|
Ok, so I wrote a long response and the screen flashed and I was on another webpage and it was gone. I hate that! First - I have NOT read any other responses to this yet as I happened to check my activity stream right after Joe responded so of course I came here first :^) Joe - thank you for your response to this. I am sorry I made you feel like you had to re-explain how hitrecord works, but I suppose when you list it like that, you DO already do all the things that I suggested be the *hitrecord definition* of "greenlight." Because I absolutely realize we are trying a different model here and I believe we have redefined a lot of traditional things already. Through YOUR leadership Joe. So of course I am not going to argue with you. (I have better control of my word-filter now LOL. Sad.) BUT, I do want to briefly explain WHY I got behind Lawrie's suggestion, because I believe that the UNDERLYING reason for a suggestion is important, even if the suggestion itself is not the right answer - just as THIS suggestion was not the right answer for hitrecord, but the underlying reason for seeking a solution still exists. (The worries some have expressed about their work ending up sitting quietly in an abandoned Collaboration no one ever sees.) And I also want to ask a question, which I hope you have an answer to because I've heard little whispers of this question since January and I believe it may be at the HEART of people's worries about doing their work HERE on hitrecord (where it might not be used by YOU) as opposed to elsewhere (where THEY can decide what to do with the outcome): Though I should say that neither of these have a cut and dry answer so if there is NO answer right now, that's fine. I just want to plant the seed, so to speak. Because these questions will come up again at some point, as they've come up multiple times already. 1) I made a point of this submission suggestion because there have been some people with BIG skillsets - whose work, knowledge and ability to lead/teach ME and others I value and I know many others value as well (not JUST you Lawrie, but yes, Lawrie is an obvious one lol) - who have expressed apprehension at putting a lot of their energy into projects on HR because they don't know the outcome (I also talked about MY problem with dedicating enough of MY creative energy here without wandering off because I have no deadline, but my concern is in the question below - not in leading any projects because I'm bad at that, because - well, I wander off.) and I thought that if we had a system of submission that somehow avoided the things that Marke described (though his description sounds a LOT more like the REALITY of the internet than my idealized means of avoiding that inevitability) that those people who feel like they can't invest their time and energy without talking to you and getting your opinion... yeah, I see the problem with the rest of that sentence. That's not what hitrecord is about. It's not JUST your opinion. But their apprehension remains. And I thought there might be a solution. I don't want those people to stop working on projects here and I thought this might be a good solution. Clearly it's not. Not even with some SERIOUS modifications from a traditional greenlight system. But... I don't know... I just want EVERYONE to be fulfilled by what they do here. Perhaps that isn't possible without compromising the true spirit of hitrecord, which YOU guard Joe, so what you say goes, of course. But if that concern is representative of a common concern amongst those with very advanced skillsets... we need a FULL range of talent here, from absolutely new to art to wisened old workhorses. And hearing the same complaint from multiple horses worries me. But I'm hoping that when you and Marke were emailing about it, as you mentioned, that you guys were talking about just this sort of underlying thing, rather than just trading emails on what a terrible suggestion it was. LOL. Cuz I know you two are just so gossipy ;^) So I'm gonna trust that if it ever happens that we start losing wise workhorses, you'll know what's best to do. Of course that won't stop me from worrying. Because that's my REAL calling in life. Really, I'm faaabulous at it. Heh. Now THIS is a question I've thought of myself and I've heard talked about off and on since the switch in January, so I'm sorry if I stir things up a bit but since we're having an open - and mostly polite - dialogue, I hope it's ok to ask: (Then I really AM all talked out which hasn't happened in YEARS!) Question 2) The reason I hesitate with putting certain projects on here is NOT because I want to be made official leader by you Joe... it's wondering what happens when I make something that I love but it isn't right for hitrecord to release. (And I THINK this might be at the heart of some of the apprehension of the people who fall under question 1.) I know that INDIVIDUALS OWN the rights to THEIR work... but what about the RESULTS of a Collaboration??? If 20 individuals all own their RESPECTIVE contributions but the WHOLE FINISHED PRODUCT only exists because those 20 individuals found each other and combined their work on hitrecord - a platform that is owned and operated as a business - WHO OWNS THE OUTCOME??? Reasoning: if HR doesn't want to release the results of a Collaboration but someone in the Collab has a legitimate means of RELEASING IT THEMSELVES - be it through their own connections in whatever industry or however they want to do it... are WE ALLOWED to release our results as a group? And if so, does hitrecord still get 50% of the money? (I think it's fair the "workplace" get a cut, but how much?) Should it say "Made on hitrecord.org"? Or what if it's something you don't want HR's name associated with at all? Basically, I know I own MY creations to do with what I will, but if say, me and LizzieMackie make something together on here, can WE choose what to do with it if you don't want to do ANYTHING with it? Or is the result of a Collab strictly at hitrecord's discretion to release publicly, with or without HR's name? Thanks again Joe and Marke. And I'd just like to say: the dog on the Progressive commercial is named "Pickles." LOL I heard a voice say "Pickles" and I thought I was hallucinating. But it was just the dog talking. :^D |
|
|
CONVERSATION
Newest First
·
Oldest First
RE: Question at the HEART of suggestion: ...
