<https://www.facebook.com/groups/filosoph/permalink/993608247342019/>Why is it so hard for word-slaves to revive their nature? <https://www.facebook.com/groups/filosoph/permalink/993608247342019/>
They don't know they are word-slaves. Brainwashed with language and emotional grunting, they forgot they are born nature and are willing to die for culture. All life wants to be honest. Word-slaves are honest to the wrong paradigm. On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 1:22 PM, < libreplanet-discuss-requ...@libreplanet.org> wrote: > Send libreplanet-discuss mailing list submissions to > libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > libreplanet-discuss-requ...@libreplanet.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > libreplanet-discuss-ow...@libreplanet.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of libreplanet-discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: DRM is a real problem (Andres Pacheco) > 2. Re: DRM is a real problem (Fabio Pesari) > 3. Re: Solving the prisoner's dilemma in crowdfunding (Aaron Wolf) > 4. Re: DRM is a real problem (Adam Van Ymeren) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:25:16 +0000 (UTC) > From: Andres Pacheco <alps6...@yahoo.com> > To: "J.B. Nicholson" <j...@forestfield.org>, > "libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org" > <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> > Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] DRM is a real problem > Message-ID: > <1391786205.292011.1455989116728.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Now we're getting somewhere! > "It would benefit the argument for copyright reform to > frame the debate in terms of how most media is licensed" > "...copyright is signed over to the label when the artist/band > signs a contract with the label" > So, if we know the answer, the whole thing seems to me an exercise in > futility, a tautology, except as part of a concerted effort to build > AMMUNITION for "FORKING THE SYSTEM.";-) > > > > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 9:17 AM, J.B. Nicholson < > j...@forestfield.org> wrote: > > > Fabio Pesari wrote: > > While I appreciate Magnatune's offer, it is a cultural ghetto (you won't > > find The Smiths, Depeche Mode or Nick Drake there), just like Jamendo. > > That strikes me as a matter of taste and siding with power; you won't find > Magnatune's artists or work on the more widely-advertised label releases > either. I find it more valuable to figure out what I like by listening to > the music for myself. > > > I don't doubt there are good musicians releasing music on it, however > > most of those artists are necessarily derivative of influential nonfree > > music: for example, I can't imagine someone who makes progressive rock > > and isn't in any way influenced by Pink Floyd, Genesis or Yes. > > I fail to understand what this has to do with the topic of discussion. This > reads to me as a digression which tries to subtly position more popular > artists as somehow better than less popular artists without acknowledging > how derivative artists in general are. I think a better discussion would > convey how derivation is at the heart of everything humans do, how the > popular label system is corrupt in that it over rewards the more popular > artists, and how assessing artist's worth is not valuable to this > discussion. > > > In short, especially if you are a musician, you will have a hard time > > connecting with other people with similar musical tastes if you only > > listen to music released on Magnatune. > > Until you mentioned this twice (once above and once at the end of your > post), nobody said one had to or would "only listen to music released on > Magnatune". That is a false dichotomy. However you bring up a point which > (perhaps inadvertently) puts Magnatune in a better light -- unlike so many > of the more widely-advertised labels, Magnatune doesn't require > exclusivity. > > > DRM is not the problem, and fighting it is a complete waste of time in > > nearly all cases: people actually like services like Netflix and Spotify > > because they are cheap, and this will *never* change unless proprietary > > software is outright outlawed. > > I don't know who you're replying to here, but it's not me. Your post you > made it seem like I wrote "Everyone has the right freely to participate in > the cultural life of the > community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its > benefits.". I did not write that and you didn't credit who did write that. > > To respond to your point: DRM is a problem for me because I don't run the > nonfree software needed to get past the DRM in the manner proscribed by the > publisher. Laws prohibiting breaking DRM (even for personal use or fair use > purposes) are often part of copyright legislation. Therefore a lot of the > well-advertised distributors don't allow me to partake of their work > without accepting what could be malware. I find that tradeoff to be > completely unacceptable and I blame them for putting that potential malware > in my way nor do I buy any of the defenses about how unnamed copyright > holders might balk at having DRM-free distribution to paying customers. > > > The real problem is copyright laws, because works in the public domain > > could be distributed DRM-free by everyone. > > Copyright laws certainly are problematic but I think we can continue to > work on improving multiple issues simultaneously. > > > An example of their unfairness: Miles Davis recorded his best tunes in > > the 1950s and he died in 1991, and copyright on his music in many > > countries lasts 70 years after his death (if it's not extended > > infinitely by the current holders, the record labels). That's 2061 at > > the very least, for music that is considered fundamental for our > > culture. How can that be fair? > > I believe most popular label artist's copyrights aren't held by the artist, > I believe that copyright is signed over to the label when the artist/band > signs a contract with the label. Janis Ian is a notable exception; I > believe she bought the copyright to her recordings and now holds the > copyright on them. It would benefit the argument for copyright reform to > frame the debate in terms of how most media is licensed. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.libreplanet.