What the Freetard Photo book tells us Powerful aristocrats throughout history have commissioned portraits by master artists to immortalize their achievements. Now amateur photographer and Creative Commons advocate Joi Ito is offering that immortality to bloggers, bureaucrats, coders, CEOs, and other obscure Free Software functionaries, in an expensive limited- …
http://www.welcomebooks.com/theoxfordproject/
The Oxford Project is a fantastic book. What an amusing comparison with the vanity Creative Commons effort.
But even if Joi Ito had the talent of a Man Ray or an Ansell Adams, I don't think anyone would want to look at pictures of saddo Creative Commons Freetards 20 years later.
Case closed.
"Copyrights are for professionals, Creative Commons is for amateurs seeking..."
Well, yes. Without an income from it, it isn't professional really. And, as for amateurs, if they have no interest in making money from it, why not share it for free. So, up to this point fine. I quite agree with most of the articles sentiment that copyright of art is perfectly acceptable. Everything is worth what people are willing to pay. However...
"... a niche for unmarketable work"
This is the point where you fall flat on your face. Please extract your head from your backside and come down off your high horse. There are plenty of artists out there not interested in making money, but just do the work for the love of it. Please don't live under the assumption that because you get payed for your work that you are better than others. Especially if your quality of article writing is anything to go by. I know I'm not a great artist/writer, but I couldn't reach the end of your article due to the huge lack of point and interest.
Out of the examples you linked, the only one which is in focus at all is the studio shot taken with a medium format system that costs more than all the cars I've ever owned put together.
Every single other shot, all taken with the merely very expensive camera, was out of focus to some extent, several of them badly enough that you could see it in the small sized images.
I know the Leica M8 is a manual focus rangefinder, but seriously? It's *designed* for manual focus, it shouldn't be that hard to get it right most of the time.
This guy's work should be cited as proof that expensive cameras won't make you a better photographer.
Looking at the list of people in Free Souls, there are a few names which seem to have escaped attention, at least for people who are "willing to share" - only minor names that spring to mind, just like that unheard-of Richard Stallman, or Linus Torvalds, Eric S Raymond, Alan Cox et al. Or on a slightly more banal track, Randall Munroe who draws xkcd, which is explicitly CC licensed, and is probably one of the more popular CC licensed productions out there.
Tux, just because.
Did someone pick on you at school? You seem to have grown up with a chip in your shoulder.
The point is that Lame Art is Lame no matter what manifesto it's wrapped up in, or whether it's amateur or professional.
I followed the link from this story to the book's site and found this handjob from Professor Lawrence Lessig as the Foreword, which sums up the circle jerk:
"Joi's photograph of Cory captures this complex soul perfectly. The shot is from the side, looking down at a smile, or smirk--we can't quite tell--impish and yet powerful at the same time, joyous yet driven with a passion to create. Anyone who knows Cory will recognize his soul in this free image. For those who don't, they will be given a clue. This is art at its best, enabled because the artist is not a professional."
Art at it's best ?? Pass me the sick bag.
Lessig can't tell Good from Bad, and neither it seems can you.
Having looked at the 'work' in question I agree it's ....well......crap! So I am in full agreement with your judgement of it's quality.
But you really need to climb down off that high horse. Your absurd statement that suggests only "real" artists make a living out of their work is total bollocks.
By your criteria Vincent Van Gogh wasn't a "real" artist then. He's just an example of course, history has many examples of such "amateurs" who didn't manage to "ship" during their time on this earth, to quote your rather odd statement at the end of your article.
"Real artists ship, their work is in demand." Is that the americanism for deliver or is it a mis-spelling?
Work (if you can call it that) of utter and mind-numbing banality. Really really ordinary snaps that show SFA of the subject's personality.
Whereas the Oxford Project engages the viewer with not only a visible time-line but the portraits (which is what they are) exude a tremendous sense of the characters portrayed.
In other words, the Free Souls book is total bollocks.
I can't disagree with Eicher's critique of Ito's compilation because I've never seen the book and doubt I will ever make an effort to view it. I do disagree with his implied argument that copyrighted works are inherently superior to works produced under other licenses such as Creative Commons. I found his entire article to be as self serving as his complaints against Ito's work and other "vanity press" publications when really it is nothing more than an unpaid advertisement in the guise of literary critique.
An article proposing limiting copyright to no more than is needed to meets its legitimate purpose (e.g. 20 years maximum being applied to commercial beneficiaries of copying only) might help, but this article doesn't do this.
