Ma chi l'ha detto che la politica non ha bisogno di ideologie? Sicuramente, una sinistra dalle pulsioni suicide. Perché a destra, invece, la voglia di dominare nel mercato delle idee è così forte che quando dalla propria parte non si trovano pensieri all'altezza si va a cercarli dall'altra. Tutto è lecito pur di costruire l'egemonia, con buona pace dei nipoti di Gramsci che ancora credono alla favola della società post-ideologica.

Prendete Nicolas Sarkozy. Che ha fatto quando ha deciso di affrontare la questione della "pirateria" via internet? Semplice: ha guardato a manca. Siccome in casa gollista scarseggiavano proposte in materia, ha dato un'occhiata negli appartamenti socialisti. E non è rimasto deluso. Le suggestioni che potevano fare di lui l'eroe della legalità digitale e il salvatore della cultura francese minacciata dalla rete erano lì, nella persona di Denis Olivennes.

47 anni, parigino, progressista dichiarato, già numero uno di Canal + e boss di Fnac, Olivennes ha tutte le caratteristiche del caso. Pur giovane, è un manager di valore (anche Air France nel curriculum) con tanto di esperienze nei palazzi ministeriali (Corte dei conti e ministero delle Finanze). Conosce i meccanismi della società dei consumi e le alchimie della burocrazia. Ma soprattutto porta con sé una dote preziosa: le idee. Tante e brillanti. Sulla storia e la genesi della democrazia culturale, sul mercato digitale, sull'impatto di internet in quei settori, sui rapporti tra signori dell'intrattenimento, colossi delle telecomunicazioni e demiurghi dei gadget. L'ideale per fare da cornice a una legge.

Le riflessioni, fra l'altro, sono sistematizzate in un pamphlet diventato caso letterario. Un titolo, un programma: La gratuità è un furto. Quando la pirateria uccide la cultura. Da una parte, Tocqueville e Hannah Arendt usati contro la Scuola di Francoforte per dimostrare che la cultura di massa con la sua preferenza per ciò che è standard e consumistico è, hegelianamente, insita nello spirito dell'homo democraticus: chi la critica è dunque fuori dalla storia. Dall'altra, diversità culturale e orgoglio transalpino impiegati per denunciare la «Santa alleanza» tra ultraliberisti e anticapitalisti che alimentano il culto della gratuità di internet minacciando così i fondamenti dell'industria della cultura.

L'abile mix sembra fatto apposta per piacere a Sarkozy che vuole l'autore a capo della commissione incaricata di individuare soluzioni al problema. «Lavorare nel business culturale – dice oggi Olivennes – non è solo una questione di affari, ma offre la possibilità di trasformare il mondo». E infatti il rapporto della Commissione costituisce la base del disegno di legge varato il 18 giugno.

Dal Tocqueville alla legge passando per la Commissione, l'operazione in tre atti è riuscita. E Olivennes - nel frattempo diventato direttore del settimanale Nouvel Observateur - si gode la popolarità conquistata. Due settimane fa l'Associazione italiana degli editori (Aie) lo ha invitato a un convegno a Roma sperando che la sua presenza aiuti l'Italia digitale a seguire la via francese. Il rappresentante della Siae, in deliquio, ha proposto di regalare copie del suo libro ai parlamentari del Belpaese. Quello dei discografici si è detto favorevole alla soluzione da lui ideata. E pazienza se Denis invoca da tempo la riduzione della durata del diritto d'autore giudicandola «incredibilmente lunga». E se è convinto che «l'industria musicale ha fatto troppi errori perché concentrata sui profitti a breve termine». Sono dettagli di fronte alla crisi di un settore che da dieci anni vede i suoi margini implacabilmente erosi e nella dottrina Sarkozy-Olivennes ripone le residue speranze di sopravvivenza.

E allora meglio non dire a questi signori che, sulla base dei principi esposti nel pamphlet di Olivennes, la rivoluzione gratuita di internet potrebbe essere il compimento finale dell'evoluzione della cultura di massa. Che, seguendo le idee hegeliane esposte nel libro, è meglio mettersi il cuore in pace: l'uomo democratico del terzo millennio non vuole pagare per i prodotti culturali, si accontenta di ascoltare musica in formati a bassa qualità e vedere film su schermi di pochi pollici.

Ed è meglio tacere che il loro ideologo di riferimento è ben consapevole di questo fatto. «La legge sarà in grado di fermare la pirateria? Assolutamente no – dice – forse sposterà il 10 % del mercato illegale nel mercato legale».

(Questo articolo è apparso originariamente su Chips&Salsa del 7 luglio 2008, pubblicato all'interno di Alias, supplemento culturale de il manifesto)

]]> http://oclcyc.wordpress.com/?p=1568 Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:52:21 +0000 Jope http://oclcyc.wordpress.com/?p=1568 Google conmemora hoy el aniversario del nacimiento del pintor Marc Chagall. Para ello cambian su logo completamente, no dejando ni una letra del original:

Eso si, dejan muy claro que las imagenes tienen todas copyright y que están usadas con permiso. Será para no repetir el episodio del año 2006 con el logo de Joan Miró... :)

Blogalaxia Tags: Google Doodle Logo Marc Chagall Pintor Painter Miro Copyright Spain España
Technorati Tags: Google, Doodle, Logo, Marc, Chagall, Pintor, Painter, Miro, Copyright, Spain, España

Viacom chiedeva di conoscere i nominativi degli utenti, il numero, l'indirizzo IP, il tempo di connessione e i video visti e caricati da tutti gli utenti di YouTube, al fine di provare le proprie accuse, chiedendo a Google una cifra semplicemente incredibile: un miliardo di dollari.

