subject:"\[OT\] Internet Censorship"

Years ago the large Church I work for had a recording studio and a record 
label, so that we could produce religious music and not have to deal with the 
secular industry and the exorbitant prices they charged for use of their 
studios. Some artists because quite successful in their careers, as they were 
quite good. 

Later we bought a radio station and began playing the now wide selection of 
Christian music, but at one point one of the agencies that polices rights 
infringements approached our radio station and insisted we pay royalties to 
these artists (meaning the agency) for the right to use the music. Some of 
these artists got their start in our studios, and would never have gotten 
anywhere had they not started there. 

Our head Pastor was so disgusted, he banned any music from an artist who 
belonged to one of these agencies. Offerings on the radio were a bit slim for 
awhile. Now I can see someone being upset if another artist went around 
performing another artist's songs for money, because it was less money that the 
original artist charged. But the very thought of having people pay royalties on 
what we consider to be a gift from God namely the talent and the inspiration 
for the music seems to be... well quenching. The moneychangers in the temple 
comes to mind. 

Bob


On Aug 11, 2011, at 4:29 AM, Roger Eller wrote:

 On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Richmond Mathewson wrote:
 
 This whole thing seems laughable:
 
 When I was 13 my Mum and Dad bought me a radio-cassette recorder, and
 I merrily recorded all the songs on the radio that I liked, and recorded
 quite a few songs from gramophone records that belonged to friends of mine
 who could afford that sort of thing.
 
 At no time (1975-6-7-8) did ANYBODY tell that I was breaking the law, or,
 even, being naughty.
 
 I, later, bought half a dozen of the records I had previously taped, so
 that I could pose to my friends with the record covers.
 
 Presumably, all across Britain (at least) teenagers were doing this all the
 time. How
 odd that it never seemed an issue.
 
 Rod Stewart still made millions, as did Kate Bush, Devo and Kraftwerk . . .
 
 I CAN understand that copying music and subsequently making money out of it
 is a bit infra dig.
 
 What a load of codswallop!
 
 
 That is a similar story to mine, and many other kids of the 70's.  If the
 music was something I truly loved, then I would buy the record, tape, CD,
 etc., but if it was just OK, a recording made from the radio was just
 fine.  Nowadays, everybody's an artist, whether they can sing or not.  It
 is assumed, and even expected that people pay for noise.  The market should
 be driven by the quality of the work.  If it's good, DMCA or no DMCA, the
 artist will STILL become rich and famous.
 
 ˜Roger
 ___
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

As usual it's the middle man that is getting rich. But there ARE ways to 
distribute now that can bypass them. Unfortunately, it's hard to rise above the 
noise of mediocrity in that soup, if the artist really is exceptional. 

I have ideas for a website that had some kind of voting system, where the more 
you voted, the more votes you could make, only 3 a day at first, 7 later, and 
so on scaling up to as many as you wanted if you voted often. Hopefully this 
would cause the cream to rise to the top, much like YouTube. 

Bob


On Aug 11, 2011, at 9:38 AM, stephen barncard wrote:

 What is laughable is the idea that there are many artists are getting rich
 by selling their music. This is an illusion. Most are not. Today the CD is
 more like a promotional tool that people expect for free.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-11 Thread Roger Eller

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:

 As usual it's the middle man that is getting rich. But there ARE ways to
 distribute now that can bypass them. Unfortunately, it's hard to rise above
 the noise of mediocrity in that soup, if the artist really is exceptional.

 I have ideas for a website that had some kind of voting system, where the
 more you voted, the more votes you could make, only 3 a day at first, 7
 later, and so on scaling up to as many as you wanted if you voted often.
 Hopefully this would cause the cream to rise to the top, much like YouTube.

 Bob


I agree.  In fact, I witnessed the rise of a YouTube artist, and bought his
very first CD because 1) he was that good, and 2) I wanted to be supportive
of the hundreds of songs he posted on YouTube (and I enjoyed for free).
THAT is an artist!  Play it to express what you feel, and if we feel it too,
we will buy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0xqu0Nuwek

~Roger
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-11 Thread Warren Samples

On Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:53:33 AM Bob Sneidar wrote:
 But the very thought of having people pay royalties on what we consider to be 
 a gift from God namely the talent and the inspiration for the music seems 
 to be... well quenching. The moneychangers in the temple comes to mind. 
 
 Bob


Bob, how far are you willing to go with argument? Is it just musicians? Who is 
exempt? Is there anyone or any field where you'd to say, Oh, God doesn't have 
anything to do with that, so I'll pay you? Let me take my cello down to the 
supermarket and see if they'll give me food if I play for them. Would that 
actually be any different from asking for cash? I dunno, but it is fair to 
suggest that you want to benefit from my, or some musician's talents - and hard 
work invested in developing an nurturing that talent, wthout returning anything 
except maybe a smile. Is your smile worth something in the supermarket? The 
issue of payment and distibution is far more varied and complex than most of 
you seem to be aware of or willing to consider. As consumers your interests 
only reflect a very limited perspective.

Sincerely,

Warren

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

I feel your pain warren as I am also a musician. But I am not making the 
argument that people should not profit from their gifts. God knows none of the 
very talented people who use Livecode would lift a finger if that were the 
case! I am saying that when Christians need a corporate machine to eke out 
every last penny from everyone they can, when they won't play anywhere for less 
that $.xx dollars, when they insist on special cuisine, cooked just so, and 
special accommodations for their entourage, and have a highly paid agent to 
make sure all this falls into place for them, I am suggesting they may have 
missed the point. 

