|
| From: | Johnny Merrill |
| Subject: | [libreplanet-discuss] How come word-slaves cannot think outside of the box? |
| Date: | Sun, 21 Feb 2016 06:43:58 -0800 |
They don't know they are word-slaves. Brainwashed with language and emotional grunting, they forgot they are born nature and are willing to die for culture.
All life wants to be honest. Word-slaves are honest to the wrong paradigm.
Send libreplanet-discuss mailing list submissions to
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
libreplanet-discuss-request@libreplanet.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
libreplanet-discuss-owner@libreplanet.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of libreplanet-discuss digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: DRM is a real problem (Andres Pacheco)
2. Re: DRM is a real problem (Fabio Pesari)
3. Re: Solving the prisoner's dilemma in crowdfunding (Aaron Wolf)
4. Re: DRM is a real problem (Adam Van Ymeren)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:25:16 +0000 (UTC)
From: Andres Pacheco <alps6085@yahoo.com>
To: "J.B. Nicholson" <jbn@forestfield.org>,
"libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org"
<libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org>
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] DRM is a real problem
Message-ID:
<1391786205.292011.1455989116728.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com">1391786205.292011.1455989116728.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Now we're getting somewhere!
"It would benefit the argument for copyright reform to
frame the debate in terms of how most media is licensed"
"...copyright is signed over to the label when the artist/band
signs a contract with the label"
So, if we know the answer, the whole thing seems to me an exercise in futility, a tautology, except as part of a concerted effort to build AMMUNITION for "FORKING THE SYSTEM.";-)
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 9:17 AM, J.B. Nicholson <jbn@forestfield.org> wrote:
Fabio Pesari wrote:
> While I appreciate Magnatune's offer, it is a cultural ghetto (you won't
> find The Smiths, Depeche Mode or Nick Drake there), just like Jamendo.
That strikes me as a matter of taste and siding with power; you won't find
Magnatune's artists or work on the more widely-advertised label releases
either. I find it more valuable to figure out what I like by listening to
the music for myself.
> I don't doubt there are good musicians releasing music on it, however
> most of those artists are necessarily derivative of influential nonfree
> music: for example, I can't imagine someone who makes progressive rock
> and isn't in any way influenced by Pink Floyd, Genesis or Yes.
I fail to understand what this has to do with the topic of discussion. This
reads to me as a digression which tries to subtly position more popular
artists as somehow better than less popular artists without acknowledging
how derivative artists in general are. I think a better discussion would
convey how derivation is at the heart of everything humans do, how the
popular label system is corrupt in that it over rewards the more popular
artists, and how assessing artist's worth is not valuable to this discussion.
> In short, especially if you are a musician, you will have a hard time
> connecting with other people with similar musical tastes if you only
> listen to music released on Magnatune.
Until you mentioned this twice (once above and once at the end of your
post), nobody said one had to or would "only listen to music released on
Magnatune". That is a false dichotomy. However you bring up a point which
(perhaps inadvertently) puts Magnatune in a better light -- unlike so many
of the more widely-advertised labels, Magnatune doesn't require exclusivity.
> DRM is not the problem, and fighting it is a complete waste of time in
> nearly all cases: people actually like services like Netflix and Spotify
> because they are cheap, and this will *never* change unless proprietary
> software is outright outlawed.
I don't know who you're replying to here, but it's not me. Your post you
made it seem like I wrote "Everyone has the right freely to participate in
the cultural life of the
community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its
benefits.". I did not write that and you didn't credit who did write that.
To respond to your point: DRM is a problem for me because I don't run the
nonfree software needed to get past the DRM in the manner proscribed by the
publisher. Laws prohibiting breaking DRM (even for personal use or fair use
purposes) are often part of copyright legislation. Therefore a lot of the
well-advertised distributors don't allow me to partake of their work
without accepting what could be malware. I find that tradeoff to be
completely unacceptable and I blame them for putting that potential malware
in my way nor do I buy any of the defenses about how unnamed copyright
holders might balk at having DRM-free distribution to paying customers.
> The real problem is copyright laws, because works in the public domain
> could be distributed DRM-free by everyone.
Copyright laws certainly are problematic but I think we can continue to
work on improving multiple issues simultaneously.
> An example of their unfairness: Miles Davis recorded his best tunes in
> the 1950s and he died in 1991, and copyright on his music in many
> countries lasts 70 years after his death (if it's not extended
> infinitely by the current holders, the record labels). That's 2061 at
> the very least, for music that is considered fundamental for our
> culture. How can that be fair?