via remarked on July 20, 2010
aw, hey pickleb, sorry for your current troubles. that sucks. you're a trooper for still giving this stuff your attention.
you do know a LOT, my goodness! and copyright is tricky bizness, fo sho. i've had my stuff show up on websites, even CD covers, uncredited...it happens. OTOH, i do collage, so most of my stuff is stolen to begin with, lol. (tho i much prefer the term "collaboration".) :-)
there are proprieties, of course. bottom line for me is about mutual respect, treating the other guy with fairness and dignity - as if he were your own brother, as they say. it's easy to forget that the "other guy" is just trying to get by (since our world more or less requires people to use each other for personal gain) but bottom line for me is, if ambition trumps basic decency and humanity, you've just LOST, mo-fo, in ways you can't even measure.
at the end of the day, you gotta be able to look YOURSELF in the eye and know you gave your fellow earthlings a fair shake. (not a shakeDOWN, lol). the brain can rationalize all sorts of crap, but the heart knows...and you can't outrun that one forever.
philosophically, i guess it comes down to trusting yourself to hold that line....to be able to keep your own counsel and dignity, despite what may be done to you. ultimately, talk is cheap, of course, and it's what you DO that matters.
<3
via remarked on July 20, 2010
aw, hey pickleb, sorry for your current troubles. that sucks. you're a trooper for still giving this stuff your attention.
you do know a LOT, my goodness! and copyright is tricky bizness, fo sho. i've had my stuff show up on websites, even CD covers, uncredited...it happens. OTOH, i do collage, so most of my stuff is stolen to begin with, lol. (tho i much prefer the term "collaboration".) :-)
there are proprieties, of course. bottom line for me is about mutual respect, treating the other guy with fairness and dignity - as if he were your own brother, as they say. it's easy to forget that the "other guy" is just trying to get by (since our world more or less requires people to use each other for personal gain) but bottom line for me is, if ambition trumps basic decency and humanity, you've just LOST, mo-fo, in ways you can't even measure.
at the end of the day, you gotta be able to look YOURSELF in the eye and know you gave your fellow earthlings a fair shake. (not a shakeDOWN, lol). the brain can rationalize all sorts of crap, but the heart knows...and you can't outrun that one forever.
philosophically, i guess it comes down to trusting yourself to hold that line....to be able to keep your own counsel and dignity, despite what may be done to you. ultimately, talk is cheap, of course, and it's what you DO that matters.
<3
RE: Question at the HEART of suggestion: ...
Pickle Blossom remarked on July 19, 2010
OMG that has got to be the longest thing without a title I have ever posted in conversation. Oops.
Oh well. Read what catches your eye. There's a lot in there about copyright trials (and LLC's tax laws) and how screwed up copyright law ACTUALLY is. It is an illusion of protection.
Pickle Blossom remarked on July 19, 2010
OMG that has got to be the longest thing without a title I have ever posted in conversation. Oops.
Oh well. Read what catches your eye. There's a lot in there about copyright trials (and LLC's tax laws) and how screwed up copyright law ACTUALLY is. It is an illusion of protection.
RE: Question at the HEART of suggestion: ...
Pickle Blossom remarked on July 19, 2010
This is titled: Everything You Never Wanted To Know About Copyright Law
But indulge me. I just got dumped and I want to feel important. lol.
I've been sleeping all day so I missed stuff, but thank you guys for discussing this. I thought of it right after the switch and I tried to ask then but Sundnace was imminent and it just got lost.
Ntheon - I didn't realize you had a collab about this. I apologize for repeating anything you guys may have already said there. But you were one of the people I recall mentioning this early on, so you did help inspire me to say something while we had their attention. But yeah, I'll put this there too Ntheon. :^) Thanks for the invite.
Oh Copyright Law - How Thee are Flawed... Let me Count the Ways... But my fingers and toes stop at 20. :^\
Via - I agree that's an EXCELLENT point about how posting things leaves them open to theives. That's the second reason I don't have my writing up. First is that I love it then I destroy it, then I write it again and it's just too ugly to let people watch. Oy. And my work is all high concept, and I'm still finding the right forms for those concepts. But concepts are precious commodoties for writers and any good writer could re-frame your best concepts in a manner that doesn't look stolen at all. It is a danger. But I do hope by now there are no internet users ignorant of that danger.
Ntheon and Lawrie: I'm in the middle of the teeter-totter on this one:
N - I can see how you arrived at your conclusion that HR would stand up for a member having things stolen. But I believe you arrived there with a SLIGHT leap of faith inspired by knowing that, as business owners, they try to be fair and do right by members. I think Lawrie doesn't take chances on faith in business - certainly nothing wrong with that - and that's why he couldn't see how on earth you arrived at your conclusion. I'm kind of mid-way I guess = I WANT to believe that they'd stand up for any one of us but I've been burned enough - even by close friends who laughed in my face and said "business isn't personal. I hope this won't effect our friendship." Hah! Won't effect our friendship my big JLo booty, backstabber. Oh, sorry. Where was I? Oh yes, faith in hitrecord. Their track record of fairness certainly points to it being safe to put faith in them, but I wouldn't count on any major actions that cost THEM a lot of money to protect YOUR commodity unless they have an interest in using it and are certain their BUSINESS INVESTMENT in lawyers to regain said property will be repaid by what they would make off of the piece. Otherwise, they may spend their business budget defending one record and go broke and have to declare Chapter 11. Because we all know Joe's got money - he's a frickin movie star - but that's HIS money and hitrecord is a Limited Liability Corporation which means that the owners money is protected from seizure in the event of business failure BUT it also means that the company must show the IRS that it is operating at a profit INDEPENDANT of "donations" from the owners deep pockets by either fiscal year 2 or 3. So if they spent business money to defend someone, they risk Chapter 11. But if Joe spends money defending a commodity of his business, then tax records have to mix and its status as an LLC will be brought into question by the IRS. Then Joe would be risking HIS personal fortune that he has been working 16 hour days for since he was like 5 years old! So Ntheon, Joe is a really nice guy... but I don't think he likes ANY of us quite THAT much. LOL.
Sorry - I'm laughing at how absurd laws can force good people to stand still when they want to take action. It's either laugh or spend the rest of my life fighting to reform the legal system and, well, I'm busy making a mask for hitrecord right now. LOL.
So, since they are not under any obligation, I don't think we can count on the full force of their fury for any and all theft.And since were volunteers, the government won't help in ANY way they help on-the-job problems. I found out the hard way when I was injured on a production that there is absolutely no protection for volunteers in a workplace. (In fact, my personal insurance wouldn't pay either so I got double screwed.) And this is now, technically, a workplace and we are not employees. We volunteer EVERYTHING here. So the company is not required to provide us ANY protection from anything. Though I can see why you would feel that they would step up to the plate.
So Dan, sorry, Ntheon, I can absolutely see how you arrived at your conclusion. And I know you are well educated and experienced in business, but LLC's are tricky little bastards. And Lawrie I can see your point as well, it is a business and of course there is no garauntee they'd stand behind anyone for more reasons than any of us even have the right to ask, IMHO.
So I'm in the middle of the teeter totter because I do believe, absolutely, that Joe and his team would ALL be sympathetic and want to help anyone who had anything stolen off of hitrecord, but when it comes down to the reality of what they could actually do without risking too much of the business as a whole... I just wouldn't count on having the whole problem solved by hr.
But I think the level of action is probably, unfortunately, weighted by how valuable the copied piece of work could be for hitrecord. Was it a Collaboration in progress and numerous members got ripped off? You know, I don't think they'd take out the big guns for somebodies poem that nobody ever read except the theif. Although I DO believe that they would provide the coding that ensures unalterable proof of upload date and THUS an admissable form of Copyright. So there is a protection benefit in posting a piece here because the site in itself, as long as your record remains, is proof of the date YOU made your piece public. (See below for how they provide proof of theive's access to your record as well. Both VERY important in proving a case in United States copyright suits - I don't know about UK.)
Although I do believe there is also valuable ILLUSION provided by hitrecord that might deter some dumber theives: People who don't really understand how things work here may think that everything on this site belongs to *JOSEPH GORDON LEVITT* (did I spell that right? LOL) and might be scared off if they think they are stealing from HIM.
I don't know though... it's not really in ANYBODY'S power to stop creative thieves. Or it could be my jaded perspective working in an industry that does not ALLOW copyright on designs. The only thing you can copyright is a graphic pattern or logo. That's why I can make an EXACT duplicate of something off a runway and sell it at a local shop. I don't. But I could. The only way I could be sued is if I copied a company's graphic pattern (on purse fabric for instance) or logo. That's why Purses are one of the only prosecutable "knock-offs" that can be protected. Because when I invented a 3-seam hoody for Eddie Bauer that cut production costs by 2/3 THAT wasn't innovative or unique enough to be copywritten, right? Dumbasses in senate.
And copyright law is not much better for MOST creative industries. At least not the protections it ultimately offers when court cases start. Sure, you can copyright the entirety of your writing in a way you cannot copyright a garment, but when you go to court with your copywritten work you still have to prove a lot of things: one of which is ACCESS to your work. So there again, if HR keeps records, and the theif accessed your work from their home computer with its unique ISP, then HR could easily provide that electronic proof that the person who copied your work did in fact read it from the computer in the bedroom of their home address at 8:47:13 GMT on 3-15-2010. And then the encoded date in their file's origination information may read 8:49:17 GMT on 3-15-2010 and ::poof:: how much more do you need than that?? Unfortunately - still quite a bit. For every category of art there are different percentages of sameness that are allowed to account for coincidence and chance that two people actually DID form the same concept independantly. In some categories it's as much as 60%. It's been happening to my mom with her images from PugManor.com - She's number 1 Pug merchandise designer IN THE WORLD for 8 years now (and before that she was personally responsible for BOTH rhinestone on denim in the 70's AND acid wash jeans in the 80's LOL. My mom is awesome.) But others come along and copy not just her imprints (like a logo with pugs playing on a super-large font word - one woman justed changed the word and copied everything else and it was f-ing LEGAL!) but a couple have copied her whole website setup: PugManor... PugPARLOUR. Really. Seriously. They failed and their businesses folded because the Pug merch audience is small and people recognized the theft and stayed loyal to PugManor. But legally, the theives knew how to wiggle their way through the copyright laws.
So yeah, back to this direct topic, I guess hr could help someone quite a bit with their electronic trail the theif would leave behind and I can't imagine it would be skin off their backs to provide that info. But then it's still up to a judge and just like with my mom's logo the judge may SEE as clearly as everyone else that the outcome was obviously stolen from the original - but their hands are tied by the letter of the law and if the theif changed it enough to squeek by, the jusge can't do anything but apologize for the failings of the U.S. legal system. Which ACTUALLY happened to me once. Unfortunately there is no part of our legal system - or any I've studied - that is without flaw. And copyright law is no exception. In my opinion it sets the standard for what is wrong with the american legal system; loopholes you could drive 27 trucks full of stolen manuscripts through.
But this is all speculation at present. Luckily so far - in the years I've been here - I have not heard of ANYONE feeling like their work had been stolen by an outside party, so this has never come up in reality. That in itself reassures me.
