Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Creative Commons Responds To ASCAP Letter

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the you-wouldn't-like-us-when-we're-angry dept.

Music 161

An anonymous reader writes "Drew Wilson at ZeroPaid has a followup to the story about ASCAP telling its members that organizations like EFF and Creative Commons are undermining copyright. A spokesperson from Creative Commons said, 'It's very sad that ASCAP is falsely claiming that Creative Commons works to undermine copyright. Creative Commons licenses are copyright licenses — plain and simple, without copyright, these tools don't even work.' He also said, 'Many tens of thousands of musicians, including acts like Nine Inch Nails, the Beastie Boys, David Byrne, Radiohead, and Snoop Dogg, have used Creative Commons licenses to share with the public.' Many ASCAP members are already expressing their disappointment with the ASCAP letter over at Mind the Gap. Sounds like ASCAP will be in damage control for a while."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Representation? Hah! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702226)

Nice to know that they work with the best interests of their clients in mind!

Re:Representation? Hah! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702254)

The death throws of an obsolete industry are amusing and sad. The lazy abusers of other people's talents do not like to see their revenue stream cease as those who perform all the hard labor find alternate methods of representation and distribution. Claims that they represent the viewpoints, and wish to protect the interests, of their sheep, fall upon unsympathetic ears. The revolution will not be televised, but it will be on Youtube, under CC.

Re:Representation? Hah! (0, Flamebait)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702572)

>>>The death throws of an obsolete industry are amusing and sad

Perhaps but it will make great footage for the TV news! (hops into airplane). Say goodbye to ASCAP and RIAA! (flies plane into building)

/end joke > dev null:

Re:Representation? Hah! (-1, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702910)

(Flamebait)

Someone lacks a sense of humor. Go watch some Penn & Teller and chill out. "And try laughing mutther fukker! Jeez. My achin' ass." - Penn Jillette:

- Martial Arts are Bullshit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_3BSk2TbK4 [youtube.com]
- The War on Fast Food is BS- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEkJMGPHiXE [youtube.com]
- Cheerleaders - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbymhQyq5rQ [youtube.com]

Re:Representation? Hah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32703236)

Your joke sucked. Deal with it. You are not Penn or Teller.

Re:Representation? Hah! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32703570)

Your joke sucked.

Not as much as your spelling, you retarded shitty cock licker.

Re:Representation? Hah! (0)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703898)

I found their shows interesting until two episodes.

One, the recycling issue. Penn basically made the argument that recycling is unnercessary because it requires material separation by each person throwing stuff away. He highlighted this by asking people to separate garbage into 4, 6, 10, 15 different piles and pointed out that it was ridiculous. The only content of the entire episode that made sense was that recycling costs energy and the only useful recyclable material is tin. Everything else uses more energy and chemicals and time and transportation fuel than it would waste in a landfill. Not sure if that's true, but it was the only part I couldn't immediately discount. I still recycle glass, though.

The other one was the toilet seat that contains less bacteria than a dude's scrotum. They showed some "average, normal typical toilet stalls" which don't match anything I've ever seen unless the cleaning crew was just in there. You see 4 toilets and have to poop, you choose the one with the least amount of bacteria-ridden piss, clean it off, and then use toilet paper or the seat covers. You should assume that if it looks clean, the guy before you cleaned piss of the seat, because guys piss on the seat. I won't even mention the female corollaries. Three people using the same seat shouldn't cause problems, and the bacteria probably die slowly. But the suggestion was that because the clean toilets in their professional office building were clean, you don't need to use anything between you and the seat that touched the fat guy's sweaty hairy dirty unshowered ass before you, and the previous guy's piss he cleaned off the seat.

I immediately deleted anything Penn ever said from my memory, except for these I retain as examples.

Yeah it's off topic, get over it we're having a discussion here.

DONATE (5, Insightful)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702240)

Although the focus is on arists of media and music, the implications to the software industry are staggering. Imagine if GPL, CC, APL, and many other licenses were deemed to be invalid as a result of ASCAP and similar lobbying. All that work you and I have put into creating a free software ecosystem are for nought, because some some media execs want to get paid for performances by musicians who didn't sign with them.

I donated to Creative Commons [creativecommons.org] , EFF [eff.org] , and FSF [fsf.org] for the first time today. You might not care about the media aspects but our industry absolutely depends on copyleft licenses and creative freedom, so I encourage all of you to do the same.

Re:DONATE (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702274)

Although the focus is on arists of media and music, the implications to the software industry are staggering. Imagine if GPL, CC, APL, and many other licenses were deemed to be invalid as a result of ASCAP and similar lobbying. All that work you and I have put into creating a free software ecosystem are for nought, because some some media execs want to get paid for performances by musicians who didn't sign with them.

Then expect a huge flood of lawsuits from a multitude of OSS developers towards big users of free software especially those with connection to ASCAP

It would be a MS wet dream probably, still

Re:DONATE (4, Funny)

ccandreva (409807) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702280)

The ultimate irony will be if this letter does more to raise funds for EFF and Creative Commons then ASCAP

Re:DONATE (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702498)

If the posts in Boing Boing and Mind the Gap are any indication, they may have hit a nerve within their ranks that might do that.

Re:DONATE (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702322)

The senators from Microsoft and SCO get the above quoted.
In 24 h its issued to Fox in talking point form.

Re:DONATE (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702500)

In Czech Republic you actually have to pay OSA (they collect money for music usage) if you want to publish your own work (they actually claim that they will return you 70% of that if you sign with them).

