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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Check out the Captain Copyright site now. (4, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356328)

http://www.captaincopyright.ca/Default.aspx [captaincopyright.ca]
Seems that they've picked up on how dumb their idea was.
The Captain Copyright site was created for educators because they told us through surveys and focus groups conducted by an independent consultant that they needed tools to help them teach their students about copyright, but none were available.

I can understand asking for more text books, smaller classes or new equipment ... but what "educator" is going to put "copyright education" on their list?

Re:Check out the Captain Copyright site now. (1)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356388)

You might be surprised. Teachers or educators, however you'll have it, face the issue of copyrights, royalties, and public performance caveats all the time. If you don't cough up to the copyright owner beforehand, public performance of copyrighted works can potentially cause a bundle of trouble. A librarian I know told me her branch pays $400/year to be able to show Disney films at the library. I'm sure that some of them would enjoy having a dedicated curriculum resource to integrate with Social Studies or what-have-you-these-days.

I durst not defend Captain Copyright, of course. He's even lamer than anti-drug or anti-smoking mascots (remember the South Park episode "Butt Out"?), which on the whole don't seem to be particularly effective at informing or even brainwashing young minds.

I'm still not seeing it. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356442)

Teachers or educators, however you'll have it, face the issue of copyrights, royalties, and public performance caveats all the time.

I'm sure they do. But I'm not seeing why any of them would list it as something to spend money on teaching it to kids.

To me, it sounds like their "independent consultant" wasn't as independent as was advertised. Particularly since Access Copyright
http://www.accesscopyright.ca/ [accesscopyright.ca]
was involved in the production.

Re:I'm still not seeing it. (1)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356588)

What's wrong with an independent consultant that was hired by a licensing agency asking educators questions specifically about copyright education? The alternative seems downright illogical to me.

You don't really think that Access Copyright would waste their time asking educators what they needed in the classroom in general terms, do you? That's the government's job to find out. The licensing company involved with the focus groups and other committees that gave birth to Captain Copyright was interested solely in how to provide educators with something that they could easily use to educate schoolchildren about copyright law. I can't imagine any of the questions they asked the educators had anything to do with classroom size, text books, or new equipment, except in the context of copyright education.

Re:I'm still not seeing it. (1)

TheSeer2 (949925) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356872)

That's exactly the problem. The questions didn't give them any room to want anything but copyright education.

Re:I'm still not seeing it. (1)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356936)

You say that like it's automatically a bad thing. Being *properly* educated about something like copyright law could motivate students to actually do something about it.

The agency in question probably had their 'independent consultant' ask focus groups composed of educators questions from the perspective of "What can we do to make educating about copyright law easier?" or "How can we integrate this into a classroom environment?" and realised they didn't have a mascot like the anti-drugs/smoking lobbies or PETA have available for curricular brainwashing purposes. It's a good thing they stopped there or poor Canada might have something truly heinous to deal with.

Re:Check out the Captain Copyright site now. (-1, Offtopic)

MicrosoftRepresentit (1002310) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356526)

I don't care. I've drunk almost two bottles of port, and later on tonight I'm going to inject seven million volts of pure sex energy directly into my girlfriends clitoris, before letting her suck my sex carrot right off its hinge.

Re:Check out the Captain Copyright site now. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17356600)

Okay, it was informative in a sense but has nothing to do with the article. I have reason to believe your girlfriend was the first moderator of your comment and it was a sarcastic "Informative", more like a really?

Re:Check out the Captain Copyright site now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17356636)

Moderators, mod this up if you will, but please remember that sometimes there's such a thing as TOO much information.

Re:Check out the Captain Copyright site now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17356706)

If I had to guess, I would say that no one actually asked for it. It was probably a case where they spammed some teachers with a survey asking "If you were to teach about copyright, what would you need?" and got replies like, "I don't know... a web site maybe." Then interpreted that as educators asking for tools. If you know how to word mince you can make a report say anything you want.

Re:Check out the Captain Copyright site now. (2, Informative)

Azari (665035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17357244)

I would. There's very little good information on copyright that I've seen that's easily digestible by kids. (In no way saying Captain Copyright is 'good' information, just saying that I've not found a lot to use for my kids.)

Just because people tend to go overboard about what copyright should or shouldn't do, doesn't mean that kids should be informed about it. I realise that this would qualify me for a 'you must be new here', but just because you might have a low opinion of copyright doesn't make it less worth leaning about, because it's something that people will need to deal with at some point (and probably already are without knowing it).

Re:Check out the Captain Copyright site now. (1)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17357902)

Well, jeez, you had to bring up poor Cap Copyright. It was such a shame when he was busted for snarfing data from wikipedia. At that point he spontaneously combusted. All children who were watching are still in counseling.

Now, if only we could get all those other damn astroturf sites to essplode!

...DRM wasn't #1 Loser?! (no text) (1)

dayid (802168) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356534)

...DRM wasn't #1 Loser?!

DRM's victories this year (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17364520)

DRM's victories this year:

Xbox live gold has proven that a DRM'ed box can sell a lot of DRM'ed content, a concept that is pushing forth in the beta and release versions of Windows Vista.

Apple's online store may be faltering, but still the strongest in the space. Sales of DRM'ed TV shows online are up.

Cellphone unlocking was ruled legal, but cellular providers still have a lock on the content space of your phone.

The HDMI standard really started to become standard on HDTV's this year, finally allowing people to re-buy their electronics ONE MORE TIME if they want high-resolution video output. This has been pushed forward by the popularity of consoles, themselves DRM'ed to heck.