La gigantesca causa trascinatasi per mesi davanti ai tribunali americani in modo abbastanza silenzioso ha alla base delle implicazioni pesantissime, perché potrebbe costituirsi un precedente sul quale si innesterebbero le richieste di risarcimento di svariati altri gruppi e società. La Viacom sembra impassibile di fronte alle richieste di accordo dei legali di YouTube e Google, mentre le due società sono impegnate a dimostrare di essere seriamente in grado di ripristinare l'ordine e la tutela del copyright implementando un sistema di filtri e avvisi ai propri utenti per la salvaguardia dei diritti d’autore dei legittimi detentori.

E se Viacom, come riferisce 'Repubblica.it' si è vista rifiutare la possibilità di “conoscere il codice sorgente alla base di YouTube, per poter verificare se il sistema sia o meno in grado di riconoscere i contenuti coperti dal diritto d'autore”, Google e YouTube sono costrette dalla decisione della corte di Manhattan a consegnare i dati di tutti i propri utenti (compresi di quelli italiani).

I portavoce di Viacom si sono affrettati a emettere un comunicato che precisa: “Ogni informazione verrà trattata in via del tutto riservata, al solo scopo di provare le nostre accuse contro Google”.

Marco Pancini, responsabile dei rapporti con le istituzioni di Google Italia, interrogato da Repubblica ha affermato:
“Siamo in disaccordo e delusi per la decisione della Corte di accettare la richiesta di Viacom - dichiara Marco Pancini di Google European Policy Counsel - di accedere alle informazioni relative alla cronologia di ricerca dei video oggetto della causa". Pancini prosegue chiarendo che verrà richiesto a Viacom di "rispettare la privacy degli utenti e quindi di permetterci di rendere anonime le informazioni contenute nei server log, prima di consegnarle alla Corte”.

[via: repubblica.it || punto-informatico.it]

Bittorrent. Not familliar with it ? Keep reading!

It ain't really important to tell you who made Bittorrent, only telling you how this works.
That's right! A step-by-step guide.
Don't  expect any rocket science here. This is just going to be the basic and is just a beginning, so I plan to update this as I go along.

First of all I am stating that to copy films / files/ programs/ software without the owners permission is illegal!! Do not do it. Any information that follows is purely educational.
Downloading Torrents is NOT ILLEGAL as long as you are not infringing copyright.

With the advent of broadband technologies such as DSL and cable modems, the everyday user suddenly has a big chunk of bandwidth, not only for download, but also upload. Sharing files directly from your computer (without first sending them to a server) is now a reality. This is where p2p comes in. The acronym p2p stands for peer-to-peer, which basically means client to client. That is, you download files from people like you instead of from big servers, and in turn they download files from you. You share your files, your friends share their files, and everyone talks directly to each other.
The problem with most P2P networks is that many people just don't like to share. They open up their program, download their files, then close the program before they can help anyone else. It's called leeching. BitTorrent is a P2P file swarming application. This means that as soon as you have downloaded a few chunks of a file it will start uploading it to others, thereby spreading the file better. This makes it easier to get the file from many different people at once, thereby increasing the probably that you'll get a good download speed. This means that the more you upload, the faster you'll download.

Things you should know

• Leecher: That’s the guys that don’t have the complete file.
• Seeder: Those that now have the entire file, 100%, and therefore only function to upload to those      that  haven’t got the whole thing yet.
• Peers: All users connected to the same torrent. The more peers, the greater the speeds, providing there are enough seeders.
• Tracker: The centre when you start up the torrent. In short - it connects you to other users and is also the thing that sends you messages to your client.

How to do this ???

1 - Install a Bit Torrent Client

Before you start downloading games, movies etc, you’ll need to install a Bit torrent client. There a numerous clients available all with different features and options. Some people claim certain torrent clients provide faster download speeds, personally i’ve not noticed this between clients.
I would recommend using BitComet as it’s simple to use, looks nice and works well.
Other Bit Torrent clients you might want to try are:
•    The Original Bit Torrent Client
•    Utorrent
•    ABC
•    Bit tornado

2 - Download a Torrent

Ok so now you’ve got your torrent client installed, go to your favourite torrent site (e.g. www.isohunt.com). And search for the application you want to download and click on the link to download the Torrent file.

Here are some of the best and popular torrent sites :

Mininova.org is the successor to Suprnova, one of the original biggest torrent databases of the Web and the Most visited torrent site on the internet . Almost anything you want can be found here. Axxo's original dvd rips are here

Scrapetorrent.com is another torrent beta torrent site that searches many of the popular torrent sites listed here , its fast , clean (spare the pop-up) and definitely my favorite .

Demonoid The most popular private torrent site . You need to be registered and registration is by invitation only Note: User Registration is also open some times on Fridays GMT. (PS: This site is BACK , up and running )

PizzaTorrent Searches torrents in real time. A New site thats really catching popularity.

Torrentscan.com can search many torrent sites with this one. Voted as the best torrent site of the year by About.com

Torrentz.com really good site for torrents. Searches many sites for torrents. Another favorite of mine.

The Pirate Bay a very popular torrent site with a huge database. The good thing about this site is that there are lot of commenter's that help with file installation and also warn against rip off's .

Isohunt.com another popular site with a huge database. Still a very popular site and a favorite to many.

BTjunkie awesome site especially for games , has loads of torrents downloaded from demonoid .

Thebox a torrent site dedicated to british television.

Once you’ve clicked the link your browser will ask you whether you’d like to open the torrent or save it, If your using BitComet I’d suggest choosing “open” and then choosing BitComet as the application to open the torrent with.

Once you click ok BitComet will open up and the following dialog box will appear. You can see all the files in the torrent and also the location where these files will be saved to. The default location should be fine unless you want to save the files to a different drive, this folder can be change by clicking “browse”.

3 - Open Your Files and Share
Ok once the torrent is fully downloaded you may/should seed the torrent so others can download it. You can seed by not stopping the torrent after completion of the download. BitComet will automatically seed a torrent once it’s finished downloading. If you browse to the folder where you chose to save the files you can then use them.

Now I may be a cockeyed optimist, but I don`t think Judge Louis Stanton had any nefarious intentions in making this ruling. I think Stanton is just the latest high-profile example of a government representative exercising government power over information technology without understanding how IT works. (Katie blogged about this same problem back here.)

The EFF`s Kurt Opsahl picks apart the court order in a nice blog post that really calls into question whether Judge Stanton understands IP addresses, user IDs, video technologies of the 21st century, and data protection legislation. The Washington Post`s Michael Arrington points out that Stanton graduated from law school over 50 years ago, so his ignorance in matters tech should not be shocking.

We have a similar problem with legislators. Even our very well-intentioned Bill C-552, aka the Canadian Net Neutrality Bill, has shortcomings that I can only assume are the result of MP Angus not being quite well informed enough. Yes, C-552 is on the right track, but...it could be better with a little more information and consultation with IT-literate stakeholders.

Of course, our largest Canadian example, hanging directly over our heads at the moment is Copyright Bill C-61, aka the Canadian DMCA. Anyone who listens to the CBC's Search Engine knows that Industry Minister Jim Prentice (who has already been embarrassed by a wikipedia bio editing blooper) doesn't have a clue (podcast here) about what the copyright bill really means. (Oddly, that show ended up being the last ever for Search Engine.) Talk about an IT-illiterate making telecom policy; sheesh. It would be funny if the stakes weren`t so high.

C-61 is actually a prime example of the dangers of tech-illiterate government, because it is the type of legislation that, if passed, will likely spawn lawsuits similar to the Viacom-YouTube in Canadian courts. Which can then be presided over by judges who, in turn, do not understand the way technology works.

IT-ignorant lawmakers make technology laws, and IT-ignorant judges interpret those laws when large corporations battle against scary new paradigms or information dissemination...it`s almost enough to make one become a luddite, merely in order to protect oneself.

Then, of course, one might be qualified for a technology-related government appointment.

-Greyson

The Internet needs additional infrastructure which will update the role and effectiveness of advertising, enhance consumer privacy options, and enable the sharing of information commerce among publishers, producers and artists.

During the 2008-2009 academic year, Bill Densmore will help convene a development collaboration to define, document and rally public support for building a new "information valet economy" that sustains news and information through a shared-user network. It will add a network layer to the basic Internet that will allow privacy-protected sharing of users and information value.

Some ideas behind the Information Valet Project were explored during a June, 2007, meeting at MIT.

The idea of the "information valet," included in remarks by Bill Densmore, director of the Media Giraffe Project at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, delivered on Sunday, March 2, 2008. He spoke to approximately 30 U.S. newspaper editorial writers at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel, in Los Angeles as part of the four-day seminar, "Best Practices: Editorial and Commentary in Cyberspace." The seminar was presented by the Knight Digital Media Center of the USC Annenberg School for Communication in partnership with the National Conference of Editorial Writers.

For more information contact:

Bill Densmore
Principal researcher
The Information Valet Project
617-448-6600
densmore@informationvalet.org

Tarnation, a spunky documentary on growing up with a schizophrenic mother, originally cost $218 to make at home on the director's laptop.  It required an additional $230,000 for music clearances before it could be distributed.

1. Works are protected from their creation

Works are protected by copyright from the moment they are created, materialized in any media and capable of being copied, regardless their merit or destiny. The work is protected when it is original or has certain degree of originality.

2. Copyright does not need registration

The registration of the work is not essential for copyright protection. Copyright is acknowledged without registering the work or fulfilling any particular formality. The registration of a work with the Public Copyright Registry, by itself, does not transform the registrant in author or make him holder of the copyright on the registered work.

The registration of a work originates a document that proves beyond any doubt the existence of the work at a given time, and the claim by the registrant of the copyright on the work. However, the registration is not the source of the copyright.

The aforementioned does not imply that registering a work is useless. On the contrary, it is an effective way to preparing evidence about the existence of the work, which may be extremely important in case of a dispute. Further, given that Mexican society is extremely formalistic and paper-oriented, the work has a higher status when registered. It is frequent that businessmen, authors and government officials (even from “specialized agencies) acknowledge the existence of copyright only if the work is registered.

Registering a work with the Instituto Nacional del Derecho de Autor or Mexican Copyright Office (MCO) is relatively simple, and if done correctly, the MCO may issue the registration certificated in only four weeks.

3. Copyright provides two categories of rights: the personal rights and the economic rights

Copyright provides two different categories on rights: derechos morales or personal rights and derechos patrimoniales or economic rights. Only economic rights may be contractually assigned, provided that the parties comply with certain statutory formalities.

4. The purchase of the original work does not assign the copyright

Purchasing the original work does not imply in any way the acquisition of the copyright on the purchased work. The assignment of the copyright demands a specific agreement.

5. The existence of a work implies the existence of an author

In Mexican law, the existence of an individual identified as author is essential for the copyright; corporations cannot be authors, although they may be the copyright holders. Any entity claiming to be the copyright holder would have to demonstrate the chain of title from the author. This requirement may be particularly complicated for certain works, such as software, where it may be difficult to identify all the authors that had intervention in the work.

6. Ideas by themselves are not protected by copyright

It is necessary to materialize the idea through the work, and even so the subject matter of the protection would be the work, not the idea. The same idea may give place to different original works, and each one of them would have an independent protection. 

7. Trademarks, patents and copyright are not the same.

There are some similarities between patents, copyright and trademarks, but it is essential to clearly distinguish them one from the others. Each kind of protection gives their holders different privileges and disadvantages in relation to the others.

Against to the opinion of many reputed colleagues, I think that the chose of the legal way of protecting an intellectual creation may exclude the others; for example, if the shape of an industrial product is registered as an industrial design as provided by the Industrial Property Law, it automatically excludes the possibility of claiming copyright on the same design. 

For more information, you may contact Arturo D. Reyes areyes@reyesfenig.com

While the ruling applied French national law, it has far-reaching implications. The case is likely to be studied by luxury goods brands with similar cases pending such as Tiffany's & Co., which claims to lose $30 billion annually due to counterfeit and unauthorized sales of its products.

eBay asserts that it will appeal the decision, suggesting that LVMH's real intention is to micromanage product distribution and prices, not combat piracy. It also argues that this decision will end up harming law-abiding consumers.

eBay has a valid point. If online auctioneers and outlets decide that the cost of rooting out the counterfeit products is too high for the return, they may cease auctioning and selling luxury goods altogether. This would lead to fewer sales outlets for law-abiding citizens who wish to sell their used luxury goods, therefore leading to fewer products available for consumers. Hopefully, we can find a middle ground where luxury brands are protected and online auction sites are able to carry all legitimate goods.

-- Carrie Frondorf

Image Source.

Having your work stolen and your name used is one of the dangers that all businesses face. Copyright and Trademark Infringement are realties in todays global marketplace. VitalBodies had this happen some time back...

The water filter image in the advertisement below, was taken from our web site without permission.

Newspaper advertisement:

We have never been contacted by the company using our name and images.

A person in Israel wrote us and let us know about this ad in the newspaper. The person that pointed this out to us also felt that the company name (WaterLife) they are using was stolen from yet another company.

They wrote:
"The dealer calls himself Waterlife U.S.A. which is name stolen from a USA tropical fish dealer. "
"They have several times used fraudulent advertising. "

See our original image below: (of our own kitchen filter!)

No one ever bought this filter from us, as this was our personal kitchen water filter. this was perhaps the earliest filter we posted online. Our design changed before we ever sold one. The brown VitalBodies label you see in the image was a print out on recycled paper and just taped on the filter system for our photograph of the filter system as we were just getting started testing the market and making a prototype.

Makes you wonder what happened to the unfortunate customers that called the 1-800-39-39-28 number...

If this comes about then the value of things becomes almost zero, and all the value is in the design or in the instructions to your printer to make something.

What worries me is that if we don't sort out the current legal mess with copyright on music and video we will still be fighting these battles when this sort of technology is invented. With the impact on society many time that it is now.

Google will have to turn over every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users' names and IP addresses, to Viacom, which is suing Google for allowing clips of its copyright videos to appear on YouTube, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Viacom has argued that they wanted the info to prove Google's liability:

Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google's liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement.

But, the problem with Viacom's "rationale" - and the fact that a judge ordered the release of this data - is that Viacom simply does not need this personal user information to prove that YouTube is full of copyrighted material.

This is a statement of the obvious, of course. One shouldn't need to point out that Viacom can only have ulterior motives in demanding this data.

Perhaps due to public pressure or maybe even a modicum of a conscience, a "protective order" [sic] was also issued:

The court's protective order stipulates that data turned over to Viacom by Google must be used for the sole purpose of proving Viacom's claim against Google that YouTube is a hotbed of pirated video content, the sources said. Viacom will not have direct access to the YouTube user data, the source said. Access is restricted to outside counsel and experts.

Viacom, therefore, is forbidden from targeting individual users in the manner of the RIAA's lawsuits against individuals found to be downloading illegal music.

But, it's obvious this is a token gesture. The judge played nice by issuing this "protective order." Viacom doesn't need the IP addresses, names, and histories of YouTube users to prove their claims against Google. All they would need is a record of take-down requests and compliance and raw usage statistics.

To issue such a hollow protective order is obvious, transparent placation. Of course, it's true that an IP address isn't enough for a successful copyright suit, but we can only suspect that Viacom has ulterior motives. People defending this so-called protective order will claim that it protects the privacy/anonymity/rights of users - allegedly leaving only Google (YouTube's owner) - to be vulnerable, but that misses the point. If the state court really wanted to defend YouTube users from the prying eyes of Viacom's "experts," it would have denied all requests for information about the users.