As it doesn't it comes over as yet another tired and blatant bit of propaganda and brainwashing by copyright extremists, but what else can we expect from those who benefit from copyright ? Turkeys don't vote for Chrismas. Copyright as currently extended is taxation without representation. To defend it, the beneficiaries want to spy upon all of our communications ( http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/12/uk-proposes-three-strikes-and-your-out-illegal-downloading-law/ ) and lock us up if we discuss the technical protection implementation details ( http://www.freesklyarov.org/ ). Copyright is increasingly widely disregarded and ignored ( http://www.cria.ca/news/290905a_n.php ).
This article does nothing to propose limiting copyright and it's enforcement in any manner likely to result in the growing public disregard and contempt for copyright being reduced in the slightest.
If someone wants to do something they *enjoy doing* (and that's the key part) then who are you to stand in their way?
If they want to do it they're obviously getting something out of it - even if it is just a warm fuzzy feeling.
On another note, he's being a tad hypocritical not CC'ing his own portait is he not?
Paris, because she enjoys giving herself away
@Richard Kay
I thought Mac zealots were mad! Anti-copyright extremists like Richard Kay almost make them look sane and rational.
The comparison of American freedom fighters like Richard Otis to anti social inadequates who don't want to pay for digital music shows how mentally retarded these people are. It insults the memory of real freedom fighters who really were getting a raw deal and were fighting a colonial army.
How on Earth is paying for art that you value oppression? It's a choice you make. When I last looked DRM hadn't killed anyone, and paying for music was not compulsory. You can always spot a fanatic like Richard Kay because they have lost all sense of proportion.
What a sad and lonely man you must be to take away creator's rights and call it fighting for freedom.
"But real artists must keep control of their rights in order to fund their work. Real artists ship, their work is in demand."
This is, of course, pure garbage. It may apply to bland, unchallenging, bastardized commercial art; the sort of boring decorations you see in corporate lobbies and shopping malls; but it is certainly not true for great art. It creates a world of "artists" who spend more time and effort on grant proposals, market research, "networking", and self-indulgent "vision statements" than they do on their actual art.
Art worth the effort is timeless and doesn't depend on some forcible "protection" of a nebulous and arbitrary collection of privileges. Art has been made throughout human history, whereas copyright is very much a modern invention. None of the greatest art has been "copyright", and much of it was a commercial failure. Reubens did not live comfortably off his art, and Van Gogh never sold a single painting during his lifetime. Very few artists were able to make a decent living off of their artwork. Most often, they survived by working a regular job, or living off of a rich patron or lover. By Eicher's definition, the majority of the greatest artists in history were amateurs whose work was inherently worthless.
Regardless of the merits of lack thereof of Ito's work, this article was nothing more than a self-serving bit of propaganda.
Yes, yes, Ito gave away his "art" for free, because he "wanted to do it" for the "joy of the experience." However, it's also the right (and, really, obligation) of journals such as The Reg to exercise their prerogative in criticizing said art. We can all debate the accuracy of that criticism until the cows come home, but to slag against the critic for not drinking the CC kool-aid is kind of missing the point, wouldn't you all agree?
So basically, the article says "art people make you pay for is good, art people want to give you is bad". Which is crap. There is good art, and bad art, and it has nothing to do with what's profitable or popular. If "art" is what is popular, "MacDonalds" is the height of the culinary art world. If "art" is what sells, "pet rocks" are more art than Rodin. So much for that premise.
This seems to be some sort of vague attack on one persons contribution, while taking a swing at protecting copyright. By someone who probably never heard of the Statute of Anne or the London Company of Stationers, and is more than willing defend our slow return to the time before copyRIGHT, when terms or ownership were unlimited and there was no right to copy. Ever. We're getting there with copyright up to 100 years now (up from the original 19) and rampant DRM and legislation around it that effectively makes copyright unlimited for those DRMd works by making the DRM illegal to tamper with EVEN IF THE WORK IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. Not to mention that the social contract - the one that says society will protect the work in exchange for it then being added to the public domain - has been broken as no works have done that since 1923. Not to mention the concerted attack on the concept of "fair use" that was created by the original copyRIGHT legislation in 1710.
Copyright was meant as an incentive to create. Today no longer provides incentive to create, it simply provides incentive to create ONCE.
