirated it, so I could have it the day it was released.
Then my vinyl copy arrived a few days later.
Then they released a special edition with a couple bonus tracks, so I ordered that too on CD.
Then I was in a music shop and saw a "Guitar pack" special edition that included sheet music and picks and such, so I bought that one too.
Then I bought tickets for that tour, where I bought a T-Shirt and wall tapestry and got some of that stuff signed :)
Most of my favorite bands I've purchased every single album they've released since I started listening to them. Often a couple copies. Even though I've usually pirated the album by the time it arrives. Or I'll just buy the digital copy. Sometimes I'll even buy a digital copy twice if it's cheap enough -- easier to get it to my phone from Amazon, easier to get it to my computer from some others, if it's only $5 that's worth even just not having to fire up the FTP server on my phone...
What I WON'T pay for is anything released under an RIAA label. I generally avoid those entirely these days, but I've got a few in my collection from several years back. Sometimes I'll lose and re-pirate those.
I pay for indie movies and TV shows too when they're worth it. Paid a couple times for Pioneer One for example -- donation from myself, and a couple physical DVDs to give as gifts.
And I own six (somewhat overpriced) prints of some of Abby Martin's artwork. Sure, I could have just downloaded the images off her website and got them printed at Kinkos I guess. But I didn't buy it just to have the damn picture, I bought it to support her work!
People will pay for media if it's *worth* paying for. Most people *want* to support their favorite artists. It's only when those artists stop caring about their fans that those fans stop caring about the artists too.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Monday June 30 2014, @08:16PM
But will you pay up front, not knowing what you'll get? And will you pay up front for a band you've never heard of as they try to become someone's favorite band?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday July 01 2014, @12:47PM
Sure. I go see shows at local venues once or twice a month usually. There's always a cover charge (and yes, I know the band doesn't *always* get any of that, but I'm still paying for it) and occasionally -- if they're damn good and it's available -- I'll buy their album too. Of course, given that the cover charge is usually more than the price of the album, if they're good enough to get paid for the gig that's probably where they're actually making money.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday June 27 2014, @09:34PM
Unauthorized is actually correct. It has not been authorized, therefore it is unauthorized. Much like a car that has not been painted is unpainted.
It has not been authorized because there is nobody with any authority over it. Nobody has the power to authorize the reproduction. Fortunately, no authority is needed to reproduce the work. No permission was requested or granted.
The fact that calling it unauthorized seems strange shows just how deeply the idea that everything requires permission has become ingrained in our culture.
In fact, restricting copying is what requires authorization. When the holder of a copyright demands an extension, he is not demanding respect for a netural right, he is demanding a handout. He is the starving person who, upon you handing him a burger and fries, says "What? No steak? Give me a steak!".
I am not authorized to breath. I need no authorization. My continued breathing isn't due to some benevolent authority permitting it.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Saturday June 28 2014, @02:18PM
OK, so if something does not require authorization it is unauthorized? Your position is that anything that does not require authorization is in fact unauthorized?
Saying that it is unauthorized shows how poorly the blogger conveyed his position. Saying something that doesn't require authorization is unauthorized is what seems strange and his intended nuance will be lost on the general public. So if copyright is what requires authorization how can you claim unauthorized was the correct connotation for the blogger's use of the audio?
Stating that no one has authority over it, and that it doesn't require authorization, and yet it is unauthorized is exactly my point about clarity and conveying an accurate and understandable message to the masses.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 28 2014, @07:10PM
Perhaps not authorized might have been a little clearer. Honestly though, part of it is that few people seem to imagine unauthorized being perfectly fine. They somehow imagine things to either require specific authorization or having been pre-authorized by someone. Tghis is something that has no authorization whatsoever and requires none. It is literally in the state of not being authorized.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Ellis D. Tripp on Friday June 27 2014, @02:18PM
The actual statement from Jim Lovell on the mission was "Houston, we've had a problem...". This audio is undoubtedly in the public domain.
The quote from Tom Hanks in the movie "Apollo 13" was "Houston, we have a problem...". This is under copyright of Universal Studios. Now being a small snippet, it surely falls under Fair Use.
"Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!"--Edward Abbey
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27 2014, @02:39PM
http://www.thepublicdomain.org/ [thepublicdomain.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Friday June 27 2014, @03:36PM
The above post is a promotion for a book. But it lacks any ingress so it takes plenty of time to grasp what it's all about.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27 2014, @03:43PM
What the big-media copyright industry wants is for the public domain to cease to exist. For their own properties, it has (almost no book since 1930 has gone into the public domain). All properties owned by the copyright industry will effectively never be in the public domain (unless there is copyright reform to strip them of all-but-perpetual copyright).
That's great, but what they really want is for the public domain itself to cease to exist. They want all content to be owned by someone and to exist for the purposes of commercial profit. The very idea that someone could produce something that is in the public domain makes them uncomfortable, because some day culture could do an end-run around them and just quit buying their products. What they really want is for all content to be monetized so there's no such thing as a free, open culture. Then they'd finally be safe.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27 2014, @04:56PM
"some day culture could do an end-run around them and just quit buying their products."
That has already happened.
The advertising monetization model (ie. Google) is that everything should
be free as a eyeball honeypot. YOU are now the product.
And people have begun to expect that as the norm.
(Score: 1, Troll) by tathra on Friday June 27 2014, @07:23PM
you live in a capitalist society, what did you expect? anybody who doesn't feel the same way is, *ahem*, a "god damned commie socialist! if you nazis don't like it, take your damn hippy fascism and gtfo!"
when people preach about the Holy Free Market and Divinely-inspired Capitalism, this is what they're evangelizing. laws and regulations are supposed to limit this kind of stuff, but any time a follower of the capitalist dogma gets in a position of power, one of their top priorities is almost always getting rid of any and all protective laws and regulations, because heaven forbid there be something out there that can't be monetized and exploited - you included.
how can anybody even entertain the idea of living in a "free market society" without expecting people to do everything possible to monetize anything and everything? people accept it because its a natural consequence of capitalism, and for that matter so are cronyism and ogliarchy, since the system basically requires money to be power, and as the saying goes, "[money] corrupts".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by egcagrac0 on Friday June 27 2014, @07:09PM
Or, you could just get the sound clip from the horse's mouth. [nasa.gov] I seriously doubt that hosting site will even consider honoring a takedown request.
(For other fun sounds of theirs, see http://www.nasa.gov/connect/sounds/ [nasa.gov])