As someone who majored in English Literature in college, I can tell you that academics love getting their panties in a bunch over what is Scholarly Publication and what is not. Some teachers will actually have special assignments that have to be written entirely using Scholarly sources, or in response to a Scholarly article.

Before the advent of the internet, I can see how it might have been useful to have an in-group comprised of people who had some sort of qualifications to write about something, but it seems antiquated in light of the ease with which we can independently verify claims.

Usually, if someone's going to write something that's actually useful, they'll write an actual book. Soon thereafter, a bunch of "Scholars" will come along and write a bunch of journal articles and tell us all about how the useful work was one of three things: misogynistic, code for a religious statement, or arcane, carefully-hidden innuendo.

Sorry if I sound bitter, but I spent a lot of time reading this crap, and very little of it was as insightful or interesting as even my classmates' comments.

Then later in the article he goes on about how Apple controls the entire hardware platform and Microsoft has to battle with countless configuration combinations. Why didn't be bring that point up in the installation/upgrade section?

The end-user doesn't see these distinctions; they just know if their computer works or not.

Furthermore, given the *massive* market share that Microsoft has enjoyed, it's fair to partially blame them for the state of consumer hardware drivers.

Windows on someone else's computers, thank you.

Friends don't let friends use Windows.

The slashdot link parsing code wrongly removed the period from the end of the link. Put it back on (or just google for "Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music_Inc.", it's the second result).

Also, I only see one comic at the link you gave, and it doesn't actually make Bush into Mickey Mouse; it shows him wearing one of the mouse ears hats you get at Disney World. That's a big difference.

I've actually been involved in cases where this exact precedent was used, and, like I said, I read the relevant case law...but hey, thanks for the random assertions and the wikipedia link.

I'm not sure why you think you can only use Donald Duck to parody Donald Duck.

Glad you asked...it's because I read the relevant case law; MCA Inc. vs Wilson and Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc.

If you really need the pre-chewed, no thought required version, have a look at:

http://librarycopyright.net/wiki/index.php?title=Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music_Inc.

I think the statement (by the US Supreme Court) that defines parody as "...the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." is really the most salient phrase of the entire body of case law, for those of you who are into sound bites.

If it makes you feel any better, I experienced actual physical, substantial embarrassment on your behalf as I read your post, and thus could not bring myself to insult you. I have, in the intervening moments, taken an almost sentimental affectation towards your career on Slashdot. Like a parent watching a child bloody his knee, falling off a bicycle, I am simultaneously overcome with the pain of watching you fail so horribly and the hope for your future.

Anyways, best of luck to you...go get 'em tiger!

You're only allowed to use copyrighted characters and images that belong to the object of parody. This means that if you're mocking Disney, you can use Mickey Mouse, but you can't use Mickey Mouse to parody someone not associated with Disney.

It's counterintuitive, but it's exactly the way our legal system works. This is exactly the same thing that happened when Penny Arcade used Strawberry Shortcake to parody American McGee.

Of course, what's actually happening here is that the people who disagree with the parody are using the letter of the law to get it removed. Moral of the story: if you're going to piss people off make sure you dot your i's and cross your t's first.

You are confusing means and motive. Control is just the means, (maximized accumulation of) money is the motive.

One could just as easily argue that money is just the means, and the eventual motive is obtaining control of goods and services. Maybe you're the one who's confused :)

In the corporate world, it is always about money.

Thank you for that dazzling observation. My point was that corporations will often turn down money because of perceived threats to their control. Look at the labels' initial resistance to iTunes; it's been a great source of income for them, but they were initially extremely resistant to it because of the level of control they would have to sacrifice. Hell, look at the VCR. The president of the MPAA compared it to the Boston Strangler, but it turned out to be one of their greatest cash cows.

Corporations choose control that turns out to be worthless (or unenforceable) over real money nearly constantly. The fact that they are motivated ultimately by profit *absolutely* does not preclude them making all sorts of counter-productive short-term decisions based on hubris (Microsoft), ignorance (MPAA), anger (RIAA), ineptitude (Betamax) and so on.

At the end of the day, corporations are just as subject to human-like emotions as they are by a sensible gravitation towards profit.

By the way, you should really save the gloating and abuse for when you've actually made an insightful point. I can see how my original post might have been a little unclear, but frankly your post was a bit painful and embarrassing to read.

Get out of my teeth!

*curls up in the fetal position, muttering*

That's a bit of an extreme position to take. After all, how is that kid going to make money when his stuff is pirated too?

Someone once said that trying to make bits that can't be copied is like trying to make water that's not wet. I think we have to accept that copies of recordings are created without cost or constraint and therefore have no value. It's a sea change, and things were very nice for a lot of people before this was the case, but it's reality. Sorry.

Lots of people, like Trent Reznor, for example, are making piles of money while still practically giving their music away. And to be fair, the idea of an economically "scarce" song is a modern invention. People have been making music long before the invention of the record player, and I reject the notion that people are going to stop making music just because they can't charge for a CD.