I believe most popular label artist's copyrights aren't held by the artist,
I believe that copyright is signed over to the label when the artist/band
signs a contract with the label. Janis Ian is a notable exception; I
believe she bought the copyright to her recordings and now holds the
copyright on them. It would benefit the argument for copyright reform to
frame the debate in terms of how most media is licensed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.libreplanet.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/attachments/20160220/6e68aea4/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 20:59:47 +0100
From: Fabio Pesari <fabiop@gnu.org>
To: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] DRM is a real problem
Message-ID: <56C8C5B3.6000201@gnu.org">56C8C5B3.6000201@gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
On 02/20/2016 04:16 PM, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
>
> That strikes me as a matter of taste and siding with power; you won't find
> Magnatune's artists or work on the more widely-advertised label releases
> either. I find it more valuable to figure out what I like by listening to
> the music for myself.
I don't think it's a matter of taste or siding with power; it is
undeniable that some bands who created nonfree music have significantly
influenced the history of popular music.
Can you name a non-obscure pop (post 1930s) genre which hasn't been
invented by an artist playing nonfree music?
> I fail to understand what this has to do with the topic of discussion. This
> reads to me as a digression which tries to subtly position more popular
> artists as somehow better than less popular artists without acknowledging
> how derivative artists in general are. I think a better discussion would
> convey how derivation is at the heart of everything humans do, how the
> popular label system is corrupt in that it over rewards the more popular
> artists, and how assessing artist's worth is not valuable to this discussion.
I changed the topic exactly because it had little to do with the
previous discussion.
I was merely saying that opposing DRM might make sense when we are
talking about public stuff (libraries, schools, etc.) but when we're
talking about cultural stuff that belongs to someone else (like films
and music), it's useless because if you want to play their game, you
have to accept their rules, however unfair the might be.
> Until you mentioned this twice (once above and once at the end of your
> post), nobody said one had to or would "only listen to music released on
> Magnatune". That is a false dichotomy. However you bring up a point which
> (perhaps inadvertently) puts Magnatune in a better light -- unlike so many
> of the more widely-advertised labels, Magnatune doesn't require exclusivity.
Sure, it does not require exclusivity. Still, it costs money, and I feel
that money would be better spent on libre music. That's my personal
opinion, by the way!
> I don't know who you're replying to here, but it's not me. Your post you
> made it seem like I wrote "Everyone has the right freely to participate in
> the cultural life of the
> community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its
> benefits.". I did not write that and you didn't credit who did write that.
I said I was quoting Article 27.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, perhaps you missed it.
> To respond to your point: DRM is a problem for me because I don't run the
> nonfree software needed to get past the DRM in the manner proscribed by the
> publisher. Laws prohibiting breaking DRM (even for personal use or fair use
> purposes) are often part of copyright legislation. Therefore a lot of the
> well-advertised distributors don't allow me to partake of their work
> without accepting what could be malware. I find that tradeoff to be
> completely unacceptable and I blame them for putting that potential malware
> in my way nor do I buy any of the defenses about how unnamed copyright
> holders might balk at having DRM-free distribution to paying customers.
But this is where I see the issue:
> Therefore a lot of the well-advertised distributors don't allow me to
> partake of their work without accepting what could be malware. I find
> that tradeoff to be
Why should they? It's their stuff, and if they want to distribute it
using DRM, it's their right to do it. This is actually article 27.2 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which ironically is at odds
with article 27.1 in DRM's case!
> I believe most popular label artist's copyrights aren't held by the artist,
> I believe that copyright is signed over to the label when the artist/band
> signs a contract with the label. Janis Ian is a notable exception; I
> believe she bought the copyright to her recordings and now holds the
> copyright on them. It would benefit the argument for copyright reform to
> frame the debate in terms of how most media is licensed.
So, following the previous example, the copyright on Miles Davis tracks
could last _forever_. Isn't that a bigger problem than DRM, considering
that if they were in the public domain, they could be legally
distributed DRM-free?
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 12:30:32 -0800
From: Aaron Wolf <wolftune@riseup.net>
To: gmail gregor <podrzaj.gregor@gmail.com>
Cc: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Solving the prisoner's dilemma in
crowdfunding
Message-ID: <56C8CCE8.7010606@riseup.net">56C8CCE8.7010606@riseup.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
On 02/20/2016 02:31 AM, gmail gregor wrote:
> Hi Aaron,
>
> umm, firstly - i've been following libreplanet discussion group for a
> couple of years. Because i find the problematic it covers interesting
> (obviously). Still, this is my first letter.
>
> Just quickly went over snowdrift.coop and let me join in thanking you
> for the effort. Also for many posts, here on libreplanet.
>
> To the point: do you think that the snowdrift platform could be used,
> for buying the rights on all sort of (digitally published/released)
> works, then releasing them under public licences? (Via some mechanics
> say: each donor gets to put one item on the wish list then choose 3
> items (out of the same list) that he/she fancy liberating first.)
>
> Anyhow, all the best
> sincerely
> g
>
Thanks Gregor. The term for what you're talking about is "ransom" and it
is highly problematic to *encourage* people to publish non-free anything
with the goal of ransoming it.