Viacom has made the claim that this is all about determining Google's liability in copyright infringement (which is a stretch even in the current context of America's disgusting IP law - the administrators of YouTube are generally quite compliant when face with take-down requests).

Why, then, do they demand so much information about users? Call it a conspiracy theory, but IP law in the US has got to such a point where one can only assume ulterior motives.

This is simply another chapter in the cooperation between vested commercial interests and the state in breaking the balls of "copyright violators." The state - once again - does not exist to protect the rights of citizens. Make no mistake about it: government judges and courts are not out there fighting for your digital rights and privacy. In fact, courts and judges are prime movers in the great copyright extortion racket, and the ultimate gun in the room.

I'm not going to sit here and defend violent extraction of private information (log files, histories), but Viacom could make its case simply by asking for demanding a history of raw usage sans personal user data like handles, real names, and IP addresses. If it's not about the users, don't demand user information!

Viacom's just acting like another member of the IP mafia, and the courts have sided with the extortionists once again.

First Google, then the users.

Tags: copyright Government Politics viacom youtube google

Tegnap a Return to Forever (Chick Corea, Stanley Clarke, Lenny White, Al Di Meola) koncertjén voltam, nagyon inspiráló volt.Több gondolattal is hozzájarultak a francia 3-vétség javaslathoz, köszi fiuk.

• a mostani turnéjuk több mint háromszáz fellépésből áll.
• Stanley Clarke szerint, ők nem boy-band, hanem man-band.

ja, van pár különbség, pl tudnak zenélni és megdolgoznak a pénzükért.

Szabad szoftverek

Néhány tőzsdei vállalkozás profitja a megváltozott üzleti környezet miatt megcsappant, emiatt elindult a lobbigépezet, hogy állami és EUs szabályozással visszaforgassuk az idő kerekét. Pedig nem is olyan nehéz ebben a megváltozott környezetben eredményt elérni. Több milliárd dolláros iparággá nőtte ki magát a szabad szoftver világ. Ők is szerzői jogból származtatják a létezésüket. A GPL is "csak" egy - nagyon ügyesen megfogalmazott - szerzői jogi licensz.

A kilencvenes évek elején a Free Software Foundation alapítója Richard M. Stallman [W] felkérte Eben Moglen [W] jogászt, képviselje a szabad szoftver érdekeit. Erre így emlékszik vissza Eben:

When I went to work for Richard Stallman in 1993, he said to me at the first instruction over enforcing the GPL, “I have a rule. You must never let a request for damages interfere with a settlement for compliance.” I thought about that for a moment and I decided that that instruction meant that I could begin every telephone conversation with a violator of the GPL with magic words: We don’t want money. When I spoke those words, life got simpler. The next thing I said was, We don’t want publicity. The third thing I said was, We want compliance. We won’t settle for anything less than compliance, and that’s all we want.

Röviden összefoglalva: "nem pénz és hírnév kell, csak a licenszünk tiszteletben tartása". Vesd össze ezt a mindenkit perelő és tiltó multimédia - konkrétan most zene, pár év múlva a filmes - ipar viselkedésével.

Ügyfélelégedettség

Érdekes módon egy tavalyi elemzés szerint pont az ügyfélelégedettség növeli a profitot. Pereskedés valószínűleg a jogászok profitját növeli, de kinek az elégedettségét? Aki így bánik az ügyfeleivel, ne csodálkozzon, ha csökken a nyeresége.

Egyéb

Közben elkerült még néhány link, a slashdot diszkusszióra ra és az FFII sajtóközleményére.

Ha valakit letöltésért le lehet tiltani, meddig kell várni amíg valakit a véleményéért lehet letiltani? Ki dönti el, mi az amit szabad? Hol lehet ez ellen fellebbezni? Hogy tudom magam tisztára mosni? Miért kell ilyenekkel foglalkoznom, ahelyett, hogy értéket teremtek?

That's my work! My thoughts, my feelings and my words that this 1mindy stole and reposted as her own work!

BITCH.

OMG. I'm pissed.

This is my original post from yesterday night, Pacific Time, but wordpress.com operates on GMT. I know this is only a small, short post and nothing close to a work of literary genius but the fact that my feelings, things that have caused me a lot of grief and stress, are blatantly stolen and re-copied with little consideration to their value-even if that value exists only to ME.  This was a personal confession of mine, something that has taken a lot of courage on my part to write and admit, and to have someone just casually take it... PISSES ME OFF!  

Coldplay Sued Previously For Plagiarism

...Steals Again

Coldplay

This is a follow up to yesterday’s article ColdPlay Accused Of Ripping Off Indie Band the Creaky Boards. Today, an article was posted on another site where Coldplay's front man Chris Martin incriminatingly said and I quote:

"We're one of the world's worst—but most enthusiastic—plagiarists as a band. We'll try and copy anything but tend to fail, so we come up with something...that sounds like us—only through trying to sound like somebody else."

Coldplay

After reading that quote, it's clear you and your wife Gwyneth Paltrow have been hanging around Madonna too much. Unless you plan on bribing a judge if the Creaky Boards sue you, it's time for you to shut up.