At least for Christian artists, they ought to be willing to go anywhere and 
play for free, aside from their normal profession, if the situation warrants 
it. And they shouldn't punish the few Christian Radio Stations who play their 
music, without whose support they would have gotten no exposure in the first 
place. 

I guess there is a balance to everything. 

Bob


On Aug 11, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Warren Samples wrote:

 On Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:53:33 AM Bob Sneidar wrote:
 But the very thought of having people pay royalties on what we consider to 
 be a gift from God namely the talent and the inspiration for the music 
 seems to be... well quenching. The moneychangers in the temple comes to 
 mind. 
 
 Bob
 
 
 Bob, how far are you willing to go with argument? Is it just musicians? Who 
 is exempt? Is there anyone or any field where you'd to say, Oh, God doesn't 
 have anything to do with that, so I'll pay you? Let me take my cello down to 
 the supermarket and see if they'll give me food if I play for them. Would 
 that actually be any different from asking for cash? I dunno, but it is fair 
 to suggest that you want to benefit from my, or some musician's talents - and 
 hard work invested in developing an nurturing that talent, wthout returning 
 anything except maybe a smile. Is your smile worth something in the 
 supermarket? The issue of payment and distibution is far more varied and 
 complex than most of you seem to be aware of or willing to consider. As 
 consumers your interests only reflect a very limited perspective.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Warren
 
 ___
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-11 Thread Marty Knapp

Cool! So now all I need to do is figure out who has god-given talent (as
opposed to atheistic talent or agnostic talent???) or who is rich and
I can take what I want!!! My brother is an airline pilot - makes way
more money than me. Has 5 cars, including a red '73 Chevy convertible.
Maybe I'll just borrow it for a while, when he's on a trip to Paris.
He doesn't need to know and he's rich, so it's my right! You can't drive
5 cars at the same time! Then there's my two multi-millionaire friends.
They're both self-made and very generous, but it never occurred to me
that because they're rich, I have a right to take some of their stuff
that I've determined they don't need. Awesome!

Marty K

Years ago the large Church I work for had a recording studio and a record label, so that
we could produce religious music and not have to deal with the secular
industry and the exorbitant prices they charged for use of their studios. Some artists
because quite successful in their careers, as they were quite good.

Later we bought a radio station and began playing the now wide selection of
Christian music, but at one point one of the agencies that polices rights
infringements approached our radio station and insisted we pay royalties to
these artists (meaning the agency) for the right to use the music. Some of
these artists got their start in our studios, and would never have gotten
anywhere had they not started there.

Our head Pastor was so disgusted, he banned any music from an artist who belonged to one of these
agencies. Offerings on the radio were a bit slim for awhile. Now I can see someone being upset if
another artist went around performing another artist's songs for money, because it was less money
that the original artist charged. But the very thought of having people pay royalties on what we
consider to be a gift from God namely the talent and the inspiration for the music
seems to be... well quenching. The moneychangers in the temple comes to mind.

Bob

On Aug 11, 2011, at 4:29 AM, Roger Eller wrote:

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Richmond Mathewson wrote:

This whole thing seems laughable:

When I was 13 my Mum and Dad bought me a radio-cassette recorder, and
I merrily recorded all the songs on the radio that I liked, and recorded
quite a few songs from gramophone records that belonged to friends of mine
who could afford that sort of thing.

At no time (1975-6-7-8) did ANYBODY tell that I was breaking the law, or,
even, being naughty.

I, later, bought half a dozen of the records I had previously taped, so
that I could pose to my friends with the record covers.

Presumably, all across Britain (at least) teenagers were doing this all the
time. How
odd that it never seemed an issue.

Rod Stewart still made millions, as did Kate Bush, Devo and Kraftwerk . . .

I CAN understand that copying music and subsequently making money out of it
is a bit infra dig.

What a load of codswallop!

That is a similar story to mine, and many other kids of the 70's. If the
music was something I truly loved, then I would buy the record, tape, CD,
etc., but if it was just OK, a recording made from the radio was just
fine. Nowadays, everybody's an artist, whether they can sing or not. It
is assumed, and even expected that people pay for noise. The market should
be driven by the quality of the work. If it's good, DMCA or no DMCA, the
artist will STILL become rich and famous.

˜Roger
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-11 Thread Warren Samples

On Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:09:47 PM Roger Eller wrote:
 I agree.  In fact, I witnessed the rise of a YouTube artist, and bought his
 very first CD because 1) he was that good, and 2) I wanted to be supportive
 of the hundreds of songs he posted on YouTube (and I enjoyed for free).
 THAT is an artist!  Play it to express what you feel, and if we feel it too,
 we will buy it.


The effect of unlicensed redistribution on the music industry is a topic of 
huge debate. The view the RIAA and AF of M take is certainly an exageration. 
But unlicensed distribution is not harmless. Your anecdote reflects a 
legitimate part of the debate, but the music industry is not some simple 
monolith. Many of us work for wages which are determined by the projected use 
and distribution of the final product. While it is undeniable that the exposure 
gained through unlicensed redistribution can be an incredible boon to some 
projects, it also competes with licensed distribution and certainly makes it 
impossible to fairly compensate many of us when the actual distribution is 
unknowable. 

I can't escape the feeling that a part of what some of you are saying is that 
you feel the entities that produced the material have received what you believe 
to be a fair return and they should not be entitled to receive anything more 
and therefore any future use of that product shall be without cost to you. Is 
that really what you think? Is it really reasonable?

Sincerely,

Warren

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

Sigh. Once again I've started a controversy. 

My original point, which perhaps I did not make terribly clear is that there is 
a huge corporate machine that has grown up around copyright protection, that is 
the main entity actually making the money, and often is operating contrary to 
the original artists interests. A thing can (and often does) start out with 
good intentions but ends up being counterproductive to the original goal. I 
think in the Christian music industry, this has become a bad thing. 

Perhaps I should put it this way. It is my opinion that a Christian artist 
should decide whether he wants to devote himself to ministry, (which does not 
exclude making *some* money by the way to cover expenses and needs) or else 
make a living at what he does. BOTH CHOICES ARE EQUALLY VALID I must emphasize. 
But it is a bad idea and I stress IN MY OPINION to start out calling yourself a 
minister, and then end up trying to get rich at it. One seems to push out the 
other. You cannot serve God and Mammon I think was the phrase. 

Again, everything is about focus and balance. 

Bob


On Aug 11, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Marty Knapp wrote:

 Cool! So now all I need to do is figure out who has god-given talent (as 
 opposed to atheistic talent or agnostic talent???) or who is rich and I can 
 take what I want!!! My brother is an airline pilot - makes way more money 
 than me. Has 5 cars, including a red '73 Chevy convertible. Maybe I'll just 
 borrow it for a while, when he's on a trip to Paris. He doesn't need to 
 know and he's rich, so it's my right! You can't drive 5 cars at the same 
 time! Then there's my two multi-millionaire friends. They're both self-made 
 and very generous, but it never occurred to me that because they're rich, I 
 have a right to take some of their stuff that I've determined they don't 
 need. Awesome!
 
 Marty K
 Years ago the large Church I work for had a recording studio and a record 
 label, so that we could produce religious music and not have to deal with 
 the secular industry and the exorbitant prices they charged for use of their 
 studios. Some artists because quite successful in their careers, as they 
 were quite good.
 
 Later we bought a radio station and began playing the now wide selection of 
 Christian music, but at one point one of the agencies that polices rights 
 infringements approached our radio station and insisted we pay royalties to 
 these artists (meaning the agency) for the right to use the music. Some of 
 these artists got their start in our studios, and would never have gotten 
 anywhere had they not started there.
 
 Our head Pastor was so disgusted, he banned any music from an artist who 
 belonged to one of these agencies. Offerings on the radio were a bit slim 
 for awhile. Now I can see someone being upset if another artist went around 
 performing another artist's songs for money, because it was less money that 
 the original artist charged. But the very thought of having people pay 
 royalties on what we consider to be a gift from God namely the talent and 
 the inspiration for the music seems to be... well quenching. The 
 moneychangers in the temple comes to mind.
 
 Bob


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

I cannot speak for others, but I certainly do not. When Napster first came out 
and all my friends were going crazy over it, downloading everything they could 
get their hands on, I told them all it was stealing, no matter how they looked 
at it, because they were taking something without the owner's permission. 

Later when Apple released iTunes I found myself going back and buying again 
music I had already paid for in the past, in the form of CD's, cassette tapes, 
lp's etc, some of them several times because I would wear them out or they 
would become damaged. 

Now no one seems very concerned that I paid for something several times over. 
No one is at all concerned in the industry that I may have paid more than my 
fair share. But that is okay, because I had the choice, and I chose to pay to 
have it in a form that FINALLY I could keep indefinitely without degradation of 
quality, even though it must be admitted that it doesn't cost anywhere near as 
much to distribute electronically as it did to do so using physical media. 

So everyone can claim unfair treatment, but it really revolves around what two 
entities agree to, and what the intent of use for copied material is. My 
contract with the music industry was fulfilled when I gave them my money and 
they delivered the product with certain restrictions on the fair use and 
reproduction of the product. While it is clearly unfair for me to make copies 
and give it to my friends, I find it equally unfair for them to tell me I 
cannot make backups, or that they could care less that this is the fifth time I 
have paid them for something. 

Everyone seems to have a bone to pick. 

Bob


On Aug 11, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Warren Samples wrote:

 I can't escape the feeling that a part of what some of you are saying is that 
 you feel the entities that produced the material have received what you 
 believe to be a fair return and they should not be entitled to receive 
 anything more and therefore any future use of that product shall be without 
 cost to you. Is that really what you think? Is it really reasonable?
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Warren


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-11 Thread Richmond Mathewson

On 08/11/2011 08:55 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:

Sigh. Once again I've started a controversy.

Lovely; where would we be without you? Probably considerably more bored
. . . :)

My original point, which perhaps I did not make terribly clear is that there is
a huge corporate machine that has grown up around copyright protection, that is
the main entity actually making the money, and often is operating contrary to
the original artists interests. A thing can (and often does) start out with
good intentions but ends up being counterproductive to the original goal. I
think in the Christian music industry, this has become a bad thing.

Perhaps I should put it this way. It is my opinion that a Christian artist should decide
whether he wants to devote himself to ministry, (which does not exclude making *some*
money by the way to cover expenses and needs) or else make a living at what he does. BOTH
CHOICES ARE EQUALLY VALID I must emphasize. But it is a bad idea and I stress IN MY
OPINION to start out calling yourself a minister, and then end up trying to get rich at
it. One seems to push out the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon I think
was the phrase.

Again, everything is about focus and balance.

Bob

On Aug 11, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Marty Knapp wrote:

Cool! So now all I need to do is figure out who has god-given talent (as opposed to atheistic talent or
agnostic talent???) or who is rich and I can take what I want!!! My brother is an airline pilot -
makes way more money than me. Has 5 cars, including a red '73 Chevy convertible. Maybe I'll just
borrow it for a while, when he's on a trip to Paris. He doesn't need to know and he's rich, so
it's my right! You can't drive 5 cars at the same time! Then there's my two multi-millionaire friends.
They're both self-made and very generous, but it never occurred to me that because they're rich, I have a
right to take some of their stuff that I've determined they don't need. Awesome!

Marty K

Bob

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-11 Thread Richmond Mathewson


On 08/11/2011 09:11 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:

I cannot speak for others, but I certainly do not. When Napster first came out 
and all my friends were going crazy over it, downloading everything they could 
get their hands on, I told them all it was stealing, no matter how they looked 
at it, because they were taking something without the owner's permission.

Later when Apple released iTunes I found myself going back and buying again 
music I had already paid for in the past, in the form of CD's, cassette tapes, 
lp's etc, some of them several times because I would wear them out or they 
would become damaged.

Now no one seems very concerned that I paid for something several times over.


I am; and I have absolutely NO qualms about downloading mp3 files of 
tracks fom records I bought in 1980.


Similarly, I bought a North American DVD of Ticket to Heaven (my favourite
film for obvious reasons) and found I could not play it in Bulgaria; I 
didn't hesitate to rip it and make a region-free copy (which I keep in 
the same box as the original);

having paid for the blasted thing I should at least be able to watch it!


No one is at all concerned in the industry that I may have paid more than my 
fair share. But that is okay, because I had the choice, and I chose to pay to 
have it in a form that FINALLY I could keep indefinitely without degradation of 
quality, even though it must be admitted that it doesn't cost anywhere near as 
much to distribute electronically as it did to do so using physical media.

So everyone can claim unfair treatment, but it really revolves around what two 
entities agree to, and what the intent of use for copied material is. My 
contract with the music industry was fulfilled when I gave them my money and 
they delivered the product with certain restrictions on the fair use and 
reproduction of the product. While it is clearly unfair for me to make copies 
and give it to my friends, I find it equally unfair for them to tell me I 
cannot make backups, or that they could care less that this is the fifth time I 
have paid them for something.

Everyone seems to have a bone to pick.

Bob


On Aug 11, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Warren Samples wrote:


I can't escape the feeling that a part of what some of you are saying is that 
you feel the entities that produced the material have received what you believe 
to be a fair return and they should not be entitled to receive anything more 
and therefore any future use of that product shall be without cost to you. Is 
that really what you think? Is it really reasonable?

Sincerely,

Warren


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-11 Thread Ralph DiMola

There's at least one other person who told their friends to stay away from
Napster.

 

I cannot speak for others, but I certainly do not. When Napster first came
out and all my friends were going crazy over it, downloading everything they
could get their hands on, I told them all it was stealing, no matter how
they looked at it, because they were taking something without the owner's
permission.

 

I know someone who got caught and had to pay.

 

That being said. I don't feel sorry for the record companies or the rich
rock and rollers.

1)  I bought the Beatle's singles on 45 RPM records.

2)  Then I bought the White Album on 33 RPM

3)  Then I got the White Album on  8 track

4)  Then I got the White Album on  cassette

5)  Then I got the White Album on  CD

6)  Some of the songs were on a DVD anthology

7)  Paul's 2000 tour DVD

 

 

As I see it, I paid royalties 7 times on many songs in the Beatle catalog
for my single personal use. I should have had the option to trade in an old
format for  a new format and pay only for the media. Trading and giving away
cassettes to friends of over the air radio broadcasts was never prosecuted.
I don't even know if it was illegal in the first place. The Betamax decision
allowed for recording and trading of over the air TV. If I share a song on
the web then it's TFB for the record companies.. But alas I don't because it
illegal and I have to live with it.

 

PS:

We're still getting ripped-off!!!

 

Ralph DiMola

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-11 Thread Judy Perry

Indeed, this can be true; two sound-alike singers were hired directly from 
their YouTube performances as replacement singers for the prog rock band 
Journey and Dennis DeYoung from Styx for their respective tours.


Judy

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Roger Eller wrote:


I agree.  In fact, I witnessed the rise of a YouTube artist, and bought his
very first CD because 1) he was that good, and 2) I wanted to be supportive
of the hundreds of songs he posted on YouTube (and I enjoyed for free).
THAT is an artist!  Play it to express what you feel, and if we feel it too,
we will buy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0xqu0Nuwek


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-11 Thread Pete

As a working musician, I heartily agree with Stephen.  There is a miniscule
percentage of musicians who actually manage to make a reasonable living for
their profession, the rest of us (no matter how good or bad we are) make do
with the crumbs and leftovers.  There is no justification for stealing
music, it's no different than pirating software.

And don;t even get me started on the antics of ASCAP, BMI in the realm of
performance royalties


Pete
Molly's Revenge http://www.mollysrevenge.com




On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:38 AM, stephen barncard 
stephenrevoluti...@barncard.com wrote:

 OK. This touched a nerve.

 *I used to record off the air and it was OK  ,   everybody does it  ,
  the music today sucks anyway,  the music business is corrupt*

 All excuses used to justify the stealing of music.  Not very funny to me, a
 40 year music business worker. This was a profession for thousands that has
 totally gone away.

 There is no fair comparison between the innocent taping off of the radio
 and
 trading digital music en masse.
 The former barriers were hassle,cost,  quality and speed, all of which were
 eliminated by digital formats.

 LPs were great. They had excellent DRM - very few people had disc cutters
 'in the day'   (except me) and the media was far more expensive than just
 buying it.  I'm encouraging emerging artists to put all their music out on
 12 vinyl. Better than a garage filled with a thousand unsold CDs.