Given that the thieves - the ones who are stealing our public domain by slapping DRM on it, but not adding to that body - are the ones who are now dictating the latest versions of what is laughingly called "copyright" legislation, I for one no longer have any qualms about testing and tasting before giving my money to said thieves. Seems it is true then, that if you steal from a thief he'll cry the loudest.
Art = profession = market demand? WTF?
Copyright = what makes art possible?
As much as I share some of the points you make against freetards--and as much as I've seen very much the same of genre of vanity you describe--it seems to me that all of the years you spent studing art or photography or whatever have served no purpose at all. I know musicians, actors, directors and writers who are genuinely committed to their art and cannot make money off of it, and probably never will; as other posters have commented, it has ever been thus. I find it incredibly stupid and insulting to read a text implying that copyright makes art possible, that the mark of an artist is the demand for his work, and that all self-publishing is just vanity. Jesus Christ, man, why don't you go tell that to James Joyce, just to mention one example?
Rant all you want against freetards, but don't pontificate off the top your head. Most "artists" are morons, whether "professional" or not; a few of them are true artists--whether "professional" or not. Copyright does not necessarily influence the quality of a work of art. Art moves in mysterious ways, its values are not of this world, no legislation can even assess it. If copyright existed, we'd have accurate copies of Shakespeare's plays--he wouldn't have been afraid to make transcriptions in case other theatre companies copied him. On the other hand, the Ur-Hamlet would have been copyrighted, so he wouldn't have been able to write his version.
In the real world, things are a little more complicated than either you or the freetards think.
"f someone wants to do something they *enjoy doing* (and that's the key part) then who are you to stand in their way?"
Who's standing in their way? We're just pointing out that he's an unremarkable snapshot taker who also seems to be a bit of a pretentious prat. It's good for a throw-away giggle, then we'll move on. Although in my opinion, the article wasn't worth two pages.
"On another note, he's being a tad hypocritical not CC'ing his own portait is he not?"
Part of the point, methinks.
Spend an hour or two browsing through the imagery on Flickr and a couple of things become obvious; firstly, that there is a great deal of high quality work being uploaded by people who come at photography from different directions, both amateur and professional. Secondly that this quality work is drowning in a sea of turgid mediocrity, not unlike Joi Ito's. Oddly enough, the quality work generally has some restrictions on use, the flotsam is yours to use and abuse, by and large.
It's not about whether you are paid to take photographs or not, it's about the respect you accord to your own work and the drive and conviction that get your output to the quality where you think you deserve some control over how it is used, and who should benefit from that use.
A body of considered and well edited photographic images can be a 'manifesto' in its own right, but merely selecting a group of pictures without regard to content of quality hardly qualifies as a political statement - or at least not one anyone will give a flying fuck about.
As I've said about a million times before, go to an exhibition of work that really, genuinely says something and the accompanying blurb will usually be short and to the point. Visit one where the artist clearly wants to make a statement but confuses method and/or materials with content, and the blurb will be a thousand words of dense bollocks understandable only by acid-damaged, swivel-eyed and bearded graduates who never quite left art college and believe sharp images are the work of satan. These people are happy to give their work away as long as it gets them laid.
For the rest of us, there's copyright.
By giving the Publisher carte blanche to use your image as they like (ie under a CC "licence") you are setting yourself up to be (ab)used for anything they want.
Need to show how bad someone can look after a night out, or after a lifetime of bad diet? Don't worry about any if that 'invasion of privacy stuff, or someone getting upset and suing you for amking them look bad - just get something published under a CC agreement and you get yourself an enormous (if you're lucky) image database to use and abuse as you see fit... If any "victim" tries taking you to court, all you need to do is show they knew about the CC "agreement" when their image was stored, and watch them kiss byebye to any defence under law...
Does anyone know if The Government has ever actually published what they use the images from the CCTV in UK towns and cities for..?
I spent about 2 minutes on the Freesouls book on Flickr before my eyeballs began to hurt. What a blurry, handjobbing waste of time and complete crap. Joi Ito should get another amateur job, not as a photographer.
The Oxford book is simply amazing, on the other hand. I was so touched and I'm pretty jaded as art goes. Worlds apart in quality. The point of this article is that the freetard book is 'tarded. How true. If you pay for quality you get riches :)
I think the point that people miss is that we all need photojournalism (and journalism) to remain paid, a career that talented people can see as a viable choice. Regardless that not all copyrighted work is good quality and not all CCed work is crap, it is inevitable that as we pay less and less for journalism the overall quality will diminish.
A few years ago a professional photographer offered members of our dog club "quality prints" for 40UKP each. Quite a few people were very unimpressed with the blurry results. This got me thinking I could do better.
I bought a very cheap Fuji S9500 which I use to span dogs doing agility work etc. I buy glossy A4 paper and printer ink in bulk when the price is right (cheap) and ask people to give what they think the pictures are worth to the Dog club charity. I do the same at dog shows.
One year I managed to raise almost 1000 UKP with what I consider a hobby.
IT and phtography are both under attack from people who will do the same job for peanuts. It is no use complaining about it - simply offer something that people are prepared to pay for or move into another business.
Whilst I agree that the site linked is shit, I don't think that makes all things released under creative commons shit, or that work has to be copyright for it to be good.
CC software more than adequately makes an argument and saves me a lot of paragraphs of writing here.
one thing I did notice... as far as I read the gist of the article is that
People who give away their work, or who cannot be paid for their work, or who would receive very little should consider themselves amateur?
All that written by a man who publishes his own work on a site that it not funded by his wok, but by the adverts set alongside his work.
The irony is rich.
Paris as the author has the same level of clue.
Paul, your ad-hominem insults and straw men imply that copyright extenders and extremists don't have a case. Otherwise you wouldn't have to resort to these discredited rhetorical devices.
"I thought Mac zealots were mad! Anti-copyright extremists like Richard Kay almost make them look sane and rational."
Ad hominem insult.
"The comparison of American freedom fighters like Richard Otis to anti social inadequates who don't want to pay for digital music shows how mentally retarded these people are."
Straw man and Ad hominem insult combined in one sentence. Straw man because there are many motivations for opposing copyright extremism and obtaining content free of price is just one of them.
"How on Earth is paying for art that you value oppression?"
Straw man because this isn't my case. Laws which unreasonably prevent people from doing what they are capable of doing are oppression. I'm very willing to debate what is "reasonable" here, but this isn't unlimited in duration and it doesn't extend to locking people up and spying on our communications. Society has to get as much as it can in return if a legal privilege is going to be extended to a minority. If this is to be done at all the legal privilege must be as small as is necessary for the purpose, and fundamental freedoms (to privacy and freedom of expression) are not negotiable in exchange for access to art.
"When I last looked DRM hadn't killed anyone, and paying for music was not compulsory."
Straw man because I didn't claim DRM killed people. I do claim the DRM supportive DMCA was responsible for the pre-trial arrest and detention of Dmitry Sklyarov, in order to suppress discussion of technical details of DRM implementation, contrary to the provisions of the first amendment to the US constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment
"You can always spot a fanatic like Richard Kay because they have lost all sense of proportion."
Ad hominem insult. Was the demonstration I attended outside the US embassy in London over the imprisonment of Dmitry Sklyarov out of proportion to the violation of his first amendment rights as a visitor to the US ? If you were wrongfully arrested, charged and imprisoned awaiting criminal proceedings, would you prefer that people did nothing to question, challenge and confront those responsible ? Copyright extremists lobbied for the DMCA which caused Dmitry to be locked up, and which clearly violates the first amendment.
After that happened I started getting annoyed with periodically being made to watch copyright extremist brainwashing at the start of watching any DVD or going to see a movie. ( the current Userfriendly comic thread shows I'm not the only one fed up with this: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20090101 )
"What a sad and lonely man you must be to take away creator's rights and call it fighting for freedom." More ad hominem insult and straw men.
Paul, please stop and think more carefully about what your side is doing to protect and extend your precious copyrights and try to think a bit harder about this one before you spout any more of your silly insults and construct your ridiculous straw men:
a. Locking Dmitry up and thereby threatening to do the same to others to suppress what we can say about how DRM works.
b. Intercepting our communications in case we're sharing something copyright law says we shouldn't.
c. Brainwashing the public with the same old lies every time one of us watches a movie. Unlicensed copying isn't killing music or film-making as fast as copyright extremism is giving lobbyists for these industries a bad reputation. The arts themselves are very much alive.
It's the copyright extremists and extenders who have lost the plot, not the copyright limiters.
@charles eicher:
"vanity work", um, this is the web we are talking about. Everything is about ego here, unless you are anonymous. Oh, you're not...
@charles eicher, @kenBW2:
"with the notable exception of Ito's own copyrighted portrait","On another note, he's being a tad hypocritical not CC'ing his own portait is he not?"
No. It was definitely a poor choice, as there are a ton of CCd images of Ito out there he could have used, but it is not hypocritical for him to choose a picture of himself by A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER as the photo to represent himself.
It is of him but not by him. And as such the rights, CCd or otherwise, belong with the photographer, not Ito.
Simply clicking though would have got you to the actual photographers bio.
"Sean Wood is an Australian born Art Director and Photographer Living and working in Tokyo"
But I guess those three clicks were too much research effort.
@charles eichner, @et. al.:
"This book would not have been possible without copyrights."
True. But from what you have written it is true for a reason I doubt you can understand.
CC is BUILT ON the existing copyright law system. It is merely an extension of it.
CC could not exist AT ALL without copyright.
CC was created to give "content creators", artists etc., the ability to have a more graduated set options than just Public Domain (Free for all) and Copyright (ask, and pay, the copyright holder, for distribution and use).
Simply looking at the CC website tells you that. I assume you went to the site? Guess not.
Conflating media piracy and CC is intellectually dishonest and yet another straw-man.
I doubt Microsoft and IBM, both supporters of CC, would support any pro-piracy organisation.
@charles eicher:
"Copyright allows the artist to reserve his right to sell his photographs in galleries, while licensing publication rights to a publishing house."
Apart from the dishonesty in comparing candid photography by an amateur with studio photography of a professional, your statement is a ridiculous straw-man.
CC ALSO allows an artist to "reserve his right to sell his photographs in galleries, while licensing publication rights to a publishing house".
And then "The publisher distributed dozens of free preview copies to assess demand" actually shows the potential behind the idea of CC. Why go to all that cost instead of publishing them online in Flickr under a by-nc-nd license and seeing if the pictures appear in the 'most interesting'?
I guess that would letting the plebs decide its value and importance, and not some "self-appointed" photography "aristocrats". [Look. I can do ad hominem too.]
@charles eicher, @Neil Woolford:
"using a Photoshop effect known as the "Leica Look.""
Unfortunately this does not exist. It is yet another ad hominem argument.
Ito got the coveted "Leica Look" by the much simpler, but more expensive, method of using a Leica M8.
Of course, this information is CLEARLY VISIBLE on the Flickr page for each photo.
If you love copyright so much then fine, use it.
But CC poses NO THREAT to copyright. It CAN NOT and WILL NOT replace copyright.
If you had bothered to do even 5 minutes of research you would have found that out.
One good thing about this book and the article criticising it (for me anyway), is that it highlighted how very few assemblies of that which is called Intellectual Property are actually worth paying for, by virtue of not worth having possession of in the first place.
So appreciation for expanding my world outlook a bit, the rich and wonderful tapestry of the internet to which i've been exposed to was largely lacking in worthless crap, admittedly thanks to many pre-emptive filtering policies.
"By giving the Publisher carte blanche to use your image as they like (ie under a CC "licence") you are setting yourself up to be (ab)used for anything they want... Need to show how bad someone can look after a night out, or after a lifetime of bad diet?"
Copyright may save the photographer from being abused but not the person "who looks bad after a night out". He/she is still under the mercy of the copyright owner as much as with CC and someone using the picture.
What was that all about? A portrait project features some feeble pictures, like a big chunk of the copyrighted coffee table offerings then. Art is only any good if it "ships"? If you don't sell your art then you are a worthless jerk?
I agree that copyright is a good idea to protect people who's work is less tangible than salaried or by unit payed workers, but could someone less condescending and insulting make that point.
@ AC at 20:08 Friday...
I'm perfectly aware that there is no "Leica Look" Photoshop (or indeed Gimp) filter. That was entirely the point of my naive query.
The hint is "Googling hasn't helped much yet."
It was a joke, just in case we are in a totally irony free zone.
Otherwise, happy to see some sharp responses to the original article, including yours.
And, oddly, the Acrobat DRMsd books were illegal in Russia because it wasn't available for screen readers for assistive technologies.
Yet if the CEO visiting Russia were to be interred the US would be limbering up the nukes.
And where was PaulM when Sony committed widespread piracy (the infringement of copyright for commercial gain) by including LAME in their DRM'd CD roms? He's a stupit twat because he's saying he wants and must have copyrights enforced but only against those who have lots of money.
Two-faced little shit.
The great classics from the Greeks were not copyrighted and in fact were EXPECTED to be listened to and copied to spread it about.