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/attachments/20160220/6e68aea4/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 20:59:47 +0100 > From: Fabio Pesari <fab...@gnu.org> > To: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] DRM is a real problem > Message-ID: <56c8c5b3.6000...@gnu.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On 02/20/2016 04:16 PM, J.B. Nicholson wrote: > > > > That strikes me as a matter of taste and siding with power; you won't > find > > Magnatune's artists or work on the more widely-advertised label releases > > either. I find it more valuable to figure out what I like by listening to > > the music for myself. > > I don't think it's a matter of taste or siding with power; it is > undeniable that some bands who created nonfree music have significantly > influenced the history of popular music. > > Can you name a non-obscure pop (post 1930s) genre which hasn't been > invented by an artist playing nonfree music? > > > I fail to understand what this has to do with the topic of discussion. > This > > reads to me as a digression which tries to subtly position more popular > > artists as somehow better than less popular artists without acknowledging > > how derivative artists in general are. I think a better discussion would > > convey how derivation is at the heart of everything humans do, how the > > popular label system is corrupt in that it over rewards the more popular > > artists, and how assessing artist's worth is not valuable to this > discussion. > > I changed the topic exactly because it had little to do with the > previous discussion. > > I was merely saying that opposing DRM might make sense when we are > talking about public stuff (libraries, schools, etc.) but when we're > talking about cultural stuff that belongs to someone else (like films > and music), it's useless because if you want to play their game, you > have to accept their rules, however unfair the might be. > > > Until you mentioned this twice (once above and once at the end of your > > post), nobody said one had to or would "only listen to music released on > > Magnatune". That is a false dichotomy. However you bring up a point which > > (perhaps inadvertently) puts Magnatune in a better light -- unlike so > many > > of the more widely-advertised labels, Magnatune doesn't require > exclusivity. > > Sure, it does not require exclusivity. Still, it costs money, and I feel > that money would be better spent on libre music. That's my personal > opinion, by the way! > > > I don't know who you're replying to here, but it's not me. Your post you > > made it seem like I wrote "Everyone has the right freely to participate > in > > the cultural life of the > > community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and > its > > benefits.". I did not write that and you didn't credit who did write > that. > > I said I was quoting Article 27.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human > Rights, perhaps you missed it. > > > To respond to your point: DRM is a problem for me because I don't run the > > nonfree software needed to get past the DRM in the manner proscribed by > the > > publisher. Laws prohibiting breaking DRM (even for personal use or fair > use > > purposes) are often part of copyright legislation. Therefore a lot of the > > well-advertised distributors don't allow me to partake of their work > > without accepting what could be malware. I find that tradeoff to be > > completely unacceptable and I blame them for putting that potential > malware > > in my way nor do I buy any of the defenses about how unnamed copyright > > holders might balk at having DRM-free distribution to paying customers. > > But this is where I see the issue: > > > Therefore a lot of the well-advertised distributors don't allow me to > > partake of their work without accepting what could be malware. I find > > that tradeoff to be > > Why should they? It's their stuff, and if they want to distribute it > using DRM, it's their right to do it. This is actually article 27.2 of > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which ironically is at odds > with article 27.1 in DRM's case! > > > I believe most popular label artist's copyrights aren't held by the > artist, > > I believe that copyright is signed over to the label when the artist/band > > signs a contract with the label. Janis Ian is a notable exception; I > > believe she bought the copyright to her recordings and now holds the > > copyright on them. It would benefit the argument for copyright reform to > > frame the debate in terms of how most media is licensed. > > So, following the previous example, the copyright on Miles Davis tracks > could last _forever_. Isn't that a bigger problem than DRM, considering > that if they were in the public domain, they could be legally > distributed DRM-free? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 12:30:32 -0800 > From: Aaron Wolf <wolft...@riseup.net> > To: gmail gregor <podrzaj.gre...@gmail.com> > Cc: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Solving the prisoner's dilemma in > crowdfunding > Message-ID: <56c8cce8.7010...@riseup.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On 02/20/2016 02:31 AM, gmail gregor wrote: > > Hi Aaron, > > > > umm, firstly - i've been following libreplanet discussion group for a > > couple of years. Because i find the problematic it covers interesting > > (obviously). Still, this is my first letter. > > > > Just quickly went over snowdrift.coop and let me join in thanking you > > for the effort. Also for many posts, here on libreplanet. > > > > To the point: do you think that the snowdrift platform could be used, > > for buying the rights on all sort of (digitally published/released) > > works, then releasing them under public licences? (Via some mechanics > > say: each donor gets to put one item on the wish list then choose 3 > > items (out of the same list) that he/she fancy liberating first.) > > > > Anyhow, all the best > > sincerely > > g > > > > Thanks Gregor. The term for what you're talking about is "ransom" and it > is highly problematic to *encourage* people to publish non-free anything > with the goal of ransoming it. > > More thoughts at: > https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/status-quo-floss#ransom-systems > > It's not impossible for Snowdrift.coop to expand to cover cases like > that in the long run. However, our focus for now and the foreseeable > future is on better supporting those actors who are already doing the > right thing and releasing their work freely but need more support. > > We hope that if we can provide good support for FLO public goods, then > more people will see that it's possible to get by making FLO works and > they'll just choose to do so, and anyway the existing FLO stuff will be > that much better and there will be less need to ransom proprietary > things. Like all types of ransoming, we're happy when the thing is > freed, but we don't want to encourage people to keep hostages in the > first place. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:22:17 -0500 > From: Adam Van Ymeren <adam.v...@gmail.com> > To: Fabio Pesari <fab...@gnu.org> > Cc: Libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> > Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] DRM is a real problem > Message-ID: > <CAEJYOaVBb9e+M01icrpvh2Ude_=rTc7H+y= > rqh9zcomjis6...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Fabio Pesari <fab...@gnu.org> wrote: > > On 02/20/2016 04:16 PM, J.B. Nicholson wrote: > >> > >> That strikes me as a matter of taste and siding with power; you won't > find > >> Magnatune's artists or work on the more widely-advertised label releases > >> either. I find it more valuable to figure out what I like by listening > to > >> the music for myself. > > > > I don't think it's a matter of taste or siding with power; it is > > undeniable that some bands who created nonfree music have significantly > > influenced the history of popular music. > > > > Can you name a non-obscure pop (post 1930s) genre which hasn't been > > invented by an artist playing nonfree music? > > > >> I fail to understand what this has to do with the topic of discussion. > This > >> reads to me as a digression which tries to subtly position more popular > >> artists as somehow better than less popular artists without > acknowledging > >> how derivative artists in general are. I think a better discussion would > >> convey how derivation is at the heart of everything humans do, how the > >> popular label system is corrupt in that it over rewards the more popular > >> artists, and how assessing artist's worth is not valuable to this > discussion. > > > > I changed the topic exactly because it had little to do with the > > previous discussion. > > > > I was merely saying that opposing DRM might make sense when we are > > talking about public stuff (libraries, schools, etc.) but when we're > > talking about cultural stuff that belongs to someone else (like films > > and music), it's useless because if you want to play their game, you > > have to accept their rules, however unfair the might be. > > That's a pretty defeatist attitude, and doesn't mesh with reality that > almost every music download service is DRM free currently. Music is > starting to revert with streaming services, and video content is still > locked down pretty tight with netflix and blu-ray. But digital > downloads of music have been DRM free for a while, despite Microsoft > and others trying to push DRM with their .wma format. > > > > >> Until you mentioned this twice (once above and once at the end of your > >> post), nobody said one had to or would "only listen to music released on > >> Magnatune". That is a false dichotomy. However you bring up a point > which > >> (perhaps inadvertently) puts Magnatune in a better light -- unlike so > many > >> of the more widely-advertised labels, Magnatune doesn't require > exclusivity. > > > > Sure, it does not require exclusivity. Still, it costs money, and I feel > > that money would be better spent on libre music. That's my personal > > opinion, by the way! > > > >> I don't know who you're replying to here, but it's not me. Your post you > >> made it seem like I wrote "Everyone has the right freely to participate > in > >> the cultural life of the > >> community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and > its > >> benefits.". I did not write that and you didn't credit who did write > that. > > > > I said I was quoting Article 27.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human > > Rights, perhaps you missed it. > > > >> To respond to your point: DRM is a problem for me because I don't run > the > >> nonfree software needed to get past the DRM in the manner proscribed by > the > >> publisher. Laws prohibiting breaking DRM (even for personal use or fair > use > >> purposes) are often part of copyright legislation. Therefore a lot of > the > >> well-advertised distributors don't allow me to partake of their work > >> without accepting what could be malware. I find that tradeoff to be > >> completely unacceptable and I blame them for putting that potential > malware > >> in my way nor do I buy any of the defenses about how unnamed copyright > >> holders might balk at having DRM-free distribution to paying customers. > > > > But this is where I see the issue: > > > >> Therefore a lot of the well-advertised distributors don't allow me to > >> partake of their work without accepting what could be malware. I find > >> that tradeoff to be > > > > Why should they? It's their stuff, and if they want to distribute it > > using DRM, it's their right to do it. This is actually article 27.2 of > > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which ironically is at odds > > with article 27.1 in DRM's case! > > > >> I believe most popular label artist's copyrights aren't held by the > artist, > >> I believe that copyright is signed over to the label when the > artist/band > >> signs a contract with the label. Janis Ian is a notable exception; I > >> believe she bought the copyright to her recordings and now holds the > >> copyright on them. It would benefit the argument for copyright reform to > >> frame the debate in terms of how most media is licensed. > > > > So, following the previous example, the copyright on Miles Davis tracks > > could last _forever_. Isn't that a bigger problem than DRM, considering > > that if they were in the public domain, they could be legally > > distributed DRM-free? > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > libreplanet-discuss mailing list > libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss > > > End of libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 72, Issue 44 > *************************************************** >
