Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'd dispute that, as all the musicians I know have a sense of humour.
not quite sure what you're getting at here but what I meant was you could say musicians live in their mums basement as easily as you could make that gag about anyone else who doesn't have a job with a steady income, and flakey security given to the results of their efforts by law
-
You have very low expectations, then.
well it is the internet, and that page had zoomy buttons and things moving around quickly, and is a lot flashier than (cough couch your page couch) other pages around including mine.
is that your music under your page?
No, no, I do stuff with an ongoing melody. But I'm pleased he put an off switch on there.
I'm pretty sure its nicked but since its not your page I won't get any mileage out of it will I
-
-
is this you
in which case you'll be able to clearly and informatively tell me all about open source type things and how it all works, one creative to another, and why you've found it a good model to work under.
I did ask nicely above.ps the mums basement gag works just as well on musicians.
-
Oh, I see. A troll.
humourless?
come on don, you can do better than that.
do a musician gag,
its creative I know, but I think you've got it in you,but I have not seen *anyone* on this list who is "anti-copyright".
ok, pro reduced copyright periods, maybe we're not reading the same comments but there's a definite slant toward creatives have too many rights as it is type thing. But I'm sure you knew what I meant and who I was referring to with my comment, you're just choosing to bog down the convo in semantics, which is a clever debating ploy in itself, I acknowledge..
-
since no one else is biting
OPEN SOURCE
you have two cows,
you do substantial work on them and give both of them away,
no one knows what happens to you (you probably starve or live in your mum's basement)MUSICIAN/COMPOSER
You make two cows.
you allow access to the milk on an honesty system
no one asks you if they can have some milk, no one pays,
you get a hair cut and a day job
someone tries to sell you some milk from your own cow. -
And if you say it without your sarcasty voice,
there are no sarcastic notations before any of my comments.
its how you read em mark,it's not about giving away the rights - it's about allowing use. Really, very different
so if you allow use you have control, so following that you're in favour of infinite term rights?
how can you allow something if you don't have control over it?
you want to be allowed use without asking?
isn't that like not having any rights?
-
What I'm picking up most in robbery's posts is the pain of the creative artist who's getting the message from society that they love his work, but it's ok to have it for free because ,hey, he should just get a haircut and a real job
figuratively speaking of course kerry.
my points are real but my pain isn't. I got a hair cut and a real job ages ago, probably for the reasons you outlined, and didn't do it bitterly, as I still get to do my creative thing too, but in order to have a valid opposition argument to the prevailing 'everything is cool' one you have to get into the role, so to speak.I totally get the 'open source' guys argument too and I'd happily live in a world where those rules were applied to everyone equally, is that socialism via the above 2 cows examples. I thought we were supposed to be a socialist country here anyway?
The fact of the matter is we don't live in that world (yet?), commercialism is about self, the century of self if you will (great doco available on that concept) not saying this is a good way for us to be, just observing that that is the way it is.
no one has offered a real explanation as to why rules for intellectual property are applied differently than for any other kind of property except to argue that intellectual property is infact not property at all, even though it has the word property in the phrase (and I was very jealous that simon got there first with that observation).and for the person who said that my ideas were silly, you're probably right, what worthy input would the "slave" (sorry to use simon's loaded analogy again :)) have to have on his situation. That whole argument is much better left to people not connected to it, avoiding any input from those affected by it. (massa, :)) (smilie head voice)
-
open source/anti copyright. ie either or or both.
WTF?? What does this even mean?it means if you are one of the open source guys, or an anti copyright guy, or an open source and anti copyright guy then cam you answer the question. the '/' sign used to denote either or or both.
and by anti copyright guy I mean those who on this thread have been speaking for the negative team, so there's probably a little bit of tarring with the same brush on my side there but I'm generally interested in how the income flow works for you guys if you're making intellectual property but feel you want to give the rights of it away. ie an earnest question to another group of IP makers who have found a different model that suits them.
is that all clear now.? if you read it with your happy head voice it'll sound quite pleasant.
-
Again with the lack of comprehension. "open source" does not equal "anti-copyright".
ok
open source/anti copyright. ie either or or both.whereas current copyright practice is about restriction
I think you're tarring everyone with the same brush there.
it can't be permission if no one asks you in the first place.