The "universally compatible" DRM initiative by Microsoft, called "plays anywhere," was scrapped by them in favor of a newer, more proprietary DRM for their Zune portable. Apparently the last one wasn't evil enough.

Easy answer... Bleep.com. Go there, it rocks! (2, Informative)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17356714)

No-DRM == winner!
DRM == looser!

If you like coffee-table electro then visit bleep.com [bleep.com]. Non-DRM'd, MP3'd, cool music from Warp Records and associates. If you like the Aphex Twin, Squarepusher, Plaid or that kind of stuff, then consider that link a Christmas present from the Gods!

Merry Christmas all!

DRM'd music? I'd rather feed their bones to pigs...

Re:Easy answer... Bleep.com. Go there, it rocks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17356738)

"DRM == looser!" ..looser than what, may I ask?

Re:Easy answer... Bleep.com. Go there, it rocks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17356752)

Oh bugger, I knew I'd had one too many at the pub tonight!

Merry Christmas! Pigs in blankets!

Re:Easy answer... Bleep.com. Go there, it rocks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17356794)

"DRM == looser!" ..looser than what, may I ask?

Looser than your mom, of course.

Oh snap.

Re:Easy answer... Bleep.com. Go there, it rocks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17358844)

Err... that means his mother's tight. Which means she doesn't put out a lot. I think you meant "Well not looser than your mom, of course" which would mean his mom was a slut.

Re:Easy answer... Bleep.com. Go there, it rocks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17364498)

Actually, that does imply that his mom is loose. What would be the point of saying "this music distribution model is looser than (something that is tight)"? I'd have said "<em>even</em> looser than your mom*," though.

*except that I have reason to believe that his mom is actually looser than DRM. Regardless, they're both completely fucked.

One question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17356916)

What the fuck is "coffee-table electro"? The division of genres is out of control.

Re:One question: answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17358048)

..I think that means the music is so bad, you pull a ballmer variation and pick up your coffee table and smash your speakers with it in a pure self-defense reflex mode.

DivX Stage6 (2, Informative)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17357024)

I'll throw in a shameless plug for DivX Stage6 [divx.com]. It's in alpha, but you can publish DivX and XVID video files in their original quality all the way up to 1080p with 5.1 MP3 Surround. Stage6 also allows you to easily download the videos directly with no DRM (so long as the publisher permits it), and it's focused around building high-quality content communities.

A couple of example channels launched recently:
http://stage6.divx.com/BT [divx.com]
http://stage6.divx.com/Witness [divx.com]

DivX Web Player [divx.com] is required for in-browser playback on Windows and Mac (supporting all common browsers on each), and Linux users should be able to play most files in VLC or the like pending direct support for the platform.

OLGA (1)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17357832)

Sad to see OLGA in this list. It was a great site, but you go there now and you get all kinds of OCILLA [wikipedia.org] notices. If you play guitar and need to quickly cheat and get the chord progression for a song, that was the place to go. Sad part is, it was just a bunch of people contributing .txt files of songs as they had figured them out. It's not like it was mp3's or anything. Jeez.

Publishers vs. OLGA, charts, lyrics and tab sites (1)

hguorbray (967940) | more than 7 years ago | (#17359094)

It's too bad that the music publishers hound dedicated fans and hobbyists and stop them from sharing these resources when they are unwilling or unable to offer well-formatted songs piecemiel in a similar way to how they could be obtained on the net. Most of enthusiasts are reverse engineering songs they like with their ears and not directly copying the copyrighted materials of the publisher.

OF course, when it gets to the web it is 'published' -and therein lies the rub....

AS someone who plays cover songs with my friends and likes to throw them a few new songs every week I write my own charts because even if I could get that one song individually from a sheet music publisher it would be written piano/vocal style on about 6 pages with 12 bars or so per page. If you wanted a song that was not 'published' as a $5 single, you had to buy the songbook for the whole album for as much or more than the CD cost. Or hope that you could get it on a 'best rock of the '90s'-type collection and hope there might be another decent song or two that you could use.

I need a one sheet lyric and chord with optional vocal melody fakebook-type representation. The music publishers only make those available through 'fakebooks' which are limited to the most popular songs of a given era -for about $50 per book of 200-500 songs. I can't buy 'fakebook' versions of say, the Pretenders or Radiohead's Greatest Hits -I either have to buy their long sheets and write them 'by hand' to a one page format -or grab the lyrics off the net and chart them by ear if I can't find a good tab. I am sure that there are many other musicians like me in this respect.

I also appreciated the painstaking degree of accuracy that some of the OLGA enthusists acheived in their transcriptions of complicated multi-guitar arrangements. On the other hand I remember absolutely wretched transcriptions of pop and rock songs in the early '70s in my sister's songbooks where the chords were completely off -like they had been made by some classical or jazz intern with no comprehension of Rock. Admittedly, most of the charts I have seen in the past 10 years have been a lot better.

Just as with music sales and licensing, music publishers have long dominated this area and would rather legislate than compete fairly in the new media and in the new information economy by offering people what they want and are willing to pay for in a format we can use.

-I'm just sayin'

Next year's BIG loser -- the Zune (1, Flamebait)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17357840)

Of course, the Zune might singlehandedly kill off DRM due to piss-poor execution, so we all get to be the winners.

TROLL? (1)

Clueless Nick (883532) | more than 7 years ago | (#17358528)

Give 'em a break, will ya!

What's the harm in calling a spade a spade? Or is somebody astroturfing here?

Re:Next year's BIG loser -- the Zune (1)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17362504)

whomever modded me OT and flamebait -- may the metamods have mercy on your soul

That was a legitimate post...what, you think the Zune is great and will win people to the side of DRM?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account