Re:DONATE (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702514)

I read the letter from ASCAP yesterday, and as far as I can tell they are just trying to keep copyright as is (or possibly make it stronger); it didn't seem like they wanted to invalidate copyleft. As for copyleft, I don't see what the big deal is. If somebody wants to use a restrictive copyright license, fine; if somebody wants to use a permissive copyleft license, fine. The two can (and should) coexist without any issues. If one side doesn't like the other side, tough titties; the artist should have the freedom to do whatever he wants. The only concern is the strength of copyright, which I think we all agree has grown too much; however, that is a separate discussion from copyleft vs copyright.

Re:DONATE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702666)

Reading comprehension fail.

Re:DONATE (4, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703358)

I read the letter yesterday as I was getting on a plane to the 75th anniversary celebration for Foster Music Camp. I was not happy. By painting the CC as the enemy, they are supporting the chaos of incompatible one-off licensing for such uses prior to its existence. I wrote them a letter pointing out their mistakes.

I concluded by saying that I would reconsider my membership if they do not stop these baseless ad hominem attacks on organizations that do so much to improve the rights of authors, content users, and those who license content created by others. I encourage other content creators who feel similarly to do likewise. The only way they'll ever "get it" is if we members keep driving home the point that absolute control of copyright is not in anyone's best interests, including content creators.

Re:DONATE (4, Insightful)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703658)

Music collection societies are the seediest groups in the copyright industry. They bully and exploit their own members, and fight free culture with all earnest. Thanks to them we have blank media levies, and their members are forced to anti-competitive licensing agreements. They usually have monopoly status in their respective markets, so they wield an incredible amount of power.

Re:DONATE (3, Funny)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703954)

Music collection societies are the seediest groups

I have never thought of torrent seeders as "music collection societies", but I suppose the term is quite fitting.

Re:DONATE (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702542)

Imagine if GPL, CC, APL, and many other licenses were deemed to be invalid as a result of ASCAP and similar lobbying.

The ASCAP letter is throwing an awful lot of FUD around, but in essence it comes down to the freedom to engage in legal contracts. Open source and CC licenses are not unconscionable or obfuscated, they're some of the most well analyzed and straight forward IP licensing agreements there are. They're generally given as a voluntary offer, and are in no way coercive or presenting you with terms after the fact like an EULA. Those who agree to these terms are generally professionals who have to deal with IP laws in their general line of business. In short, those that agree to the terms have no reason to cry foul.

If there's one thing that would be un-American, it's to limit what people can agree to. Compared to us here in Europe I'm surprised at how poorly consumers can be treated and how easily companies can get rid of problematic customers who things they don't like, for example using the advertised bandwidth. Why? Because you're free to enter almost any contract short of slavery, no matter how poor it is for you and how unequal the parties are. To seriously reach at the heart of open source and the creative commons, they would have to impose a whole new doctrine of only allowing contracts that are good for the country or the economy or whatever. It's as unlikely as snowball fights between flying pigs.

Re:DONATE (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702562)

ASCAP is built on lies and bullying. How many small businesses have been put out of business because of ASCAP and BMI coming in and fining them tens of thousands of dollars because they had an FM radio playing for the customers.

Yes, If your business has an FM radio playing then you are a DIRTY STINKING MUSIC THIEF and you must be punished.

This is how scumbaggy ASCAP is. Every person alive should hate and despise them.

ASCAP == ASSHAT ? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702788)

is an ascap some type of asshat? Whenever I see that acronym that's all I can think of.

Re:DONATE (4, Informative)

rjlieb (1714418) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702882)

I don't agree with what ASCAP is doing in this case. But, the information in the post above is simply wrong. Based on the information found here (http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html), only businesses greater than 2.000 sq ft and more than 6 speakers installed need to worry about a license.

Re:DONATE (3, Informative)

WCguru42 (1268530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703118)

I don't agree with what ASCAP is doing in this case. But, the information in the post above is simply wrong.

Based on the information found here (http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html), only businesses greater than 2.000 sq ft and more than 6 speakers installed need to worry about a license.

2,000 sq ft is not as big as you think it is. And it's not hard to get up to six speakers, hell, most boom boxes are pushing that now, especially if you consider the woofer and tweeter as separate components on the same mold.

Re:DONATE (1)

AtariKee (455870) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703482)

Where I work (a new bar & grill that opened a month ago) received an ASCAP letter during the remodeling of the building, reminding us that we have fees to pay if we are to broadcast music. The letter was VERY vague with regards to the SOURCE of the music. We had a local amusements operator install a fully-licensed (by them) jukebox, and we also had Sirius installed as well. We now await the followup letter from ASCAP so that we can conveniently tell them to go fuck themselves.

Re:DONATE (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703640)

Unfortunately both the amusements operator and Sirius have already paid there share to ASCAP. All you did is shift the bullshit onto someone else.

Re:DONATE (4, Informative)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#32704118)

Not only that, but ASCAP may come asking for a triple-payment. They may assume that the owners don't understand that fees have already been paid twice.

In fact, I'm not certain of the rules myself; it's my understanding that even if the source is a regular broadcast radio--and those stations have most certainly paid to play the music--businesses are still "required" to pay ASCAP fees.

Funny thing is that once upon a time, ASCAP was the artist's friend. Folks like Little Richard had their music stolen and used for profit by mega-moguls like Disney and others, and didn't see a cent of it. ASCAP was built to protect against that, and it's slowly devolved into a group of thugs that go after Girl Scouts doing public performances of the Macarena dance.

Re:DONATE (4, Insightful)

WNight (23683) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703176)

Yeah that makes sense, penalize a lumber yard and ignore a small store.

No, it's monopoly abusing, rent-seeking behavior. When we pass laws making shit into property we get do-nothings seeking to exploit it. They'll happily sit by while their shit is shoved onto the airwaves and then penalize anyone who decodes it.

Re:DONATE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32703230)

The fact isn't at issue. Regardless of what they SAY, they have been publically called out in mainstream media a number of times for pulling such bullshit.

Only if bigger than 2,000 sq feet eh? (4, Insightful)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703266)

Do realize that 2,000 sq ft is less even a 45 x 45 feet? The company I work for has a warehouse that big, which is about half our total size. We're a pretty small business, with usually about a dozen employees (or less). And 6 speaker? That's not hard to reach... Some PCs have more than that these days.

I'm not sure if it's your understanding of the word "only" or the measure of "2,000 sq ft" that is faulty here.

Re:DONATE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32703352)

ASCAP sends people out to businesses that aren't paying the royalties, and if there is a TV, a set of speakers, ever a live performance, or probably no reason at all, they send a threatening letter to the owner, because there is potential for playing protected music. It's pure extortion. How many owners just pay the royalties to get the ASCAP assholes to go away, or to avoid legal exposure? I don't know, but ASCAP shouldn't exist. But, hey thanks for using their website to defend them. I'm sure you've had lots of personal experience with their people and letters.

Re:DONATE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32704136)

Except for the notices they send to all businesses that MIGHT even consider playing music. The damn things read like a mobster demanding protection money.

Re:DONATE (1)

soupforare (542403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703094)

OTA Broadcast radio is fine as long as the content is unchanged. It's playing records at a volume louder than adequate for that employee's enjoyment that is what they'd go after you for.

Re:DONATE (2, Interesting)

djdanlib (732853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703334)

As easy as it is to "hate the man" in potential ugly situations like that, I've never heard of that scenario where a small business was put out of business by ASCAP + BMI fines, so feel free to cite some sources on that one.

However, as a part time DJ, I am aware of the licensing fees and obligations on the part of both the DJ and the establishment. It's expensive to deal with them.

And as a friend of lots of musicians, I am aware of the royalty fees that ASCAP can bring in to its members.

It's kind of a love/hate relationship, where money circulates and there's no way to stop the cycle. Ostensibly, you're supposed to be protected from people ripping off your band's music. But, a cover band/DJ and a bar need only to get a blanket license, and they're good to go and rip you off all the way to the bank. So... what's the point, really?

Don't forget about SESAC!

You usually have to have ASCAP, BMI and SESAC licenses to be mostly clear, and then you should track down all the little off-mainstream labels that are unlikely to pursue legal action, but you still don't want to rip them off or get sued by some random exec you didn't know about that showed up at a wedding/party.

Re:DONATE (3, Informative)

ahankinson (1249646) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703504)

Re:DONATE (1)

Kirijini (214824) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703692)

The ASCAP letter is throwing an awful lot of FUD around, but in essence it comes down to the freedom to engage in legal contracts. ...To seriously reach at the heart of open source and the creative commons, they would have to impose a whole new doctrine of only allowing contracts that are good for the country or the economy or whatever. It's as unlikely as snowball fights between flying pigs.

I see what you're getting at, but I think there's actually a really easy (as in, technically easy - definitely not legislatively easy) way for ASCAP to get what it wants. And get what it wants in a big way. And without really abridging people's contracting rights.

ASCAP could totally kill open licensing by requiring all licenses and transfer of copyright to be exclusive. I.e., no more nonexclusive licenses.

That's probably way too radical to ever happen, but a similar result could be obtained by tweaking section 204 of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 204 [copyright.gov] ), which requires transfers of copyright ownership (i.e., exclusive licenses) to made in writing and signed by the owner. If that were changed to require all licenses to be signed by the owner (whether exclusive or nonexclusive), open licenses would be rendered impractical. Because regular folks really don't have the time to sit down and sign every license (even with an electronic signature, it would be too inconvenient), what this change would do is essentially cement ASCAP into a permanent part of all future copyright business. ASCAP [wikipedia.org] is a collective rights organization [wikipedia.org] - so, in other words, it acting as the owner's agent and signing licenses for them is already its business model. If even Creative Commons licenses had to be signed, then, as a practical matter, CC licenses would have to go through ASCAP . And you can bet your ass that they would charge a fee, even when processing "free" licenses.

Re:DONATE (-1, Redundant)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702600)

>>>Imagine if GPL, CC, APL, and many other licenses were deemed to be invalid as a result of ASCAP and similar lobbying. All that work you and I have put into creating a free software ecosystem are for nought
>>>

Basically like unpaid labor. You contribute all that effort into Linux or whatever, only to have it taken away from you (like Google did with Taco when they turned it commercial). I'd be angry first, and I'd get even with the ASCAP and RIAA CEO just the same way I got even with my ex-california boss after he did not pay my last week of work. BANG.

Ooops I've said too much
.

Re:DONATE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702786)

I got even with my ex-california boss after he did not pay my last week of work. BANG.

Ooops I've said too much .

Are you just on a one-man crusade to make all gun owners look like retarded man-monkeys? Because you're doing a wonderful job. Between this and your previous statements about flashing your gun to make sure the cashier honoured the terms of sale that you deemed valid, and other idiotic comments, you should probably be locked up for your own safety before the real gun owners take you to task.

Re:DONATE (-1, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702938)

I can't hear people with scores of (0)

Re:DONATE (1)

WNight (23683) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703184)

Here, this should help.

I got even with my ex-california boss after he did not pay my last week of work. BANG.

Ooops I've said too much .

Are you just on a one-man crusade to make all gun owners look like retarded man-monkeys? Because you're doing a wonderful job. Between this and your previous statements about flashing your gun to make sure the cashier honoured the terms of sale that you deemed valid, and other idiotic comments, you should probably be locked up for your own safety before the real gun owners take you to task.

Re:DONATE (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703652)

How high-horse of you.

Re:DONATE (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703740)

If two anonymous cowards (0) are talking to one another, does anyone hear them? ;-)

Re:DONATE (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703864)

I used to filter 0's, but I realized that sometimes they have something useful to say that a moderator either hasn't bothered or doesn't care for. Filtering -1 seems to get me better results. There's a bit more noise, but you get more of the signal too :)

Re:DONATE (3, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702900)

BSD people seem fine with it. Although I like the GPL, as long as Free Software exists and I can use it, that's the important thing. The rest are details.

Re:DONATE (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702906)

When I say "I", I mean people in general, of course :)

Re:DONATE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702852)

You overlook that the FSF doesn't care about freedom unless they get to define what freedom is. Want the freedom to release closed source software? Well you can't in the FSF's perfect world.

Re:DONATE (1)

WNight (23683) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703198)

Unless of course it was your code...

Ima bust a cap in yo ass, ASCAP! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702356)

Ima bust a cap in yo ass, ASCAP!

Not to sound demeaning, but... (4, Insightful)

http (589131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702370)

Dear ASCAP,
Please don't spread lies. The people behind EFF, CC, PK et alia, are smarter than you, and easily ruffled by people getting the facts wrong.
You're in for a schooling.
http

Re:Not to sound demeaning, but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702420)

Hell, I've met guys that the ASPCA was in charge of that were smarter than the guys in charge of the ASCAP.

Re:Not to sound demeaning, but... (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702748)

So what you're saying is you know male newts who are smarter than the ASCAP overlords?

(hint: American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)

Re:Not to sound demeaning, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32703382)

That's the joke.

Re:Not to sound demeaning, but... (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703742)

My funny detector is broken today :(

To sound demeaning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702540)

Dear http, We lawyers at ASCAP are interested in only one thing, getting paid. We don't give a flying fsck about you, our client, or the supposed represented population of ASCAP. As long as we keep getting paid, we don't particularly care who wins or looses, or the lives we ruin. In fact, we think we'll start with you.

Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702376)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.
Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS - MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE
Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN
They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?
Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER BITCHES ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. - WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.
What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?
They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD
And you were expecting what?

SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?
When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? .That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702438)

It's been over a year since this has been posted, and reposted, and rereposted, ad infinitum. I think we know how to "care for our nigger" by now. :P

Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702392)

When will the RIAA and ASCAP take a few minutes of their time to actually read the licenses from Creative Commons to see that CC actually complements copyright. Without copyright, CC wouldn't even work.

Re:Sigh (5, Interesting)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702444)

When will people take a few minutes to get some reading comprehension and realize that's ASCAP's point. CC is, in ASCAP's point of view, corrupting copyright. You can't say something's being corrupted if it's not being used. ASCAP doesn't want people using copyright in such a fashion as to be giving stuff away. Copyright must be exercised to make a profit, contributing freely to society is to be abhorred and derided as unnatural.

This is why ASCAP is so dangerous. They want to make it so that any and every project must be either profit-oriented, or public domain, with no middle ground. And if you can't afford to monetize something, then you're stuck either keeping it under wraps, or losing complete control of it.

Re:Sigh (5, Insightful)

Bryan3000000 (1356999) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702730)

After they change it to a profit-oriented | public domain dichotomy, they will work to co-opt the public domain. This is easily accomplished by doing compilations, revisions, or other transformation to a public domain work. Then they will attempt to ensure that any version that remains in the public domain becomes unavailable or that its source is sufficiently unpopular/unrecognized. At the same time, they will lobby for laws which will undermine any public domain repositories. They are already lobbying to have facts themselves copyrighted (as opposed to compilations of facts, which are currently copyrightable). The public domain is easy for them to undermine, while free culture licenses are next to impossible to undermine under the laws they have already succeeded in securing.

This strategy could be combated by setting up non-profit public domain repositories which take the same strategy of re-copyrighting works from the public domain, while refusing to license the works to for-profit ventures and making them available to the public freely or if that won't work through a membership mechanism, or some other strategy. This counter-strategy will inevitably fragment and require new strategies, etc, etc.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32703208)

There is always some sort of profit in it otherwise I would just public domain the item.

The profit in these sorts of licenses is 'you will act like I act'. That is the exchange of 'goods' here.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32703316)

If ASCAP wants to play that card, we can use the "IP Cartel is corrupting copyright by lobbying for extensions" card...

Re:Sigh (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702922)

When will the RIAA and ASCAP take a few minutes of their time to actually read the licenses from Creative Commons to see that CC actually complements copyright. Without copyright, CC wouldn't even work.

As soon as the RIAA and ASCAP hire people with a high enough intelligence to understand what they're reading.

In other words, about the same time hell freezes over.

The funniest thing... (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702394)

I just can't help but laugh at the complete lack of understanding of what Copyleft really is. Here's my stuff, you may quote it, keep a copy for yourself, pass copies along to your friends, but include attribution to the source. What the heck is so damned difficult to understand?

Re:The funniest thing... (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703672)

The part where no money is taken/received, apparently. The people in charge of this mess are scrooges. They subscribe to a very bad form of morals:

1. If it results in profit, it is moral.
2. If it does not result in profit or loss, it is pointless (or immoral)
3. If it results in loss, it is immoral

I forget the name of this system, but it's a real system that sociologists study. I think you could substitute profit for gain, as profit is a subset of gain.

Honestly, I wish such people would wise up or die in a fire.

Coming Battle: Individual Rights vs. Copyrights (5, Interesting)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702398)

With ACTA looming and governments already planning how to implement it, it seems that unless something else completely disruptive occurs there will be a battle over two competing rights models: individual rights versus copyrights (and other intellectual property rights). I respect intellectual property - to an extent. I believe in copyrights that help spur creativity in arts and sciences, but the original plan for copyrights as endorsed by the US Constitution was for them to grant limited time monopolies to creators. That model has been rejected because of the special interest corruption from multi-national corporations, and now the media cartels are working to make the federal government their handmaiden and servant on the Internet. If you haven't read it yet, the current draft of ACTA calls for action against copyright offenders at the inchoate stage, before the infringement has even been committed. It calls for the creation of an "impending infringer" task-force with a broad mandate to prevent copyright infringement that hasn't even taken place yet. Media reports are claiming that under ACTA it may become illegal to search for the keywords "Metallica album download," even if no infringing material is downloaded. If true, it would destroy the Internet as we know it, and we also know that once government gets its "nose under the tent" that will be just the beginning of its regulatory and enforcement regime. So, as I said before, while I have limited respect for intellectual property and believe it is morally wrong to enjoy another's work by copying it without approval, I believe in individual rights over copyrights. And moreover, I believe in maintaining a relatively free Internet with a certain level of copyright infringement going on if the alternative is clamping down on freedom online in a draconian way to discourage infringement. As the New Deal, the War on Poverty/Great Society, War on Drugs (and some may also argue the War on Terror) have shown us, the government cure to what ails society is usually far worse than the disease.

Re:Coming Battle: Individual Rights vs. Copyrights (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702480)

With ACTA looming and governments already planning how to implement it, it seems that unless something else completely disruptive occurs there will be a battle over two competing rights models: individual rights versus copyrights (and other intellectual property rights). I respect intellectual property - to an extent. I believe in copyrights that help spur creativity in arts and sciences, but the original plan for copyrights as endorsed by the US Constitution was for them to grant limited time monopolies to creators. That model has been rejected because of the special interest corruption from multi-national corporations, and now the media cartels are working to make the federal government their handmaiden and servant on the Internet. If you haven't read it yet, the current draft of ACTA calls for action against copyright offenders at the inchoate stage, before the infringement has even been committed. It calls for the creation of an "impending infringer" task-force with a broad mandate to prevent copyright infringement that hasn't even taken place yet. Media reports are claiming that under ACTA it may become illegal to search for the keywords "Metallica album download," even if no infringing material is downloaded. If true, it would destroy the Internet as we know it, and we also know that once government gets its "nose under the tent" that will be just the beginning of its regulatory and enforcement regime. So, as I said before, while I have limited respect for intellectual property and believe it is morally wrong to enjoy another's work by copying it without approval, I believe in individual rights over copyrights. And moreover, I believe in maintaining a relatively free Internet with a certain level of copyright infringement going on if the alternative is clamping down on freedom online in a draconian way to discourage infringement. As the New Deal, the War on Poverty/Great Society, War on Drugs (and some may also argue the War on Terror) have shown us, the government cure to what ails society is usually far worse than the disease.

That is one long paragraph.

Re:Coming Battle: Individual Rights vs. Copyrights (4, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702606)

As the New Deal, the War on Poverty/Great Society, War on Drugs (and some may also argue the War on Terror) have shown us, the government cure to what ails society is usually far worse than the disease.

Just one point: don't confuse bad governance with government. The reason ACTA is being passed is because the public at large is failing to do anything meaningful about it. Yeah, the media is shilling for corporate interests. But you decided to play a video game instead of doing anything about it. Instead of organizing your government, you went shopping or watched another hour of tv.

Piss and moan all you want, but anyone living in a democracy needs only a mirror to see who to blame.

Re:Coming Battle: Individual Rights vs. Copyrights (1)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702694)

And you aren't part of the public, Mr. Chomskyite? What exactly have you been doing to organize against ACTA? I'm trying trying to spread the word to everyone who will listen, and I'm preparing to organize. What's your contribution?

Re:Coming Battle: Individual Rights vs. Copyrights (1)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703218)

Americans are not ready for change. They are still in denial about the realities of things much more important than ACTA. It's going to take a larger crisis to wake them from their apathy.

In a sense, this is just as much as you have done. Identify what you consider a problem, tell the people you know about it, and hope they listen. Of course some of us are more self righteous than others with their impotent opinions.

PS This is one of the reasons I look up to Chomsky. He has been a true critic of state abuses of power and the threat of multinational corporations since long before you or I were born.

Re:Coming Battle: Individual Rights vs. Copyrights (4, Interesting)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32704086)

Just one point: don't confuse bad governance with government. The reason ACTA is being passed is because the public at large is failing to do anything meaningful about it.

It's hard to get people motivated about something that is being actively hidden from them.

Citizen: "ACTA is bad. Please Mr. Politician, stop it"
Politician: "which specific parts of ACTA are you talking about. Plese quote me chapter and verse"
Citizen: "But you won't let me see it. You won't even acknowledge it exists"
Politician: "So you have no idea what you're talking about.. Good day sir. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out"

Re:Coming Battle: Individual Rights vs. Copyrights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32703584)

If it becomes illegal to search for "Metallica album download", then I will write a script to search for it thousands of times per second, and distribute the script to everyone who wishes to searchbomb along side me.

(Achievement: New word, "Searchbomb")

When they filter it, the script will gain a list of bands that it randomly searches for. Again, thousands of times per second. Randomizing the reported source of the search is the next step. The arms race will ultimately result in a near-useless signal-to-noise ratio on the enforcement side of things. Once that happens, they stop listening, we stop making useless noise, and we can all chalk up a kill on an ACTA provision. 1 down, Only 80 hojillion more bad ideas to go.

Doing this in parallel to the rest of the "low-hanging fruit" of bad ideas in ACTA will likely hamstring early efforts to enforce any of them. This will raise enforcement costs with no foreseeable short-term benefits, which will likely lead to ACTA losing most if not all of its teeth.

So disobey. Disrupt. Destroy the bad laws and ideas. Destroy ACTA. Make it useless, and it will be reduced to nothing. If it can't be enforced, it has no teeth. If it has no teeth, it can't hurt you. If it can't hurt you, mission accomplished.

moron responding to unprecedented evile's moan (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702400)

it's a waste of time/energy, don't bother. it's not interested in a 'response' anyway. it just wants to consume/chaoticize everything.

the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their platform now. they do pull A LOT of major strings.

never a better time for all of us to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Tens of thousands of musicians? (3, Interesting)

jetole (1242490) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702422)

While the spokesperson for creative commons may or may not be right, I would like to know that tens of thousands is an accurate number and where he got it from. I hope he is right but I am skeptical that this is a real figure. I know all the artists he mentioned have used creative commons ("including acts like Nine Inch Nails, the Beastie Boys, David Byrne, Radiohead, and Snoop Dogg"). In fact Nine Inch Nails is my favorite band and I was excited when Trent Reznor made that decision for Nine Inch Nails and it's being followed through with his new band How To Destroy Angels (lead by his wife Mariqueen Maandig). I felt these were strong acts in supporting Creative Commons which has served me and many others very well in our business and personal lives. None the less, can someone please point me to a site, registry, document or anything that says tens of thousands of musicians in a reputable manner as the spokesperson has claimed?

Re:Tens of thousands of musicians? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702450)

here you go:
http://jamendo.com

Re:Tens of thousands of musicians? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702668)

Off the top of my head, you've got all the artists on the newgrounds audio portal, as well as artists on soundclick, mp3.com, last.fm, jamendo, and loads of smaller niche portals like them.

If you don't limit it to just musicians, then you've also got Youtube (obviously), Deviantart, most webzines (such as slashdot itself, and arstechnica), a lot of the projects on moddb, not to mention thousands of independents on services like livejournal and blogspot. CC is a *huge* part of the internet and its culture, and it's worrying that someone like ASCAP can even consider attacking it. The only way you could realistically fight a CC license would be to radically redefine copyright law - and I'm pretty sure that if someone tried that, the approach would also kill off the Apache license, the GPL, , or even just the busker on the street corner trying to give out demo tapes. Even broadcast TV could go down the pan - after all, you receive it on an implied license. End result? Essentially, a complete shutdown of the internet and culture as we know it.

Not a world I want to be a part of. Thankfully, I don't think ASCAP can affect copyright legislation in the UK and Europe, and the EC seems sane enough not to let something like this happen.

That's the beauty of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702432)

Most creative commons license are undermining copyright, by using it against itself. You can't take away the weapon without killing the defendant.

Copyright Advocates Undermining Copyright (1)

Randwulf (997659) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702578)

The copyright advocates are undermining copyright by turning a decent idea (limited copyright) into a ridiculous one (holding culture hostage for as long as possible to prop up failing business models). The more they push their agenda the more people will call shenanigans on them and embrace copyleft (if not "piracy").

Production and copying creates wealth (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702440)

For whatever reason the governments of the world got into misguided attempts to 'promote' wealth creation by actually limiting human ability to do so by copying, these misguided attempts include copyrights and patents (though trademarks are really not such a big problem).

Having a good working economy relies on production, not on consumption, and when society starts artificially limiting human ability to produce by copying or in any other way, that society starts losing the edge on its productive capacity and eventually loses its main wealth generator - production (unless of-course, that society does not rely on production but on something else - raw material extraction or wars and stealing things others produce).

Copyright and patent laws kill economy, that's all there is to it.

Re:Production and copying creates wealth (4, Insightful)

brit74 (831798) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702908)

The big problem with your argument is that you don't have a model for creators to be paid. If creators can't get paid (or get paid insufficiently), then you undermine the production part of the equation. If you don't like the system, then you should promote alternate ways for creators to get paid for their work that actually work well. For example, if tax dollars went to pay creators, then creators would get paid and society copy their work all they want because the creator already got paid. (Unfortunately, this undermines the need for creators to create something truly useful for society. At least copyright forces creators to create something that society wants to buy.) Or, perhaps a shorter copyright so that people can eventually copy it all they want (after the copyright has expired), but the creator still has an exclusive period where he can get paid (although, even that would be a compromise according to your thinking).

Re:Production and copying creates wealth (2, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703072)

The big problem with your argument is that you don't have a model for creators to be paid.

First, not all authors need to be paid. For example, no one is paying for you to write posts on Slashdot, which are perfectly valid creative works, and presently protected by copyright; you're choosing to do so yourself. So we could probably abolish copyrights for works where the author would have created and published the work if he couldn't get a copyright. (Lacking the ability to read minds, probably the best way to do this is to require authors to register and pay a nominal fee to get copyrights; authors who don't care probably won't bother, while authors who do care probably will.)

Second, copyright as we know it only dates back to the early 18th century, and didn't become widespread until well into the 19th and 20th centuries. Yet there have been plenty of authors, all around the world, through recorded history. While some of them would've done their work at a loss, it seems likely that there were plenty of them who would only work if they could make a living at it. How then, in the absence of copyright, did they get paid?

Well, there are several means. Authors could have a patron, who pays them to create works that he likes, or could have a collective of patrons, who pays for works that they would collectively like. E.g. if 1,000 hard-core fans of a particular author each chip in $20 for a new work, the author can gross $20,000 right there, plus whatever else he could exploit the work for. Authors could sell specific works, as opposed to mass-reproduced copies of that work, on the basis that not all copies are equal, even if they communicate the work equally. This is how most fine artists make money, even today, with copyrights; an original Van Gogh painting is worth millions, but a postcard of a the same painting is worth almost nothing. Authors can sell their labor, rather than copies of their works, just as many people sell their labor, rather than the fruits of their labor. For example, a wedding party might hire a band to play music.

There are other ways as well; I don't want to get into an exhaustive list.

Personally, I think that a carefully designed copyright system can provide a greater benefit to society than the harm it causes. But copyright only adds one additional means for authors to make money; it doesn't detract from any of the others, and it may not even be the most important or best way of encouraging the creation and publication of art. Certainly it is at best useful, but is not at all necessary.

Re:Production and copying creates wealth (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703284)

The big problem with your argument is that you don't have a model for creators to be paid.

- that's simply not true.

Creators get paid by making things that people want and selling them. What you are arguing is that without a law like copyright/patent, others would be able also to make the same thing once they saw yours. This is true and it is desirable.

People made things for tens of thousands of years before any such laws came to existence and those who are first on the market have the advantage of being the most recognizable with their new invention/modification/piece of art/music/whatever.

Your argument contradicts tens of thousands, no hundreds of thousands, no millions of years of life on this planet. By the way, the most successful organisms are those, who can take as much of good stuff from other organisms by copying as possible, just an interesting observation. Those who didn't do so don't exist.

should rename (1)

Jeek Elemental (976426) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702464)

After this pr disaster I think they should change name to distance themselves. Maybe ASHAT?

Subtle distinction (5, Interesting)

gilroy (155262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702576)

ASCAP is (almost) correct. While copyleft doesn't undermine copyright, it does undermine the copyright cartel. If artists begin to license worthwhile, popular, and (monetarily) successful works under copyleft -- if artists succeed while granting people more rights than they, strictly, have to -- then consumers might begin to wonder why more artists -- and big companies -- don't do that. Using copyleft could become a competitive advantage. And then how will Big Music justify restricting users?

If the sheep wake up, the whole industry -- as currently organized -- falls apart. And that's what ASCAP is worried about.

Re:Subtle distinction (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703172)

Using copyleft could become a competitive advantage

I very much doubt that.

Music doesn't become popular because it's free to use or anything like that. It becomes popular because it's "catchy", and catchy has nothing to do with cost.

Re:Subtle distinction (1)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703644)

Not nothing. Free music can be spread (caught) more easily. So if you have alternative mechanisms to monetize in place (concert tour for example), you may reap more profit from free music than non-free music.

Re:Subtle distinction (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703730)

Music is sort of built in. If we like it, it will spread. Even if we hate a piece of music, it will hang on forever if it's catchy.

See "Around the World" by Daft Punk and "Macarena" by Los del Río as examples.

Re:Subtle distinction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32703850)

Using copyleft could become a competitive advantage

I very much doubt that.

Music doesn't become popular because it's free to use or anything like that. It becomes popular because it's "catchy", and catchy has nothing to do with cost.

Ideologically, you're right. However, the truth is that music becomes popular because it's a shared cultural experience that draws people together. Hence, you get a bunch of RIAA music that isn't really all that catchy becoming popular because everyone's heard it and can relate to others that have heard it -- and the powers that be are saying it's the next greatest thing.

What the GP is saying (if I understand correctly) is that the use of copyleft could stand in for the RIAA's preaching to reach into the social consciousness and forge a bond of communality. It still has little to do with cost; it has to do with freedom of socialization. We're social animals, and it's starting to dawn on people that the current regime is perverting that social structure -- and that there are currently functional alternative methods of producing social content.

Re:Subtle distinction (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 4 years ago | (#32704018)

Not really. Most popular music becomes popular because a big media company makes a big fuss about some hot girl singing a bad song, and then radio stations (and now MTV et al) play it.

Vote with your wallet: (3, Interesting)

TwineLogic (1679802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702626)

Boycott ASCAP members. Email your favorite ASCAP artist and let them know why.