You just ripped off an indie band, which is pathetic coming from a major label act, using their music and melody without permission, for a CD that is going to debuted next week with roughly 650,000 copies sold, according to Hits Daily Double. That's called big damages.

Apparently, Coldplay has done this before. They were sued by a Dutch Guitarist named Peter Van Houten for stealing his music for use in their previous track "Clocks." Clearly, Coldplay has a problem with this.

The Creaky Boards

While, today they denied stealing the Creaky Board's tune “The Songs I Didn’t Write” for use in their track "Viva La Vida" stating they'd "demoed it in March 2007" there's no proof of that. People don't even know what you demoed. Where's the copyright certificate.

Anyone can say they recorded something first, but where's the proof. You do know that most recordable media has serial numbers that show when it was issued. Furthermore, any re-recording over older media will show up as tampering upon proper inspection.

Sidebar: Why are you acting crazy in your interviews, Mr. Martin. You're walking out on journalists and saying very strange things that they are relaying to the public. What's happened to you. What's Paltrow done to you.

Coldplay: "We'll Try and Copy Anyone"

Whoops. Just as his band is accused of ripping off someone else's song, Coldplay's Chris Martin says in an interview that he and his bandmates are "the world's worst—but most enthusiastic—plagiarists. We'll try and copy anyone." ...

We're guessing he—and the band's lawyers—are probably wishing he'd said just that instead. Martin says:

"We're one of the world's worst—but most enthusiastic—plagiarists as a band. We'll try and copy anything but tend to fail, so we come up with something...that sounds like us—only through trying to sound like somebody else."

http://www.eonline.com

Elderly Dutch Musician Accuses Coldplay Of Plagiarism

Dutch Guitarist Peter Van Houten (alias Peter Van Wood) has accused Coldplay of plagiarism, in respect of the song ‘Clocks’.

The guitarist, who has lived in Italy for several years, is looking for a million Euros from the British band due to plagiarism. According to 83 year old Van Wood, Coldplay’s 2002 single ‘Clocks’ is identical to his song ‘Caviar & Champagne’ which he wrote in 1982. Meanwhile Van Wood has called in a lawyer and seems to have the support of most of the callers to Italian Broadcaster RAI in his claim against Chris, Will, Jonny and Guy...

http://www.mycoldplay.com | http://www.boxxet.com

http://www.judiciaryreport.com/coldplay_well_steal_from_anyone.htm

]]> http://aishamusic.wordpress.com/?p=869 Sun, 06 Jul 2008 03:06:07 +0000 aishamusic http://aishamusic.wordpress.com/?p=869

Chris Martin, husband of actress Gwyneth "Kabbalah sucker" Paltrow and lead singer of the pop/AC band Coldplay is being accused of ripping off the music of indie band the Creak boards.

The Creaky Boards performed at the CMJ Music Festival in New York (October 2007), where they saw Chris Martin in the audience. Now they say, one year later, Martin has penned a song titled "Viva La Vida" that sounds an awful lot like their preexisting song "The Songs I Didn't Write."

I listened to both songs, played back to back in the above posted video, and I have to concur, they do sound a lot a like. The melody, harmonies and music are almost identical. It sounds like the same music and melody playing on a continuous loop, though it's two different tunes playing back to back.

http://www.judiciaryreport.com/coldplay_accused_of_ripping_off_indie_band.htm

]]> http://gauthma.wordpress.com/2008/07/05/europa-orwelliana/ Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:52:52 +0000 gauthma http://gauthma.wordpress.com/2008/07/05/europa-orwelliana/ Se há quem pense que os políticos portugueses já de si trabalham pouco, então em véspera de férias ainda menos, os eurodeputados é ao contrário: é precisamente antes das férias que aproveitam para modificar à pressa a «Telecom Package». O objectivo inicial era reformar e uniformizar o mercado de telecomunicações europeu, mas depois das modificações (amendments), o efeito prático de tal reforma serão 1) os cidadãos que esqueçam a sua privacidade electrónica; 2) os ISP's passam a funcionar como «copyright police» e 3) as companhias de entretenimento (media biz) passam a ter autoridade judicial para julgar «violações» de copyright, inter alia.

As implicações são catastróficas (link em Inglês):

European Internet users could be blocked from lawful activities by mandatory spyware, in the interests of their security. The right to use free software for internet access would therefore not be assured anymore. The neutrality of the Internet is also directly attacked, as is the principle that technical intermediaries have no obligation to prior surveillance of contents. Other amendments will de facto enable administrative authorities to obligate ISPs to work with content producers and rights-holders' private police, including the sending of intimidating messages, with no judicial or regulatory oversight.

These measure goes further than the French "graduated response" project, which has been subject to widespread opposition, including by the European Parliament on April 10th. That is undoubtedly why those amendments have turned up on early july, and why those drafting them use subtle rhetoric and crossed-references to make the overall text harder to understand (more than 800 amendements on 5 directives were tabled).

A votação é no dia 7 de Julho (!!!): esse é o prazo para fazer chegar reclamações e queixas aos eurodeputados (também chamados de MEP - Members of the European Parliament). No caso de Portugal, os contactos dos eurodeputados podem ser encontrados aqui.

This is really serious: I urge you if you possibly can to write to your MEP. You can do it using the fab WriteToThem [British MEP's only] service, which makes it as easy as can be. Make sure it gets to them before July 7th (yes, it's tight – that's how sneaky they've been).

Eis o que enviei:

Escrevo para expressar a minha preocupação com as alterações propostas à "Telecom Package" (TP). Se inicialmente o objectivo da TP era regulamentar o mercado das telecomunicações europeu, de modo a estimular a concorrência, as alterações propostas (H1, H2, H3, K1 e K2)[1] vão muito, muito para além disso. Desde de violações da privacidade dos cidadãos até à concessão de poderes judiciais a corporações, nomeadamente ligadas ao mundo dos media.

A introdução do conceito de «lawful applications» e «lawful services» só pode ser aplicado através de vigilância generalizada. Não é possível vigiar apenas determinados tipos de conteúdos: a vigilância ou existe ou não existe. E caso seja posta em prática, essa vigilância abre caminho para que sejam criadas enormes bases de dados com informação sobre a vida privada de vastos milhões de pessoas. Mas por muitas garantias que sejam dadas, a verdade é que não existem bases de dados seguras, conforme mostram problemas ocorridos em anos recentes no Reino Unido [2]. E na eventualidade de essa informação ser revelada, graves danos seriam infligidos nas pessoas a quem a informação se refere.

Adicionalmente a distinção referida acima, entre «lawful» e (implicitamente) «unlawfull» é um sério obstáculo a diversidade da Internet. Ora, é precisamente nessa diversidade que reside a sua força. Em particular, foi essa diversidade que permitiu a evolução de software livre, cujo potencial tanto a nível económico como a nível de inovação só recentemente se tornou notório.

Finalmente, é inconcebível que alterações desta natureza sejam votadas sem um período razoável de discussão pública. A data da votação é dia 7 de Julho, ou seja a próxima segunda, muito próximo do período de férias do Parlamento Europeu. Isto apenas contribui para aumentar o desconhecimento das leis por parte dos cidadãos, o que sua vez apenas debilita as próprias leis. E como escreveu John Locke, «Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins.»[3]

[1] - http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecom-Package_Compromise-Amendments_ITRE-IMCO_7th-July

[2] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6160800.stm

[3] - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Locke

July 4th In Bizarro World

Manuel Lora | July 4, 2008

From colorful hot dog stands and front-porch grilling to car dealerships and fireworks – once again the people celebrate July 4th. The media will join the festivities and will air documentaries about the founding of the country, its struggles during the revolutionary war, the adoption of the Constitution and the various leaders that inspired a country to fight for its freedom. Journalists and pundits shall hold hands and sing their praises to the gods state. The mainstream, hailing from its intellectually void ivory tower will no doubt offer hosannas to our overlords. In the meantime, the message of freedom is nowhere to be seen. Indeed, quite the opposite tends to happen.

What follows are just a few of the July 4th lies and errors that we are supposed to blindly accept:

• The military is glorious, its heroes heroic, and our support is patriotic
• Freedom is about authority
• The police keep us safe and have a duty to protect us
• We are better off now than when the war on drugs started decades ago
• Continually increasing prices is a product of the market and thus the central bank must control credit and the money supply
• With proper reform, government can become efficient, especially if we elect the right leaders
• The Constitution gives people rights
• The government has been formed by the consent of the governed
• Without the state regulating/subsidizing/taxing/prohibiting activity or industry X, said industry or activity would be produced in quantities and/or qualities that are too high or too low; or would run rampant, cartelize and monopolize the market; or would not survive in a predatory competitive environment
• The more politically democratic things are, the better for everyone
• No matter what the cost to the public, protecting the children/our veterans/our senior citizens/our teachers is always the number one priority
• The free movement of goods and people destroys jobs and threatens our standard of living
• Businesses have no incentives to keep their customers safe; licenses ensure fair practices
• The law may occasionally be wrong, but it should nonetheless be followed always
• We must forever give up essential liberties to guarantee safety: it’s for your own good

The list can go on forever but you get the clue. What’s really telling about the so-called Independence Day is that most the reminders about July 4th are related to the state! You will see, almost without fail, photos of past tyrants, video of the various monuments magnanimously erected in their memory, and audio of their speeches. News segments and even commercials that use the Fourth of July as a theme will invariable feature the military, the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, the Washington monument or a close-up of the Constitution – usually the part that says "We the People." If July 4th is really about freedom, why is the District of Criminals the center of attention?

You see, we live in a bizarro world where might makes right and government aggression is the apotheosis of liberty. Our rights are relative and whatever freedoms we have left are a vote and a signature away from being eradicated.

I ask: What rights? What freedoms? Today we celebrate nothing. Get over your patriotism-inspired nationalistic jingoism already. Instead, celebrate the market, not the politicians and their bureaucratic-regulatory army of destruction.

"But Bill C-61 would shut film studies down. In making it illegal to circumvent digital locks, it limits us all to watching DVDs in their original form. We can’t quote from them. We can’t practice fair dealing, invoking portions for purpose of criticism, review, research, or private study. The fair dealing clause will still be in the Act, sitting there in Section 29 as always, but it will be entirely powerless in this realm.

[...] They’ll pay for what the law currently allows them to do. " (from: The End of Film Studies?)

On its blog, YouTube said its trying to convince Viacom to allow YT to redact the usernames and IP addresses to preserve user confidentiality. We'll see what happens.

