I want to know what the military plans on doing with Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc, since they have sent so many probes to those places via NASA.
Clearly, all of that civilian research is a front.
3 Likes
How do you justify anything on moral grounds? Can you justify freedom of speech on moral grounds? And can you justify any limits on that freedom on moral grounds?
I donât believe laws have much of anything to do with moralityânor do I believe they should, which is why my comment on the moral rights of authors was a small tack-on to my main point. But I do understand that some legal systems believe that authors have moral rights, and I also understand that many people sympathize with the ability of authors to control how their works are used (from the Goldiblock kefuffle to the use of songs in political campaigns to Saving Mr Banks). And the moral rights argument isnât about preventing harm but about the authorâs right to choose how her works are used. Arguably an author has a stake in her work that a consumer/viewer/reader simply doesnât, which would make her moral objections to how her work is used greater than your objections to her control of her work (similar to how the owner of a car gets to paint it match her aesthetic sensibilities, and not yours).[quote=âGlyphGryph, post:84, topic:31696â]
Just because you can list examples of things that are questionably harm is not an argument that copyright accomplishes any sort of harm prevention. Where the line is drawn on an unrelated issue (revealing private affairs, presumably attempting to deceive audiences in such a way as to harm a third parties reputation) doesnât really⌠have anything to do with copyright?
[/quote]
So the âinherent righ[t]â of freedom of speech disappears in the face of âunrelatedâ things like invasion of privacy or deception (but not in the face of objectionable and unwanted remixes)? Thatâs interesting.
Iâm curious about the logic of the one-year license. Will leaving the song up hurt Bowieâs (more likely the labelâs) royalties on this 45 year old song? Maybe the label would rather kill the song slowly, than introduce it to a new generation.
Maybe itâs security through obscurity. They canât pirate what you never let them hear.
I guess the logic is, âIf we canât sell it, then it shouldnât be out there at all.â
Seemâs to me like somebody is shooting themselves in the foot.
2 Likes
letâs say a person creates a piece of art that is so far ahead of his time no one sees it, understands it, attends to it.
75 years later, as a result of tech/other developments, and cultural evolution, his prescient work suddenly makes him a genius. some punk with talent but no ideas âre-interpretsâ the original work and makes a fortune.
how is that fair to the creator? it canât be based on âhas had an opportunity to profit from there workâ (sic) as the parameters around that statement are determined by other factors - some of which we canât even know yet.
âWhen youâre one step ahead crowd youâre genius When youâre two steps ahead youâre crackpotâ âRabbi Shlomo Riskin - crackpots deserve their due.
Firstly, that person will probably be dead by then and if they arenât, they probably wonât be the IP holders by that point anyway. Secondly, if you look at artists from a few decades ago that we see as geniuses, many were also âpunks with talent but no ideasâ who remixed prior work much more freely than people can now. Even the probably long-dead artistâs family will benefit if their works are copied, as the remix will open up their work to a new generation. Which is a nice gesture, especially if they were ignored geniuses who have gone completely unnoticed up to this point.
3 Likes
Not as good as the originalâŚ
Suddenly I feel the chill inhalation of oblivion.
3 Likes
The only way Poseyâs argument is comparable is if Hadfield changed his name to David Boowie and covered all his songs.
2 Likes
Firstly, you assume that IP law will never change - thatâs short sighted. The onus is on us to evolve the laws of the land (or of space, in this case). That they âare probably deadâ is a fools argument. Buddy Holly died within days of creating great work. âTime passingâ cannot be the rule, nor can âdeathâ - what if humans one day live to be 200 years old?
Secondly, looking to the past canât work, as the methods of recording data (ie. the ownership of the concept in question) have changed. A folk song that was created by some guy around a fire that has since ben made famous by a 60s folk artist is not comparable to a video tape that has been saved by the âcloudâ of data and remembered for all time that Bowie wrote that song. 1840âs Horace Willoughsby the folk song writer has been relegated to the past. 1970âs David Bowie has been relegated to the zeitgeist of his generation and his work is documented as such, and that knowledge is secured by new technology, potentially forever.
