I have DRM working in Chromium :)


Letalis Sonus

Advanced Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
1,492
That'd be illegal (except in case the rightholders and you have reached some agreement to allow it).
Depends on the local laws. In Germany a copyright owner can't prevent cover versions (generally speaking, there are a few exceptions). If the original band (or their label) is a registered member of the GEMA (pretty much all big bands/labels that want license earnings from Germany are), you just have to register your cover version with the GEMA, the band itself is not even asked about it - unless your cover version introduces enough significant changes that it is a work that is copyright-worthy on its own, then the band has to give their approval.
 

netcat

Very Active Member
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
589
Location
city of thieves
But most importantly, why does it matter whether you would deserve it according to some arbitrary standard?

If I write my best pop song, it will probably never get airplay. If I do a gimmick cover of an already popular song it probably will get airplay. I would be leveraging Britney's efforts for my personal gain. I didn't go to all those dance classes, spend millions in the studio and on marketing, liposuction, etc. Cover versions are a definite way to make in-roads. I'm thinking about those early KLF / Timelords tracks. Licensing agreements in such cases seem reasonable, at least in theory.

I do not understand this. Do you mean protecting one's actual property?
Sorry I meant to say that many far away countries plagiarize rampantly across entire sectors, automotive, semiconductor, pop music. It's just a matter of time before BLACKPINK get their knickers sued off by the likes of Paula Abdul. BP's plagiarism (among other things) makes me sick.

Well [copyright] theoretically prevents you [from playing a song on piano at home], yes.
Oh no. So pianos are commonly vehicles for copyright violation. Just like Napster. Let's ban pianos.
 

λ the β-Redex Reducer

β-Redex Reducing Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
1,216
Age
51
Location
Lambda Centre
I would be leveraging Britney's efforts for my personal gain. I didn't go to all those dance classes, spend millions in the studio and on marketing, liposuction, etc. Cover versions are a definite way to make in-roads. I'm thinking about those early KLF / Timelords tracks.
So what is the problem? Who is the victim? Britney, who got all the fame that she worked for? What is it to her if her work does more good than she intended? She did nothing to create the plants, the sun, the air, or life itself. Yet she accepts all of it. We are all privileged. If you want to be consistent with the ideology that people may not have more good than they work for, then you need to refuse life itself.

Britney needs the public to use their own resources (e.g. minds, CDs, etc) to create their own copies of her music. Because if they do not, then they have no reason to give her the fame that she wants. But that does not make her owner of those people's minds or property. She does not partly own the public just because they used their resources to do what she needed and wanted them to do.
E.g. if some Mozart-like person hears her songs on the radio, then she wanted him to have the song in his mind and willingly allowed him to create a memory of the song in his mind. So the memory of her song in his mind would be rightfully his. And it literally would be part of his brain. If he had full bodily autonomy and property rights then he would be allowed to use his skills and memory to get famous off of his memory of the song. Only if we allow Britney partly ownership of his brain so that she can partly decide how he uses his skills and memories can we have copyright laws in this case. Because only then she can forbid him from using the memories that she wanted him to create and that are part of his brain to get famous.

Also relevant here is that people do not always deserve certain things just because they worked for it. If I work hard to make a statue of myself out of my poop so that you can see it and pay me for it, would I be entitled to your money just because I worked hard for it? No matter how hard Britney worked for it, we are not entitled to give her anything. Not ownership of our minds, resources, and skills; and not even fame. If someone works hard for a business model that is not viable then he just made a mistake and no one else ought to have to give up his rights for that mistake.

Sorry I meant to say that many far away countries plagiarize rampantly across entire sectors, automotive, semiconductor, pop music. It's just a matter of time before BLACKPINK get their knickers sued off by the likes of Paula Abdul. BP's plagiarism (among other things) makes me sick.
Plagiarism is completely seperate from intellectual monopoly. Plagiarism is about deceitfully taking credit for things that one did not really do. Intellectual monopolies are about forbidding people to use their own property or skills based on what abstract concepts those skills or that property enbodies. One can violate any of those 2 without violating the other. I never thought much about plagiarism, but my gut reaction is to dislike it; same as most people.
 

