http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/08/amazon-kindle-licence-orwell
This article highlights some of the problems with the Kindle's EULA. When buying books from amazon to be sued on the Kindle, the degree to which the user owns the books is dubious. The licensing agreement prevents them from sharing, lending, selling or even donating the book at a later time. This is because the users do not own the book, rather they have entered into an agreement with Amazon granting them "the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use."
This gives Amazon control over what by all means, should be the property of the person who paid for it. This control was exemplified when all kindle users who had purchased George Orwell's 1984 (an amusingly appropriate choice of books to have this occur to) realized that it had been removed overnight without their notification. They were reimbursed for the money, but the point remains that the book they had paid for was taken from them.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Absent Second: An Explanation
http://freemusicarchive.org/member/stevenarntson/blog/The_Absent_Second_An_Explanation
In this article, folk musician Steven Arntson discusses his frustration with copyright law as it applies to the folk music process. Not unlike current hip hop, a part of folk music has always been the re imagining and reuse of existing songs, either through reference or parody. In this example, Arntson, a contemporary musician wanted to use some bars of music and some lyrics from Woody Guthrie, who was inspired by an earlier folk song which was itself inspired by a spiritual.
While Guthrie had no problem doing this in 1936, the law and the companies holding the copyright on Guthrie's work today prevented Arntson from using a section of this song in a much larger melody without paying several thousand dollars (on an album Arntson intended to release free of charge).
Arntson decided to release the album without the Guthrie inspired section, but feels that his musical process was stifled. And as unfair as it seems that the owners of Guthrie's work can take credit for an adaptation of an adaptation of an old spiritual (both of which are in the public domain. However, Guthrie's lyrics remain copyrighted), what seems more striking is that Guthrie himself had no desire to see his work copyrighted and featured the following memo on the bottom of a page from his song book, sent to listeners who requested it:
"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do." (http://www.boingboing.net/2002/06/17/guthrie-on-copyright.html#previouspost)
In this instance, it seems clear, that far from protecting the creator of the original work (the supposed purpose behind copyright law), the ownership of this intellectual material is serving only to stifle the musical process.
In this article, folk musician Steven Arntson discusses his frustration with copyright law as it applies to the folk music process. Not unlike current hip hop, a part of folk music has always been the re imagining and reuse of existing songs, either through reference or parody. In this example, Arntson, a contemporary musician wanted to use some bars of music and some lyrics from Woody Guthrie, who was inspired by an earlier folk song which was itself inspired by a spiritual.
While Guthrie had no problem doing this in 1936, the law and the companies holding the copyright on Guthrie's work today prevented Arntson from using a section of this song in a much larger melody without paying several thousand dollars (on an album Arntson intended to release free of charge).
Arntson decided to release the album without the Guthrie inspired section, but feels that his musical process was stifled. And as unfair as it seems that the owners of Guthrie's work can take credit for an adaptation of an adaptation of an old spiritual (both of which are in the public domain. However, Guthrie's lyrics remain copyrighted), what seems more striking is that Guthrie himself had no desire to see his work copyrighted and featured the following memo on the bottom of a page from his song book, sent to listeners who requested it:
"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do." (http://www.boingboing.net/2002/06/17/guthrie-on-copyright.html#previouspost)
In this instance, it seems clear, that far from protecting the creator of the original work (the supposed purpose behind copyright law), the ownership of this intellectual material is serving only to stifle the musical process.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Wanted: Home Computers to Join in Research on Artificial Life
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/science/29grid.html?_r=1&ref=technology
A team of researches is attempting to use people's idle computers in order to allow massive processing of a simulated primordial sea, similar to SETIs use of home computers. The goal is to eventually find evidence of evolution within the simulation and to learn about the biological structures of living things as a result.
While this seems far fetched, it may yield worthwhile results. Unlike analysis of actual biological material, the simulation allows for complete understanding. Every aspect of what happens can be monitored and understood, all without disturbing the simulation. Furthermore, given the complexity and length of the simulation, it may provide unexpected results in the form of digital "organisms." While obviously not physical creatures, these organisms would be separate from any human invention and would give credence to the concept of computer invention.
A team of researches is attempting to use people's idle computers in order to allow massive processing of a simulated primordial sea, similar to SETIs use of home computers. The goal is to eventually find evidence of evolution within the simulation and to learn about the biological structures of living things as a result.
While this seems far fetched, it may yield worthwhile results. Unlike analysis of actual biological material, the simulation allows for complete understanding. Every aspect of what happens can be monitored and understood, all without disturbing the simulation. Furthermore, given the complexity and length of the simulation, it may provide unexpected results in the form of digital "organisms." While obviously not physical creatures, these organisms would be separate from any human invention and would give credence to the concept of computer invention.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Copyright Law Threatening
http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Copyright+threatening/1969025/story.html
This Canadian article discusses the problems of copyright law and a right to privacy in a digital age. As people become more able to distribute copyrighted material over a number of private channels, the old copyright laws become unfeasible without constant and ubiquitous surveillance of citizens, which obviously flies in the face of civil liberties.
While this particular article gets off to something of an alarmist start, citing dictatorships and the KGB-like invasion of privacy in much of the Soviet Block, it's point remains valid. The media giants are attempting to maintain an outdated system rather than restructuring it for a new age. The result is that people willfully break the law that they no longer see as just while government is lobbied to spy on it's own citizens.
This Canadian article discusses the problems of copyright law and a right to privacy in a digital age. As people become more able to distribute copyrighted material over a number of private channels, the old copyright laws become unfeasible without constant and ubiquitous surveillance of citizens, which obviously flies in the face of civil liberties.
While this particular article gets off to something of an alarmist start, citing dictatorships and the KGB-like invasion of privacy in much of the Soviet Block, it's point remains valid. The media giants are attempting to maintain an outdated system rather than restructuring it for a new age. The result is that people willfully break the law that they no longer see as just while government is lobbied to spy on it's own citizens.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)