 What is laughable is the idea that there are many artists are getting rich
 by selling their music. This is an illusion. Most are not. Today the CD is
 more like a promotional tool that people expect for free.


 On 11 August 2011 04:29, Roger Eller roger.e.el...@sealedair.com wrote:

  On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Richmond Mathewson wrote:
 
   This whole thing seems laughable:
  
   When I was 13 my Mum and Dad bought me a radio-cassette recorder, and
   I merrily recorded all the songs on the radio that I liked, and
 recorded
   quite a few songs from gramophone records that belonged to friends of
  mine
   who could afford that sort of thing.
  
   At no time (1975-6-7-8) did ANYBODY tell that I was breaking the law,
 or,
   even, being naughty.
  
   I, later, bought half a dozen of the records I had previously taped, so
   that I could pose to my friends with the record covers.
  
   Presumably, all across Britain (at least) teenagers were doing this all
  the
   time. How
   odd that it never seemed an issue.
  
   Rod Stewart still made millions, as did Kate Bush, Devo and Kraftwerk .
 .
  .
  
   I CAN understand that copying music and subsequently making money out
 of
  it
   is a bit infra dig.
  
   What a load of codswallop!
  
 
  That is a similar story to mine, and many other kids of the 70's.  If the
  music was something I truly loved, then I would buy the record, tape, CD,
  etc., but if it was just OK, a recording made from the radio was just
  fine.  Nowadays, everybody's an artist, whether they can sing or not.
  It
  is assumed, and even expected that people pay for noise.  The market
 should
  be driven by the quality of the work.  If it's good, DMCA or no DMCA, the
  artist will STILL become rich and famous.
 
  ˜Roger
  ___
  use-livecode mailing list
  use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
  Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
  subscription preferences:
  http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
 



 --



 Stephen Barncard
 San Francisco Ca. USA

 more about sqb  http://www.google.com/profiles/sbarncar
 ___
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
 subscription preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-11 Thread Marty Knapp

I agree with you here Bob. Your previous post seemed to me to focus on
the individual talent who shouldn't make money because it was a
god-given talent. But my post was also a response to those who excuse
taking from someone because they think they are rich (which usually
means someone who makes more then they do!) People do that to me - steal
my software because they think I'm a big, rich corporation (and there I
am sitting in my underwear in my home office working 3 jobs to pay my
bills!). What really fries me is when they contact me for tech support!

Having a you owe it to me for free attitude can get you in deep sh*t.
Another friend of mine is head of security at a hardware store. He told
me that I'd be surprised at who shoplifts. He's busted retired cops,
university professors and well-to-do business people, often stealing
small, low-dollar items. In most of these cases, he said, the attitude
was, I buy a lot of things at this store and I deserved a freebie. Oops.

I like free stuff as much as the next guy. I like free software. I like
free music. But nobody *owes* me free anything. And the irony is, the
person who takes something for free because the copyright holder is a
greedy, dishonest corporation may be motivated in much the same way
- greed I want it, give it to me and dishonesty.

This is not to say that I think that the misuse of copyright and
trademark laws is OK. I've twice been threatened by lawyers for
absolutely ridiculous infringement. It was the only time it was nice
to not have much money! I told them to go ahead, but they weren't going
to get much out of me.

Marty

Sigh. Once again I've started a controversy.

Again, everything is about focus and balance.

Bob

On Aug 11, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Marty Knapp wrote:

Cool! So now all I need to do is figure out who has god-given talent (as opposed to atheistic talent or
agnostic talent???) or who is rich and I can take what I want!!! My brother is an airline pilot -
makes way more money than me. Has 5 cars, including a red '73 Chevy convertible. Maybe I'll just
borrow it for a while, when he's on a trip to Paris. He doesn't need to know and he's rich, so
it's my right! You can't drive 5 cars at the same time! Then there's my two multi-millionaire friends.
They're both self-made and very generous, but it never occurred to me that because they're rich, I have a
right to take some of their stuff that I've determined they don't need. Awesome!

Marty K

Bob

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-11 Thread J. Landman Gay


On 8/11/11 12:16 PM, Warren Samples wrote:

The issue of payment and distibution is far more varied
and complex than most of you seem to be aware of or willing to
consider. As consumers your interests only reflect a very limited
perspective.


When faced with a decision like this, I substitute my software for 
music and see how I'd feel about it.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-11 Thread Judy Perry


I agree wholly.

However -- it's worth noting AGAIN that Steamboat Willie is STILL under 
copyright.  If IP law continues in this direction, it and anything 
produced afterwards may NEVER enter the public domain.


Also -- there's some controversy that the popular song, Happy Birthday, 
is under copyright.


O_o

Judy

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Pete wrote:

snip


There is no justification for stealing
music, it's no different than pirating software.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-11 Thread Alejandro Tejada

Hi Ralph,


Ralph DiMola wrote:
 
 There's at least one other person who told their friends
 to stay away from Napster.
 

Interesting enough, I learned first about Napster
from Computer Magazines and never liked the idea.

Digital stores like Amazon or iTunes and streaming audio
on demand like GrooveShark are most useful.

Some years ago, I read an article about services that
for a low monthly price, guaranteed that your media
would not be shared openly in the internet.
Do not remember if this article appear in
Wired, Salon or another magazine.

Did anyone have a link to companies that offer
that service?

Thanks in advance!

Al

--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3737275.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-11 Thread Pete

I'm thought musical works entered the public domain after some number of
years (I forget how many) following the composer's death.  One of the
problems is that there is no international definition of public domain, all
countries have their own.  It's possible the publishing companies (not the
composers) still hold the copyright to the songs you mentioned though.