More thoughts at:
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/status-quo-floss#ransom-systems
It's not impossible for Snowdrift.coop to expand to cover cases like
that in the long run. However, our focus for now and the foreseeable
future is on better supporting those actors who are already doing the
right thing and releasing their work freely but need more support.
We hope that if we can provide good support for FLO public goods, then
more people will see that it's possible to get by making FLO works and
they'll just choose to do so, and anyway the existing FLO stuff will be
that much better and there will be less need to ransom proprietary
things. Like all types of ransoming, we're happy when the thing is
freed, but we don't want to encourage people to keep hostages in the
first place.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:22:17 -0500
From: Adam Van Ymeren <adam.vany@gmail.com>
To: Fabio Pesari <fabiop@gnu.org>
Cc: Libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org>
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] DRM is a real problem
Message-ID:
<CAEJYOaVBb9e+M01icrpvh2Ude_=rTc7H+y=RQH9ZComjiS6Ymg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Fabio Pesari <fabiop@gnu.org> wrote:
> On 02/20/2016 04:16 PM, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
>>
>> That strikes me as a matter of taste and siding with power; you won't find
>> Magnatune's artists or work on the more widely-advertised label releases
>> either. I find it more valuable to figure out what I like by listening to
>> the music for myself.
>
> I don't think it's a matter of taste or siding with power; it is
> undeniable that some bands who created nonfree music have significantly
> influenced the history of popular music.
>
> Can you name a non-obscure pop (post 1930s) genre which hasn't been
> invented by an artist playing nonfree music?
>
>> I fail to understand what this has to do with the topic of discussion. This
>> reads to me as a digression which tries to subtly position more popular
>> artists as somehow better than less popular artists without acknowledging
>> how derivative artists in general are. I think a better discussion would
>> convey how derivation is at the heart of everything humans do, how the
>> popular label system is corrupt in that it over rewards the more popular
>> artists, and how assessing artist's worth is not valuable to this discussion.
>
> I changed the topic exactly because it had little to do with the
> previous discussion.
>
> I was merely saying that opposing DRM might make sense when we are
> talking about public stuff (libraries, schools, etc.) but when we're
> talking about cultural stuff that belongs to someone else (like films
> and music), it's useless because if you want to play their game, you
> have to accept their rules, however unfair the might be.
That's a pretty defeatist attitude, and doesn't mesh with reality that
almost every music download service is DRM free currently. Music is
starting to revert with streaming services, and video content is still
locked down pretty tight with netflix and blu-ray. But digital
downloads of music have been DRM free for a while, despite Microsoft
and others trying to push DRM with their .wma format.
>
>> Until you mentioned this twice (once above and once at the end of your
>> post), nobody said one had to or would "only listen to music released on
>> Magnatune". That is a false dichotomy. However you bring up a point which
>> (perhaps inadvertently) puts Magnatune in a better light -- unlike so many
>> of the more widely-advertised labels, Magnatune doesn't require exclusivity.
>
> Sure, it does not require exclusivity. Still, it costs money, and I feel
> that money would be better spent on libre music. That's my personal
> opinion, by the way!
>
>> I don't know who you're replying to here, but it's not me. Your post you
>> made it seem like I wrote "Everyone has the right freely to participate in
>> the cultural life of the
>> community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its
>> benefits.". I did not write that and you didn't credit who did write that.
>
> I said I was quoting Article 27.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human
> Rights, perhaps you missed it.
>
>> To respond to your point: DRM is a problem for me because I don't run the
>> nonfree software needed to get past the DRM in the manner proscribed by the
>> publisher. Laws prohibiting breaking DRM (even for personal use or fair use
>> purposes) are often part of copyright legislation. Therefore a lot of the
>> well-advertised distributors don't allow me to partake of their work
>> without accepting what could be malware. I find that tradeoff to be
>> completely unacceptable and I blame them for putting that potential malware
>> in my way nor do I buy any of the defenses about how unnamed copyright
>> holders might balk at having DRM-free distribution to paying customers.
>
> But this is where I see the issue:
>
>> Therefore a lot of the well-advertised distributors don't allow me to
>> partake of their work without accepting what could be malware. I find
>> that tradeoff to be
>
> Why should they? It's their stuff, and if they want to distribute it
> using DRM, it's their right to do it. This is actually article 27.2 of
> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which ironically is at odds
> with article 27.1 in DRM's case!
>
>> I believe most popular label artist's copyrights aren't held by the artist,
>> I believe that copyright is signed over to the label when the artist/band
>> signs a contract with the label. Janis Ian is a notable exception; I
>> believe she bought the copyright to her recordings and now holds the
>> copyright on them. It would benefit the argument for copyright reform to
>> frame the debate in terms of how most media is licensed.
>
> So, following the previous example, the copyright on Miles Davis tracks
> could last _forever_. Isn't that a bigger problem than DRM, considering
> that if they were in the public domain, they could be legally
> distributed DRM-free?
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
End of libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 72, Issue 44
***************************************************
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |