Journal zogger's Journal: Nannyists Strangle Songstress 13
Once again we have been saved from the evile terrorists and their insidious plots! Vigilant nannyists in the "comrades in following orders" people's state of Meree Aulde Englande have busted a terrorist who was STEALING from the coffers of some of our most esteemed higher echelon "specials"! One epsilon shopgurl was caught, red tongued, as she actually dared to *sing* while working, in violation of the people's copyright wealth transference doctrine! Oh the horrors!
Nannyists? I know you like that word, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is really a stretch, zogger. This was no nanny state action, this was an action taken by a corporate group. This is the free market in action, not an over protective nanny state. Sure, you can argue that copyright is a function of the state, but equating copyright extension and over protection with the nanny state philosophy is just nonsensical. Put the blame where it is proper: with greedy corporate 'entertainment' interests.
Overprotective governments do not create all the wrongs in the world.
the "specials"....the "nannies" (Score:3, Insightful)
...who are pigs "more equal than others", bribe and finagle their way into having the nanny state overlords inflict a *fee* for an act humans have been doing spontaneously since cavedude days, carrying a tune, perhaps a rendition of something heard previously. These customers in the shop (and according to the article customers would sometimes sing along with the shop lady) are just enjoying life, being happy. They are not being charged to listen to some professional singing in a night club, or anything like
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Forgot you asked for a better word than nanny-state, and didn't get one. To me though, this is an example of fascism, plain and simple. One of the key ingredients of fascism is the collusion of big business and state, which is what we have here. This isn't a left/right issue, big entertainment may be a little slanted to the left in the US, but like all big business and big money players, it will bribe whoever it needs to, left or right, to get what it wants.
proposal then (Score:1)
I will consider dropping nanny state or *ist for for a more precise daddy state or mommy state, differentiating right wing "stern authoritarian fascism" and left wing "smothering and hovering totalitarianism". Both come with a default assumption that big business and big government are basically siamese twins, and any publicly declared difference (by them) is an outright lie and an attempt to justify total dictatorial powers of the overlords over their serfs.
I would classify the UK at this time as being a m
Re: (Score:2)
Well, 'nanny state' is just fine, really, but this was more a case of 'stern authoritarian fascism,' IMHO. There is no clear cut distinction between smothering totalitarianism and authoritarian fascism. If both come with the default assumption that big business and big government are Siamese twins, they are both fascist in my book.
Maybe we can differentiate them as 'I'll just put the tip in, you'll like it' fascism and 'squeal like a piggy' fascism. Either way, we're getting screwed.
Or referring to the two
it's basic property rights (Score:1)
And if govt. or corporations or other people can just come by and take whatever they want from you, you have anarchy. Working to earn things would become meaningless, so most kinds of endeavors would just be dropped. Instead of producing, and advancing the human condition, most people would just steal and re-steal, and society would be stagnant and dysfunctional.
So the "copyrights are teh evil" meme plays well on Slashdot, but only because this site is predominately college kids (the unwise) and Leftists (s
it's a basic ripoff and strong arm extortion (Score:1)
So..you have never repeated a phrase or combination or words or tonal inflection you heard from others? Maybe talk about "the big game", some baseball, and note and discuss the scores and stats from this player or another, something you heard on copyright protected television or radio, and then repeated?
And so on, I can come up with quite a lot of examples there..but I'd probably be "infringing" some "prior copyrighted art" someplace too, so it is now "safer" and "legal" for me to just let you guess what so
Re: (Score:1)
Yes I've repeated a phrase heard elsewhere. But you're changing the subject -- we were talking about the fruits of someone's labor, such as a song. Or say a class library -- say I write this non-trivial cohesive chunk of code that solves some problem in my own unique way (granted using the building blocks of the OS, just as a songwriter uses and arranges and extends the known primitives of their craft). I wouldn't want someone taking my code and just tweaking it a little and putting it on their web site. Th
I didn't change the subject at all (Score:1)
I made several examples. One, I made an exact reference to long established human trait, to get exactly back on topic, which I think trumps any more modern interpretation of it, repeating something previously heard, especially a song. Cave men and women singing songs, maybe a lot of them they didn't personally invent, nor were any "fees" exchanged to sing the song. From that time straight to today.
The lady and customers singing a capella in the shop, songs that they had previously heard, is not a profit mon
Re: (Score:1)
You're trying to reduce someone's livelihood to worthless, public domain stuff. But it's not, and therein is how you're trying to change the subject. Granted there doesn't seem to be as much talent in music these days, but still a lot of money and effort and planning and some creativity and talent go into the making of a polished recording of a song by a professional musician or artist. And is in no way comparable to some caveman sitting around waiting to ambush a dinosaur and being bored and making up some
All right. let us cut to the chase (Score:1)
Do you REALLY think that shop lady and the customers singing a rolling stones song inside the shop should pay the rolling stones (cartel association they belong to) a "performance" fee? This isn't changing the subject, it is THE subject at hand in the article. I need no more than a yes or no. This is as short and on topic as I can make it then. It has nothing to do with your code or my landscaping arrangements, nor anything else, today, an exact happening, in the article, the shop lady/shop/customers singin
Re: (Score:1)
As simply put as I can make it while still being honest and accurate, I think if the shop and the shop lady insist on using the Rolling Stones' material, then they/she should use it on the band's terms.
(I realize that that's not what's going on here, and that it is a "non-profit" I guess sockpuppet org of the record companies that's dictating the terms. I think they have too much say over such.)
But I think like this country is with the health care reform debate, we might be locked into too much of the fault
Re: (Score:1)
I think foeing people is just silly, and I have never done it (although I certainly have had people do it to me here, heh). You never learn a thing or think outside your box by only conversing with extremely like minded people. Now I WILL shun people if they lie to me, or are obviously serial trolling for yuks. There's a subtle difference there.
Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree here on spontaneous singing a song you heard elsewhere for fun, I certainly don't see a thing wrong with it, and the law is a