Re:Vote with your wallet: (3, Insightful)

manicpop (1342057) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703102)

The e-mail could go something like this: "You're one of my favorite artists and I love your work! Now I won't be supporting you because of the position your performance rights organization has taken. I hope you can continue to create wonderful music without my financial support, not that I'll be enjoying them." I'm all for copyright reform, and I abhor the positions of groups like ASCAP and the RIAA, but I don't think boycotting the artists is the right step to take. For example, let's you love a great independent band but you're upset they've signed with an RIAA-backed major label, and you won't purchase their new album because of your disdain for the RIAA, and other people do the same. So, the new album is a flop. The major label realizes and decides that this small act wasn't ready for the Big Time, and drops them off the label. Now your favorite band has a failed album, they've lost their outlet with which to release their work, and if anything they're in debt from the entire experience. The RIAA is no worse off. ASCAP is different because they do performance rights, not the releasing of music, but the effect is the same. Boycotting artists that you like just because they are affiliated with ASCAP won't hurt ASCAP, there will just be fewer artists that you like who are able to be successful. How about an e-mail to your favorite artist that says "I love your work and I'm happy to support you, but I'm concerned about the positions that ASCAP and the RIAA are taking. Have your considered releasing your work through alternative channels of distribution?" A thousand musicians who can't make a living through the "system" and get dropped aren't going to change anything, but a thousand musicians inside the "system" who can lobby these groups to modernize absolutely could.

2 big funnies on this (3, Interesting)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702644)

1 copyLEFT needs copyRIGHT to actually "work" (you go on the hook for copyright violations if you break a copyleft license)

2 This "Brilliant" act by ASCAP gives the Copyleft folks something they can always use
  A COMMON ENEMY

One question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32702702)

Is there a list of ASCAP signed artists out there so that those of us who wish to boycott them will actually know just who to boycott?

I'd hate to help fund ASCAP even inadvertantly.

CC's reply is a little overly legalistic (4, Insightful)

drfireman (101623) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702764)

How about this instead:

Hey, ASCAP, why do you think you should have the right to do what you want with your stuff but we shouldn't have the right to do what we want with ours? If you don't like Creative Commons licenses, don't use them. Don't tell us what licenses to use for our works. They're our works, not yours. That's what copyright means.

Re:CC's reply is a little overly legalistic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32703132)

It's usually not ASCAP's "stuff". They're a collection agency, not generally the owners of the copyrights for which they collect fees.

Creative Commons works strike at the business models of their company, not of copyright: if they have to actually verify that works broadcast from a radio station, or played in a bar, have an ASCAP serviced copyright, rather than a Creative Commons copyright, it multiplies their costs tremendously.

It's also critical for their business that they remain the only, or the primary, collection agency for such license fees. Competition is something they do not want.

ASCAP tries to ban Wikipedia (5, Insightful)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702790)

ASCAP's aim in the original letter was to stop people releasing their own works under copyleft licences. This would effectively ban Wikipedia, the entire text of which is CC-by-sa. Does ASCAP really want that particular fight? (I've already suggested on foundation-l that WMF respond to this issue.)

Re:ASCAP tries to ban Wikipedia (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703592)

I'm sure I'll get modded down for saying this, but I'm not too sure I want Wikipedia brought up as the shining example of Open Source licensing. People had been contributing under the GFDL, only to have Wikipedia and GNU work together to subvert that and convert everything to the Creative Commons license. Agree with the license change or not (I personally do, I believe CC is a better fit!), the way they did it was still pretty fucked up.

Re:ASCAP tries to ban Wikipedia (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703798)

If that's true, this page [wikipedia.org] could become interesting.

Clarifications (-1, Flamebait)

brit74 (831798) | more than 4 years ago | (#32702862)

To be fair, it's possible to support both copyright and copyleft. It's also true that many of the copyleft promoters, unfortunately, do not support copyright. The earlier article mentioned Doctorow, and he's a well-known piracy advocate. What evidence do I have for that? Well, the fact that he sold "I pirate music" T-shirts and promoted how-to-pirate books on his website should give you an indication. The EFF is slightly more moderate, although they do employ Doctorow, and seem to have a habit of doing what they can to prevent any enforcement of copyright. As far as I can tell, the EFF is involved in legal wrangling to make sure copyright cannot be enforced - making the whole issue a lame duck. I think it's entirely valid for ASCAP to accuse the EFF of working within the legal system to undermine copyright.

Personally, I'm fine with creators using copyright or copyleft. I have to at least give ASCAP a nod for recognizing that some of these groups are not supporting both - they are working to undermine copyright and would like to see copyleft as the replacement. I don't think copyleft undermines copyright, but I think copyleft is used by these people as part of a larger campaign to undermine copyright.

Re:Clarifications (5, Insightful)

number11 (129686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703092)

The EFF is slightly more moderate, although they do employ Doctorow, and seem to have a habit of doing what they can to prevent any enforcement of copyright.

Cory Doctorow hasn't been employed by the EFF in the last 5 years. He's been a full-time writer since January 2006 [wikipedia.org] .

Can we assume that your other claims are of similar accuracy?

it's the money, stupid. (2, Insightful)

mpgalvin (207975) | more than 4 years ago | (#32703416)

It has nothing to do with copyright principles or any clever agenda.

Copyleft cuts ASCAP style enforcers out of the money loop. Plain and simple, it hits them where it hurts: the business model. The letter is just FUD to scare up lobby money - though anything they could accomplish that would effectively halt copyleft licensing would be damaging to the US IT industry.

sehit... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32703714)

represents the in ti!me. For all and the bottom the same operation
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?