Having tried on many occasions to get the bottom of when I have to pay
mechanical license fees for what I record, how I get paid performance
royalties for radio stations playing my recordings, how ASCAP and BMI figure
out what they pay out to their members (which actually amounts to zero
unless you happen to be Bruce Springsteen or the like), it's clear to me
that whole area of music copyright and royalties is a huge, impossible to
understand, mess.

Pete
Molly's Revenge http://www.mollysrevenge.com




On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Judy Perry jper...@ecs.fullerton.eduwrote:

 I agree wholly.

 However -- it's worth noting AGAIN that Steamboat Willie is STILL under
 copyright.  If IP law continues in this direction, it and anything produced
 afterwards may NEVER enter the public domain.

 Also -- there's some controversy that the popular song, Happy Birthday,
 is under copyright.

 O_o

 Judy

 On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Pete wrote:

 snip

  There is no justification for stealing
 music, it's no different than pirating software.


 __**_
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
 subscription preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/**mailman/listinfo/use-livecodehttp://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-10 Thread Judy Perry


Alejandro,

Part of the problem, at least in the US, is that fair use is not a 
right; it's a defense, meaning you have to risk being sued to even 
mention it.


A silly little video of mine was just taken down by EMI because I used a 
recording of O Fortuna.  I suppose EMI could claim that, because people 
could consume the music via my silly video  instead of just buying the 
tune for $0.99 like I did to make the video, despite owning it on vinyl, I 
really think that anyone who enjoyed the music would just spend the bloody 
dollar.


EMI's issuing the take-down notice is not considered a legal document; 
however, if I contest it using the fair use doctrine, my defense IS and 
opens me up to being sued for a truly ridiculous amount of money.


Here's a fun bit of reading:  The EFF's white paper on the 10 unintended 
consequences of the DMCA:


http://www.eff.org/files/DMCAUnintended10.pdf

Judy

On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Alejandro Tejada wrote:


Hi warren,


Actually, my dissapoint is with Sony Music Entertainment and their
insensitive
application of copyright law over fair use in this documental series

Look, I am not the only one. From the brainpickins page that you linked:

Harmony continues here: 2, 4, 5. (Alas, Part 3 has been gobbled up by
copyright claims — even though the series is not available on DVD or in
any purchasable format. Such is the disposition of copyright Nazis — far
from merely ensuring that creators are compensated for their work,
they’d rather let a cultural artifact rot in obscurity than reach is
wide-eyed audience.)

More info:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html

Hopefully, in a future, Mr. Goodall will replace these specific parts of the
series
and publish the whole documentary in DVD, with subtitles and alternate
languages,

Al
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-06 Thread Tim Selander

It actually was quite interesting. Professionally done -- TV 
maybe, or an educational video for schools? The presenter talks 
about the development of chord progressions in Western music, how 
it started in classical music, and the same chord progressions 
are still being used today. They played clips of, say, Beethoven, 
then cut to modern music -- Bruce Springsteen, Chubby Checkers, 
etc., etc., that use the same chord progressions. My guess is 
that it's the distribution rights on these modern pieces that 
keep the video blocked in Brazil.


Are you really interested in the video itself and wish you see 
it, or are you just curious as to why it's being blocked?


Tim Selander
Tokyo, Japan

On 8/6/11 1:09 PM, Alejandro Tejada wrote:

Eureka!

Could this be only because Sony
is a Japanese company.???

Tim, please told us: What is the
content of this clip that merits
blocking by Sony?

Thanks in advance!

Al

--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3722757.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

Hi Tim,


Tim Selander wrote:
 
 It actually was quite interesting. Professionally done -- TV 
 maybe, or an educational video for schools? The presenter talks 
 about the development of chord progressions in Western music, how 
 it started in classical music, and the same chord progressions 
 are still being used today. They played clips of, say, Beethoven, 
 then cut to modern music -- Bruce Springsteen, Chubby Checkers, 
 etc., etc., that use the same chord progressions. My guess is 
 that it's the distribution rights on these modern pieces that 
 keep the video blocked in Brazil.
 
 Are you really interested in the video itself and wish you see 
 it, or are you just curious as to why it's being blocked?
 

Ideally, I would like to see it.

My curiosity arises from my contact, for many years,
with people from the Music Business.

The stories that I heard from first hand where, at the
time, like tall tales to me... But now, after confirming
from different sources, these stories were in fact,
oversimplifications of the real drama involved in the
Music Business... :-(

Al


--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3722887.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

Hi Tim,


Tim Selander wrote:
 
 It actually was quite interesting. Professionally done -- TV 
 maybe, or an educational video for schools? The presenter talks 
 about the development of chord progressions in Western music, how 
 it started in classical music, and the same chord progressions 
 are still being used today. They played clips of, say, Beethoven, 
 then cut to modern music -- Bruce Springsteen, Chubby Checkers, 
 etc., etc., that use the same chord progressions. My guess is 
 that it's the distribution rights on these modern pieces that 
 keep the video blocked in Brazil.
 
 Are you really interested in the video itself and wish you see 
 it, or are you just curious as to why it's being blocked?
 

Ideally, I would like to see it.

My curiosity arises from my contact, for many years,
with people from the Music Business.