As you might expect, many YouTube users are angry about release of their viewing history. Here's a typical angry comment posted on YT:

"I have an idea, STOP LOGGING IPs. It bothers me that you guys are keeping track of viewing histories by IP for such a long time. Sure, a simple IP doesn't give out personal information but these bastards are known to contact service providers to attempt and retrieve the personal details attached to an IP, or at least to send scare tactic emails to their customers. You have a staff of friggin geniuses at your disposal, why not get them to come up with a way to REALLY PROTECT our privacy. It was fun watching videos here, but I think I'll avoid YouTube videos from now on, log out of my account for good and if absolutely necessary, view videos through a proxy. Thanks for trying, but we know and you know you can try a lot harder."

Analysis: One thing that surprises me is that apparently YouTube keeps the files of all videos ever removed from YouTube -- 12 terabytes of files + millions of videos. Offensive videos, pornographic videos, hate videos, apparently all saved by YouTube. Maybe it just takes more work to completely remove them from YT's servers, or maybe YT needs the deleted files to try to stop copycat repostings of the deleted files?? I don't know.

Pen and Ink on paper

(wire and handmade papers)

2003

Pen and Ink on paper

(wire and handmade papers)

2003

Alvast één link naar de blog van Scott Kelby waar de gerechtelijke aspecten van fotografie uit de doeken gedaan worden.

BRON : http://www.scottkelby.com [ENG]

While browsing Dark Skies Blog, I came across this post. The subject matter of the post didn't interest me as much as the closing remark:

Since this is an AP Poll and since AP charges by the word for excerpting or reprinting their news copy, I will provide only a LINK.

I posted a few comments addressing this, but they have since disappeared. I'm not going to jump to any conclusions; I'll wait to hear from Dark Skies on that. In the mean time, I'll just assume it's some sort of technical glitch.

But that's not why I'm writing this post. As I mentioned at Dark Skies Blog, I don't believe that A.P. has the authority to define Fair Use or copyright infringement to suit their personal interests, absent a court ruling.

Mike found this for me through a quick Google search:

In June 2008 Associated Press stated it would be defining guidelines on how many words from its articles and broadcasts could be excerpted by internet bloggers and Web sites without infringing on its copyright. Its first initiative was a letter to Rogers Cadenhead's "Drudge Retort" news links site requesting the removal of items quoting from 39 to 79 words of AP articles. After an outcry from bloggers, A.P. admitted its letter to Drudge Retort was “heavy-handed.”[7] It later clarified that it would challenge blog postings “when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when others are encouraged to cut and paste.” It then retreated from that position, announcing it would be reviewing its standards.[8]

Wikipedia - Associated Press - Bloggers and Fair Use

(This is one of the things I posted at Dark Skies Blog that seems to have gone missing, so you can see why I doubt that it was actually deleted.)

I have a feeling that a mysterious cloud of silence is going to fall on this issue, and that we won't be hearing anything else from A.P. about it. I'm actually very surprised that they ever tried this to begin with. Journalists are the last people I would expect to take such an approach. Surely, they understand as well as anyone the potential impact of such action.

On Saturday, The A.P. retreated. Jim Kennedy, vice president and strategy director of The A.P., said in an interview that the news organization had decided that its letter to the Drudge Retort was “heavy-handed” and that The A.P. was going to rethink its policies toward bloggers.

The quick about-face came, he said, because a number of well-known bloggers started criticizing its policy, claiming it would undercut the active discussion of the news that rages on sites, big and small, across the Internet.

New York Times

Indeed it would.

Like I stated at Dark Skies Blog, I recently posted an excerpt from an A.P. article and I will continue to do so any time I feel like it, until a court ruling is issued against it.

But Rogers Cadenhead, the owner of the Drudge Retort and several other Web sites, said the issue goes far beyond one site. “There are millions of people sharing links to news articles on blogs, message boards and sites like Digg. If The A.P. has concerns that go all the way down to one or two sentences of quoting, they need to tell people what they think is legal and where the boundaries are.”

New York Times

While I appreciate Cadenhead's attempt at diplomacy here, I'm not really interested in what A.P. thinks is legal. They do not get to create their own personal version of Fair Use and impose it on the rest of the world. No-one does. But the point is now moot:

After that, however, the news association convened a meeting of its executives at which it decided to suspend its efforts to challenge blogs until it creates a more thoughtful standard.

“We don’t want to cast a pall over the blogosphere by being heavy-handed, so we have to figure out a better and more positive way to do this,” Mr. Kennedy said.

[...]

“We are not trying to sue bloggers,” Mr. Kennedy said. “That would be the rough equivalent of suing grandma and the kids for stealing music. That is not what we are trying to do.”

New York Times

I'm not sure how I feel about being the grandma in that analogy, but the point is that the rumors circulating the internet are just that - rumors. A.P. is not charging by the word for excerpting its material. In fact, the dispute appears to be over. And I said all that just to say this:

Quote to your heart's content, fellow bloggers. It's free of charge!

[Update: The official word is that my comments are no longer welcome at Dark Skies Blog. I'm not sure what the problem is; I was merely trying to reassure Dark Skies that it is OK to quote from A.P. articles. Since Dark Skies is described as a "news blog", I assumed the updated information would be welcome. Apparently not. It seems that Dark Skies only wants to report a slanted version of "the news" and refuses to tolerate correction. The upside is that this has inspired another post for Rambling On. Stay tuned!]