But your point about Shakspeare plays being unavailable if it weren't copyrighted (AC) is hilarious since they exist and there WAS NO COPYRIGHT. People would come to his plays and write down the play being performed and play it themselves elsewhere. Legally.
Yet despite this, we still have plenty of Shakespeare plays.
Oh, and ask the US why they made massive copyright infringement of Charles Dickens work so that he went on tour at his expense round the US to try to get them to stop. Ask whether Hollywood will pay for the theft of motion picture patents they moved to Hollywood to avoid paying for.
Yet, despite both "losses" of intellectual property, we still have "A Christmas Carol" and motion picture devices.
@Neil Woolford:
I got the barbs in your comment, but as Eicher had shown in his op-ed piece that he was incapable of understanding CC in any shape or form, I doubted he would have understood it.
I decided to re-iterate more plainly that such a thing did not exist and was a pathetic ad hominem argument that damages Eichers position far more than Itos.
The thing is, how can the eloquent Eicher of http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/27/how_to_copyright_michelangelo be the same as the vitriolic ad hominem and straw-man obsessed Eicher of this article?
[I particularly like his statement "copyright only works if we can rein in the robber barons" in the former article. Succinctly identifying a major problem facing copyright law today. It tends NOT to be the artists, content creators, that own and maintain the copyright but the corporations that control the distribution channel. CC only partially addresses this problem, but it is at least moving in the right direction by ensuring the creator maintains the copyright.]
But then again, as his personal blog is subtitled "unpopular opinions of Charles Eichner" it is quite likely that we have ALL been trolled by a professional troll.
"It tends NOT to be the artists, content creators, that own and maintain the copyright but the corporations that control the distribution channel."
I think you'll find that corporations do not control the distribution channels anymore. At least not for anything that can be digitized ... Which is the point that all the noise is trying to obfuscate.
Janis Ian's web site has some good info from the perspective of an artist.
The article is bad, if writing is an art, it is bad art. If it was paid per word, it is bad value.
The Oxford Project is impressively good, in the little of it which I have seen, on the Web.
The on-cost of another person seeing the part of the Oxford Project on the Web is nugatory.
There is scope for criticising the photos offered freely for viewing, free, but the criticism offered is neither good nor useful.
And what is this with calling any old hack with a camera an artist?
freetards to one side (and yes, Ito's book looks like complete pap), photographers are one of the worst bunch of money grubbing scumbags in existence.
they are, in fact, a perfect example of how copyright can be misused and abused. Let's look... many people will interact with a photographer at some point - when they hire one to capture a wedding for instance.
the photographer will come along, be paid for their time AND for producing a book of photos, but will then declare that they 'own' the copyright of the pictures and proceed to gouge family and friends for every copy of the wedding photos made.
the vast majority have *zero* artisitic ability (producing photos that are either formulaic or downright embarrasingly crap), and use copyright as a cash-stick to beat people with.
so by all means point out the idiocy of the world without anything of value proposed by the freetards, but please, don't expect one iota of sympathy for photographers.
Hi
I have to take issue with you on 2 points:
1) copyright is for everyone - not just professionals. The intent behind copyright is to allow you to retain control over how your artistic output is used. You may choose to give away your output for free, but, you maintain the right to choose to whom you give it away and how it is used.
2) I have seen excellent work by gifted amateurs and really c****y work by so called professionals.
However, by blasting any digital download as piracy and attacks by wankers like this on any copyright that isn't the Old Skool method and by killing legitimate Internet Radio by charging rates unable to be recovered the corporations that do control the distribution channels are ensuring that these new digital avenues are closed before they lose the monopoly of distribution.
Piracy is the commercial exploitation of copyright infringement. And none of the current Bogeymen of P2P apps will be used in this commercial exploitation. All that will be closed down is an avenue of marketing and selling that doesn't pass through the current incumbents hands for a massive cut.
Why else does Internet Radio have to pay RIAA/BPI as well as the broadcast royalties collector (that ordinary broadcast radio have to pay)?
To kill a channel that the RIAA/BPI don't control.
Never heard of this Joi dude, but from what I've seen of the photos they're all pretty shit snapshots, a couple of steps above the family album level. Still, your article seems a bit whiny Mr. Eicher. Ok, all concerned apparently are just a little bit self-important and have their heads wedged up their collective arse to a greater or lesser degree, so what is it exactly you're complaining about?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