Djoga'Ro

moonstruck
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
2,119
It's enough for me to get annoyed by the "freedom" zealots out there.
Those are no zealots. They are just annoyed by watching society's continual insistence on driving the car with triangular wheels, though round wheels had already been suggested.
 

Letalis Sonus

Advanced Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
1,492
They are just annoyed by watching society's continual insistence on driving the car with triangular wheels, though round wheels had already been suggested.
...until they realize that all roads were constructed with a profile that allows a smooth transition with triangular wheels, turning their nice trip with round wheels into a bumpy ride of hell. But hey, it's more efficient!
 

netcat

Very Active Member
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
589
Location
city of thieves
I just re-read early posts mentioning redistribution of wealth. Hell. No.

There is nothing more unfair than treating unequal people equally.
 

Letalis Sonus

Advanced Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
1,492
Man you guys just keep going...
Don't mind us. As the Germans would say: we're just providing a cue with a fence pole to the moderators.

We've already reached a trainwreck a few pages back, might as well scavenge it for scrap and fun activities.
 
Last edited:

Djoga'Ro

moonstruck
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Messages
2,119
I just re-read early posts mentioning redistribution of wealth. Hell. No.

There is nothing more unfair than treating unequal people equally.
Yeah, the current distribution of wealth has "fair" written all over it.
 

λ the β-Redex Reducer

β-Redex Reducing Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
1,216
Age
51
Location
Lambda Centre
That's not necessarily an argument for the feature.
If Chrome has it then that is almost an argument against the feature.

Yeah, the current distribution of wealth has "fair" written all over it.
It is unfair because our currency system is a scam, it is a Ponzi scheme. Hidden Secrets of Money is a good series to get introduced to it. Especially episode 4 is really good. The banking system is yet another reason why we have little freedom.
 

Confuzzled

Very Active Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
140
INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE
Bah. Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphised.

Oh, sorry, this isn't the Bad Joke thread.

But the point is, unless there is such a thing as sentient information*, information just is. Any meaning or even feeling we ascribe to information is simply a human construct. Revealing this explicitly by saying:

I WANT INFORMATION TO BE FREE

shows that the debate is down to different people wanting different things.

Personally, I would like creators to be paid fairly for their work, and for entities with only legal personhood (such as companies) to be unable to own or hire/lease copyrights. Unregistered copyrights should have a duration of 14* years, registered copyrights indefinite duration so long as a fee is paid to the copyright registry every year which doubles each year, starting at the local equivalent of 1 SDR. Upon lapse the work immediately enters the public domain. Registration to include deposit of a non-DRMed copy which is released to the public domain on expiry of the copyright. The copyright archive of non-DRMed works is funded by copyright registration fees.


*And I'm not saying there can't be, but I am not aware of it.
**Exact number negotiable, but should be somewhere within a 10-year range centred on 14 for good economic reasons.
 

levi

Still fresh, damnit!
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,002
Location
Somewhere off the coast of the EU
Any meaning or even feeling we ascribe to information is simply a human construct. Revealing this explicitly by saying:

I WANT INFORMATION TO BE FREE

shows that the debate is down to different people wanting different things.
I blame free software advocates who frequently claim their freedom is an in speech, not as in beer. Software is code, and code is just specially syntactic information.

I'd guess the key thing that makes that code free is it's availability in original form. I'm not convinced all of my data wants to be that available, and at the same time I'm not too concerned whether I transcode a flac file to mp3 for listening on a closed device, or crop a video to remove black bars. Maybe I don't care about data freedom all that much, or maybe I just have a higher level conception about what the data actually is.
 
Top