2 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZlmao, some of your domesticated mods edited my reply, funny 😉
[/i]Interestingly I'm not the one throwing about insults in this thread. Are you perhaps making up for some perceived inadequacy you see in your self? Maybe you are the bullied, parent-abused, closet-gay nerd and by instead calling others this you hope to achieve normality within your own mind.
And by kiddo are you attempting to belittle me so you can tal for me.
You would likely make an interesting case study into internet tough guy complexes.
I will make it "un-modable" (although it had nothing offensive before):
You are the one who says "I don't like any of you" so you are the ones
with problems, kiddo, not me, hehe
Superiority complex comes from inferiority complex. More clear?
So tell me: How's your social life, boy? 😉
Originally posted by SeitseThis is why I'm all for open source and the copyleft philosophy. Because all
18 min documentary for FREE. Please watch it. Interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac
that copyrights do is limit the possibility for creativity or you have to bend
the rules a little because it's really, really hard to actually come up with
anything truly new and still meaningful. Most human inventions and cultural
achievements directly build on previous surrounding influences. Like that
judge Alex says: "culture is impossible without a rich public domain.
Nothing today, like nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new."
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenThis is a bit of a contradiction. The open source/copy left license that is the most well known is, of course, the GPL or GNU Public License.
This is why I'm all for open source and the copyleft philosophy. Because all
that copyrights do is limit the possibility for creativity or you have to bend
the rules a little because it's really, really hard to actually come up with
anything truly new and still meaningful. Most human inventions and cultural
achievements directly build on previous sur ich public domain.
Nothing today, like nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new."[/i]
The only reason the GPL license has any validity at all is because of copyright law. In a nutshell, the GPL says that software falls under the umbrella of copyright law and copyright law doesn't allow you to to copy or re-distribute the software. Therefore, the only rights you have are those specified in the license if you agree to the terms.
This is what makes the GPL clever in my view. It even says you don't have to agree to the license if you don't want to but that nothing else gives you the right to re-distribute it and so the very act of re-distributing or copying the software is only legal if you have, in fact, agreed to the terms of the GPL.
Originally posted by WheelyUnfortunately, we live in societies where if you come up with something even
This is a bit of a contradiction. The open source/copy left license that is the most well known is, of course, the GPL or GNU Public License.
The only reason the GPL license has any validity at all is because of copyright law. In a nutshell, the GPL says that software falls under the umbrella of copyright law and copyright law doesn't allow you to to cop ...[text shortened]... g or copying the software is only legal if you have, in fact, agreed to the terms of the GPL.
remotely new and you don't take a copyright yourself, someone else can do
it and then forbid you to use your own invention/idea (or make it very hard
and expensive for you if you do). The GPL uses the copyright laws to make
sure that anyone, anywhere can use the sources under protection as long as
they redistribute it as open source and give credit where credit is due. I think
that's only fair enough, and it makes perfect sense when seen in the light of
how the copyright laws otherwise works.
Originally posted by stockenIs that what people call free enterprise?
Unfortunately, we live in societies where if you come up with something even
remotely new and you don't take a copyright yourself, someone else can do
it and then forbid you to use your own invention/idea (or make it very hard
and expensive for you if you do).
Imagine taking a herb from another continent, copyrighting it, and selling it back to the people living where it originally came from, while forbidding them to produce it. It could make you very rich.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageCan't copyright or patent something that is already in the public domain.
Is that what people call free enterprise?
Imagine taking a herb from another continent, copyrighting it, and selling it back to the people living where it originally came from, while forbidding them to produce it. It could make you very rich.
Originally posted by stockenAgree with what you are saying in principle it's just that in the context of this thread then there could be no GPL without copyright law.
Unfortunately, we live in societies where if you come up with something even
remotely new and you don't take a copyright yourself, someone else can do
it and then forbid you to use your own invention/idea (or make it very hard
and expensive for you if you do). The GPL uses the copyright laws to make
sure that anyone, anywhere can use the sources unde ...[text shortened]... and it makes perfect sense when seen in the light of
how the copyright laws otherwise works.
I personally believe that copyright law is OK as it is basically protection for artistic expression and is reasonably sensible. It is patent law that has gone mad.
Originally posted by WajomaYou also can't copyright something you didn't produce. You can't copyright a herb or even, I believe, a recipe containing that herb (though you might be able to patent it). You can, however, copyright the piece of paper you wrote the recipe down on.
Can't copyright or patent something that is already in the public domain.
Originally posted by stockenActually, in many countries copyright protection is automatically granted to the author of an original work. However, it is true that you can run into diffuculties if you do not register your copyright.
Unfortunately, we live in societies where if you come up with something even
remotely new and you don't take a copyright yourself, someone else can do
it and then forbid you to use your own invention/idea (or make it very hard
and expensive for you if you do).
If someone else were to see/hear your original work and register copyright in it as their own, that would be fraudulent. Fraudsters cause problems in many areas besides copyright.
Well I know of two cases that effected me. One, a buddy of mine, Mark Simos, a musical prodigy when he was young and a genuine american treasure now, wrote this tune "Dixon's Folly', a nice tune with some good chord changes. So I am in the middle of writing about 25 of my own tunes and thought I would like to record his tune (one of hundreds I might add) on my own cd. So I calls him up and we had a nice talk on copyrights and I found out he was already booked by BMI and ASCAP. I asked him personally for permission to record the tune but he said its not up to him, I have to contact BMI, etc. So I did but got no reply, I just write my own tunes, record them with my own digital studio, stamp them out with my own equipment for sale when we do local gigs, no big money involved. So as of this time I don't even know how much it would cost to record that tune. So it is not on my CD.
The second issue is with a song called "Over the garden Wall" which I heard on a John McCutcheon album. He credited it to the Carter family, a US band in the 1930's. So I checked it out and found a book written in 1905 called Songs of the Heart, a compilation of beloved songs submitted in a contest, some 20,000 songs submited and a few hundred put in the book. So so one of the songs happened to be
Over the Garden Wall, and in that book was attributed to somebody named Fox, in 1885.
So what happened is in the 1930's as the Carter Family was getting
poplular, they copyrighted everything in site and now that song which was written over 100 years ago is now firmly under the control of the decendants of the original Carter's who are all dead now. I don't know how the authorities can allow such crap, it deadens the ability to spread old songs and hinders me directly from recording a good tune that will probably never get recorded now that Mark is kind of big business in music now. It sucks big time.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is common for two or more different artists to each have certain rights in recordings of their own performances of the same song. It may be that the Carter Family covered the song, and that's the version McCutcheon knew.
The second issue is with a song called "Over the garden Wall" which I heard on a John McCutcheon album. He credited it to the Carter family, a US band in the 1930's. So I checked it out and found a book written in 1905 called Songs of the Heart, a compilation of beloved songs submitted in a contest, some 20,000 songs submited and a few hundred put in the bo ...[text shortened]... never get recorded now that Mark is kind of big business in music now. It sucks big time.
Originally posted by richjohnsonSure they covered it, but leaving out a couple of verses does not give them the right to copyright the thing and call it their own. The original had two more verses that made it clear it was a funny song but leaving out two verses turned it into a sweet little love song. It would be like taking two chapters out of Midsummernights dream and bolting the leftovers together and calling it a new work. That should not be legal.
It is common for two or more different artists to each have certain rights in recordings of their own performances of the same song. It may be that the Carter Family covered the song, and that's the version McCutcheon knew.