The stories that I heard from first hand where, at the
time, like tall tales to me... But now, after confirming
from different sources, these stories were in fact,
oversimplifications of the real drama involved in the
Music Business... :-(

Al


--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3722888.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-06 Thread Martin Koob

It is blocked in Canada

Martin

--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3723252.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

Hi warren,


Warren Samples wrote:
 
 It sounds like you may be disappointed. This is not about how the music
 business works. 
 http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2010/12/09/how-music-works/
 http://www.howardgoodall.co.uk/presenting/HMW.htm
 Warren
 

Actually, my dissapoint is with Sony Music Entertainment and their
insensitive
application of copyright law over fair use in this documental series

Look, I am not the only one. From the brainpickins page that you linked:

Harmony continues here: 2, 4, 5. (Alas, Part 3 has been gobbled up by
copyright claims — even though the series is not available on DVD or in
any purchasable format. Such is the disposition of copyright Nazis — far
from merely ensuring that creators are compensated for their work,
they’d rather let a cultural artifact rot in obscurity than reach is
wide-eyed audience.)

More info:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html

Hopefully, in a future, Mr. Goodall will replace these specific parts of the
series
and publish the whole documentary in DVD, with subtitles and alternate
languages,

Al

--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3723464.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

Hi warren,

Warren Samples wrote:

It sounds like you may be disappointed. This is not about how the music
business works.
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2010/12/09/how-music-works/
http://www.howardgoodall.co.uk/presenting/HMW.htm
Warren

Actually, my dissapoint is with Sony Music Entertainment and their
insensitive
application of copyright law over fair use in this documental series

Look, I am not the only one. From the brainpickins page that you linked:

Harmony continues here: 2, 4, 5. (Alas, Part 3 has been gobbled up by
copyright claims — even though the series is not available on DVD or in
any purchasable format. Such is the disposition of copyright Nazis — far
from merely ensuring that creators are compensated for their work,
they’d rather let a cultural artifact rot in obscurity than reach is
wide-eyed audience.)

More info:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html

Hopefully, in a future, Mr. Goodall will replace these specific parts of the
series
and publish the whole documentary in DVD, with subtitles and alternate
languages.

--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3723477.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-06 Thread Ronald Zellner

This video seems blocked most places:

 How many of you could view this youTube video?
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0IcvVF-p_k


This one is not blocked and contains a number of videos:

 It sounds like you may be disappointed. This is not about how the music 
 business works. 
 
 http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2010/12/09/how-music-works/

Is the content in the first video different from that presented in the second 
site?

Ron
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

Hi Ronald,


Ronald Zellner wrote:
 
 This video seems blocked most places:
 How many of you could view this youTube video?
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0IcvVF-p_k
 

Yes, surprisingly in most countries,
except England and Japan.


Ronald Zellner wrote:
 
 This one is not blocked and contains a number of videos:
 It sounds like you may be disappointed. This is not about how the
 music business works. 
 http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2010/12/09/how-music-works/
 Is the content in the first video different from that presented in the
 second site?
 

This video is part of a documentary, so it's content should be
the same as the original program.

Are you able to watch the video?
In which country do you live?

Al

--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3723597.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-06 Thread Björnke von Gierke

So you never even heard of the DMCA, the second most important tool to 
circumvent any free speech rights in the USA and on the Internet?

Try these informations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig
http://www.eff.org/issues/dmca
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/righthaven-still-angering-judges-finally-pays-for-its-mistakes.ars
 (specific DMCA miss use, not any worse then regular use tho)


Deregulation in favour of gung-ho capitalism is destroying democracy.

-- 
Watch live presentations every Saturday:
http://livecode.tv

Use an alternative Dictionary viewer:
http://bjoernke.com/bvgdocu/

Chat with other RunRev developers:
http://bjoernke.com/chatrev/


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

Hi Björnke,


Björnke von Gierke wrote:
 
 So you never even heard of the DMCA, the second most
 important tool to circumvent any free speech rights in
 the USA and on the Internet?
 

Notice, please, that Sony is in their legal right to block
this video wherever they chose, to protect the commercial
rights, for which they paid to the artists or managers or
another company.

Notice, again, that Sony paid for these rights. If they want,
they could forbid forever the public diffusion of any performance
of these artists... Forever. No explanation necessary. It's their
right. They paid for it.

In fact, many artists that sign with a Record label discover
this too late. They record an album, hoping to reach their
public, but the Record label decide to shelve their art.
Nobody could complaint, because that was written in the
contract, in really small letters, but there was.

Today we learn which countries could view blocked Sony
videos: England and Japan.

That's all folks!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4

:-D

--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3724172.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-06 Thread Björnke von Gierke

No, Sony does not have the right to withhold music or ideas. The law might
protect them based on bad legislation, but they're certainly not in the right.

Also note that the maximum time such ill-gotten rights could be retained used
to be 20 years, never infinite. The law has been extended to 50 in a reform
introduced in the late nineties (or similar).

Additionally, where content becomes blocked is completely random. That is
because the blocks are made based on algorithms, by automated programs. As we
all know, programs are dumb, and when used to interpret large data base, also
produces largely faulty results.

Finally, cheesecake in switzerland does not mean a sweet, yoghurt-based cake as
in germany or the usa. Instead it describes a egg and cheese based, salty
tartlet / quiche:
http://static.zoonar.com/img/www_repository2/c0/e1/32/10_6b0d57087c3745107ad01f9d3b13aa71.jpg

Notice, again, that Sony paid for these rights. If they want,
they could forbid forever the public diffusion of any performance
of these artists... Forever. No explanation necessary. It's their
right. They paid for it.
...
Today we learn which countries could view blocked Sony videos: England and
Japan.

--
Watch live presentations every Saturday:
http://livecode.tv

Use an alternative Dictionary viewer:
http://bjoernke.com/bvgdocu/

Chat with other RunRev developers:
http://bjoernke.com/chatrev/

[OT] Internet Censorship

Hi All,

How many of you could view this youTube video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0IcvVF-p_k

This video is a segment of Howard Goodall's
2006 documentary: How Music Works

You could find many more segments in youTube
when you select the option Videos in google.