Disclaimer - in 2002, I sampled a piece of someone elseâs corporate block-buster art and re-purposed it into a new idea. An idea that was never done before or since. Iâm not against using things from culture to create more culture. Iâm saying the rules are not complex enough to deal with all permutations of what âcouldâ transpire. A âcoverâ is just that, someone elseâs work, covered.
cory, paul anka wrote my way not frank sinatra!
a very informed article about the copyright issues for this performance is available at the economist.
Are you saying weâd be better off without the work being brought back to life and made popular by this âpunk with talent but no ideasâ? That youâd prefer the creativity and ideas simply die or languish?
Who does that benefit?
Of course it can be based around âhad an opportunityâ. Because that is what it has been based around. There have even been some good proposals on how long that opportunity should last and how long an artist should be able to extend it posted here on BoingBoing.
That the original artist failed to find benefit from that opportunity doesnât mean the opportunity didnât exist. It IS to our benefit to let someone else take over if the original artist isnât going to make those ideas valuable. Execution matters, it matters significantly more than ideas, and if the original artist done screwed-up (if his goal was immediate financial reward, he clearly did, if it takes 75 years for anyone to care) no matter how you look at it, and that we as a society manage to later extract significant value from those ideas is a good thing.
And preventing those ideas from being re-purposed is bad.
Also, you keep saying things like âcanâtâ, and Iâm not sure that word means what you think it meansâŚ
Time passing" cannot be the rule, nor can âdeathâ
Both of these ARE and HAVE been the rule, so clearly they can be. Heck, we can even go traditional and do âwhatevercomes firstâ.
looking to the past canât work
It can work just fine so long as restrictive copyright doesnât prevent it
1840âs Horace Willoughsby the folk song writer has been relegated to the
past. 1970âs David Bowie has been relegated to the zeitgeist of his
generation and his work is documented as such, and that knowledge is
secured by new technology, potentially forever.
Thatâs a lot of words to say ârelegated to the pastâ twice. How does better documentation change anything beyond the fact that you seem to believe the later should have more rights to rip off the former than future generations should have to rip off him?
Edit: Argh, fuck you discourse. Let me fix my goddamn post.
1 Like
I donât see any claim of who wrote My Way. Just that Sid Vicious was able do record a cover version of it. And Paul Anka did an entire album of cover songs called Rock Swings.
NASA messed up when they didnât trademark the term âGround ControlââŚ
The common problem in both situations is rich people. The solution should be obvious.
Eat the rich!
A knife and a fork and a bottle with a cork -
Thatâs the way to free New York
He should have covered Flight of the Conchordsâ âBowieâs in Spaceâ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8f_XCH3zmM
This is very weird! Bowie was the one that got me the link to see it (Bowieâs twitter feed)
DavidBowieReal status 333717231236173824
Yes, the Gemini launches did use Titan II rockets developed by Martin for the USAF. It is kind of peripheral since NASA didnât contribute to the development of the Titan II as anything but a launch vehicle for civilian missions.
Itâs also true that the DoD wanted to use the STS. In addition to the research sharing Iâd mentioned, there also was some overlap of resource sharing. Some STS missions actually did deliver DoD payloads. NASA has a slightly more complex relationship with the DoD than my original comments, I was perhaps slightly overreacting to ludicrous claims, and didnât want to keep diluting things with qualifications. The STS wasnât technically military technology, but a launch vehicle that could be used as a resource by both civilian and DoD space programs (though there were very few DoD missions).
Because the DoD did want to use the shuttle for missions they increased the payload size to something greater than would have been necessary for civilian missions, and compromised on some other aspects of design to allow a stealthier single orbit takeoff/landing (that was never used).
1 Like
My current idea is to simply declare that the rich have won, make them a new aristocracy, and promise to make them their gourmet food and gold plated helicopters (okay I think thatâs just Trump) in exchange for them not screwing with the real economy anymore.