Concerts are always going to be scarce and desirable, and it's proven that they can support artists, especially when they're not burdened with the excesses of the recording industry.

The question is, how profitable is intellectual property? Yes, I know, information wants to be free. But does that mean that folks who want to make a living by creating intellectual property are just going to have to suck it up and make due? It's not a clear cut good vs. bad situation.

As someone who creates intellectual property for a living, I hear you loud and clear. I'm not advocating this information anarchy; just saying that it seems to be the direction we are headed. I do think, though, that the inclusion of some service component seems to be the best way to avoid piracy. Games like World of Warcraft are virtually immune to piracy; software as a service is still proving profitable, especially when combined with advertising. The bottom line, though, is that things that used to be scarce are no longer scarce. We need to identify the things that are desirable and still scarce and ensure that IP products contain them.

It's understandable to feel like it's the People vs. the Borg when the RIAA is brought into the discussion but in a larger sense, the RIAA isn't the issue.

The issue is the same thing that was discussed way back in 1994 by John Perry Barlow (co-founder of the EFF) in Wired magazine in an article titled "The Economy of Ideas".

"Throughout the time I've been groping around cyberspace, an immense, unsolved conundrum has remained at the root of nearly every legal, ethical, governmental, and social vexation to be found in the Virtual World. I refer to the problem of digitized property. The enigma is this: If our property can be infinitely reproduced and instantaneously distributed all over the planet without cost, without our knowledge, without its even leaving our possession, how can we protect it? How are we going to get paid for the work we do with our minds? And, if we can't get paid, what will assure the continued creation and distribution of such work?"

That's a great quote, and it really points to the central issue here. The bottom line is that the game has changed, but its implications haven't been fully thought through or even felt yet. Most industries are still in denial about it (see DRM). I will say, however, that it is much easier to hold profit-making entities to the rules of the IP game than individual consumers, so the creation of non-scarce products will still work in a b2b context. At the end of the day, though, if your business model involves selling non-scarce products to consumers, if you reach a point of critical mass where there is interest in pirating your work, you're going to get boned.

It definitely seems cruel, but I'm sure candlestick-makers felt the same way upon the invention of the lightbulb. Right or wrong, it's an adapt-or-die world.

Ok, since everyone seems to be complaining about my statement that it's "not about the money," I will clarify.

The IP cartels' primary concern is not profit or the creation of value, but rather the elimination of competition and the continuation of artificial barriers to entry. Of course, nearly *everything* in capitalism is motivated by money, but if your business model is predicated on the absence of competition, you're better off having your competition be freeloading pirates than paying partners.

That was my original point. Sorry to have over-simplified.

The RIAA is evil to be sure, but they are not trying to set up fiefdoms or topple governments here.

This is what we call a straw man. No one would reasonably argue that the RIAA is trying to set up a fiefdom, your point goes, therefore any assertion that they must be primarily concerned with power is false.

The reality of the situation is that they are most concerned with maintaining artificially high prices, eliminating competition, and creating artificial barriers to entry into the marketplace. Even if they could make the price of a record off of every pirated album somehow, they would still eventually be run out of business because their model is not sustainable if they have to deal with competition and modern technology.

Furthermore, none of those activities actually *create* value. Your position is like arguing that someone cornering the market for, say, grain is just using a mechanism to generate more money, when in reality, it's a way of creating artificial scarcity to demand MORE value from other people in exchange for your product.

This was my original point. The amount of money that the new pirate bay can produce is irrelevant because it's not about selling products for money. It's about preventing competition.

It's not about money.

So, it's not about money?

It's about them retaining the control they need to foist their ideal business model on the rest of the world.

So it is about control?

-------------------

Fixed that for you.

In case you're wondering how I arrived at my results, I would point out that the part where I said it's about "retaining ... control" indicates that it's about control, which is easily confused with money.

The IP cartels' opposition to piracy isn't just about the piracy itself; they are scared to death of the creation of a decentralized alternative to their existing systems for finding and exploiting artistic talent. The only reason they would embrace *any* method of distribution they don't have total control over is absolute desperation.

It's not about monetizing piracy. If they can't sell you a new version every couple years, control release dates, price a product differently in different regions, censor products for certain markets, or control how the product is presented then your distribution channel is a *threat* to them and they are going to try and take it down. If a kid can record a hit album with two grand worth of hardware and software - and, even worse, distribute it with two hundred bucks worth of hardware, how can they make their millions?

It's not about money. It's about them retaining the control they need to foist their ideal business model on the rest of the world.

I'm glad you beat me to the punch on this one, because I probably would have done an inferior job putting these lame arguments to rest.

I seriously think there are a lot of programmers out there whose underlying thought process amounts to: few parentheses - basic, lots of parentheses - lisp, somewhere in the middle - Real Programming Language.

I know. EULAs are evil. But, this is not your garden-variety EULA. This is an EULA expressly designed so chicks can feel comfortable *running around topless.*

Can we just take a deep breath and stow the nerd-rage on this one?