The message that appears in my side of the world is:
This video contains content from SME, who has blocked it
in your country on copyright grounds.

SME is Sony Music Entertainment...

Could you post your country and the message
that appears?

Thanks in advance!

Al

--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3722715.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-05 Thread stephen barncard

banned in San Francisco CA.

On 5 August 2011 20:25, Alejandro Tejada capellan2...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi All,

 How many of you could view this youTube video?
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0IcvVF-p_k

 This video is a segment of Howard Goodall's
 2006 documentary: How Music Works

 You could find many more segments in youTube
 when you select the option Videos in google.

 The message that appears in my side of the world is:
 This video contains content from SME, who has blocked it
 in your country on copyright grounds.

 SME is Sony Music Entertainment...

 Could you post your country and the message
 that appears?

 Thanks in advance!

 Al

 --
 View this message in context:
 http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3722715.html
 Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

 ___
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
 subscription preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode




-- 



Stephen Barncard
San Francisco Ca. USA

more about sqb  http://www.google.com/profiles/sbarncar
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-05 Thread Sarah Reichelt

Australia.
I get exactly the same message as you did Al.


On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Alejandro Tejada capellan2...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi All,

 How many of you could view this youTube video?
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0IcvVF-p_k

 This video is a segment of Howard Goodall's
 2006 documentary: How Music Works

 You could find many more segments in youTube
 when you select the option Videos in google.

 The message that appears in my side of the world is:
 This video contains content from SME, who has blocked it
 in your country on copyright grounds.

 SME is Sony Music Entertainment...

 Could you post your country and the message
 that appears?

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-05 Thread Tim Selander


Viewable, no error message.
Tokyo, Japan

Tim Selander

On 8/6/11 12:25 PM, Alejandro Tejada wrote:

Hi All,

How many of you could view this youTube video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0IcvVF-p_k

This video is a segment of Howard Goodall's
2006 documentary: How Music Works

You could find many more segments in youTube
when you select the option Videos in google.

The message that appears in my side of the world is:
This video contains content from SME, who has blocked it
in your country on copyright grounds.

SME is Sony Music Entertainment...

Could you post your country and the message
that appears?

Thanks in advance!

Al

--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3722715.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

Eureka!

Could this be only because Sony
is a Japanese company.???

Tim, please told us: What is the
content of this clip that merits
blocking by Sony?

Thanks in advance!

Al

--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3722757.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

On Friday, August 05, 2011 10:25:18 PM Alejandro Tejada wrote:
 This video contains content from SME, who has blocked it
 in your country on copyright grounds.


This doesn't have much or even anything to do with Censorship. This is about 
honoring commercial distribution agreements which will vary from country to 
country, not content censorship. There are lost of videos, from all over the 
place, which have location restrictions.

Regards,

Warren

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

Hi Warren,


Warren Samples wrote:
 
 This doesn't have much or even anything to do with Censorship.
 This is about honoring commercial distribution agreements which
 will vary from country to country, not content censorship.
 There are lost of videos, from all over the place, which have
 location restrictions.
 

Even so, I want to know: What is the content of this educational video,
that many people, around the world, are not supposing to watch?

Al

--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3722786.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

On Friday, August 05, 2011 11:30:44 PM Alejandro Tejada wrote:
 many people, around the world, are not supposing to watch

to finish your sentence... on youtube.

I suppose you could write to Sony and ask them. While this is just speculation, 
it is a possibility that either some performer appears, or some material is 
used in this segment which is affected by contracts which prevent youtube 
distribution whereas the other segments which you can see on youtube are not.

Regards,

Warren

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

On Friday, August 05, 2011 11:45:46 PM Warren Samples wrote:
 On Friday, August 05, 2011 11:30:44 PM Alejandro Tejada wrote:
  many people, around the world, are not supposing to watch
 
 to finish your sentence... on youtube.
 
 I suppose you could write to Sony and ask them. While this is just 
 speculation, it is a possibility that either some performer appears, or some 
 material is used in this segment which is affected by contracts which prevent 
 youtube distribution whereas the other segments which you can see on youtube 
 are not.
 
 Regards,
 
 Warren


You'll find a discussion of this in another of these clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPmnho7OvT8feature=related

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

2011-08-05 Thread Bob Sneidar

The country of destination is not blocking it. The source is. It's blocked in 
the US I see. 

Bob


On Aug 5, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Alejandro Tejada wrote:

 Hi All,
 
 How many of you could view this youTube video?
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0IcvVF-p_k
 
 This video is a segment of Howard Goodall's
 2006 documentary: How Music Works
 
 You could find many more segments in youTube
 when you select the option Videos in google.
 
 The message that appears in my side of the world is:
 This video contains content from SME, who has blocked it
 in your country on copyright grounds.
 
 SME is Sony Music Entertainment...
 
 Could you post your country and the message
 that appears?
 
 Thanks in advance!
 
 Al
 
 --
 View this message in context: 
 http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3722715.html
 Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
 
 ___
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
 preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship

Hi Warren,


Warren Samples wrote:
 
 [snip]
 You'll find a discussion of this in another of these clips
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPmnho7OvT8feature=related
 

Hmmm, There is no discussion in that page. (or anything else)
Only the message:
This video contains content from SME, who has blocked it
in your country on copyright grounds.

Al

--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Internet-Censorship-tp3722715p3722845.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: [OT] Internet Censorship