Well, I'm gonna go back to sleep. Life. Yuck. G'night.
Pickle Blossom remarked on July 19, 2010
This is titled: Everything You Never Wanted To Know About Copyright Law
But indulge me. I just got dumped and I want to feel important. lol.
I've been sleeping all day so I missed stuff, but thank you guys for discussing this. I thought of it right after the switch and I tried to ask then but Sundnace was imminent and it just got lost.
Ntheon - I didn't realize you had a collab about this. I apologize for repeating anything you guys may have already said there. But you were one of the people I recall mentioning this early on, so you did help inspire me to say something while we had their attention. But yeah, I'll put this there too Ntheon. :^) Thanks for the invite.
Oh Copyright Law - How Thee are Flawed... Let me Count the Ways... But my fingers and toes stop at 20. :^\
Via - I agree that's an EXCELLENT point about how posting things leaves them open to theives. That's the second reason I don't have my writing up. First is that I love it then I destroy it, then I write it again and it's just too ugly to let people watch. Oy. And my work is all high concept, and I'm still finding the right forms for those concepts. But concepts are precious commodoties for writers and any good writer could re-frame your best concepts in a manner that doesn't look stolen at all. It is a danger. But I do hope by now there are no internet users ignorant of that danger.
Ntheon and Lawrie: I'm in the middle of the teeter-totter on this one:
N - I can see how you arrived at your conclusion that HR would stand up for a member having things stolen. But I believe you arrived there with a SLIGHT leap of faith inspired by knowing that, as business owners, they try to be fair and do right by members. I think Lawrie doesn't take chances on faith in business - certainly nothing wrong with that - and that's why he couldn't see how on earth you arrived at your conclusion. I'm kind of mid-way I guess = I WANT to believe that they'd stand up for any one of us but I've been burned enough - even by close friends who laughed in my face and said "business isn't personal. I hope this won't effect our friendship." Hah! Won't effect our friendship my big JLo booty, backstabber. Oh, sorry. Where was I? Oh yes, faith in hitrecord. Their track record of fairness certainly points to it being safe to put faith in them, but I wouldn't count on any major actions that cost THEM a lot of money to protect YOUR commodity unless they have an interest in using it and are certain their BUSINESS INVESTMENT in lawyers to regain said property will be repaid by what they would make off of the piece. Otherwise, they may spend their business budget defending one record and go broke and have to declare Chapter 11. Because we all know Joe's got money - he's a frickin movie star - but that's HIS money and hitrecord is a Limited Liability Corporation which means that the owners money is protected from seizure in the event of business failure BUT it also means that the company must show the IRS that it is operating at a profit INDEPENDANT of "donations" from the owners deep pockets by either fiscal year 2 or 3. So if they spent business money to defend someone, they risk Chapter 11. But if Joe spends money defending a commodity of his business, then tax records have to mix and its status as an LLC will be brought into question by the IRS. Then Joe would be risking HIS personal fortune that he has been working 16 hour days for since he was like 5 years old! So Ntheon, Joe is a really nice guy... but I don't think he likes ANY of us quite THAT much. LOL.
Sorry - I'm laughing at how absurd laws can force good people to stand still when they want to take action. It's either laugh or spend the rest of my life fighting to reform the legal system and, well, I'm busy making a mask for hitrecord right now. LOL.
So, since they are not under any obligation, I don't think we can count on the full force of their fury for any and all theft.And since were volunteers, the government won't help in ANY way they help on-the-job problems. I found out the hard way when I was injured on a production that there is absolutely no protection for volunteers in a workplace. (In fact, my personal insurance wouldn't pay either so I got double screwed.) And this is now, technically, a workplace and we are not employees. We volunteer EVERYTHING here. So the company is not required to provide us ANY protection from anything. Though I can see why you would feel that they would step up to the plate.
So Dan, sorry, Ntheon, I can absolutely see how you arrived at your conclusion. And I know you are well educated and experienced in business, but LLC's are tricky little bastards. And Lawrie I can see your point as well, it is a business and of course there is no garauntee they'd stand behind anyone for more reasons than any of us even have the right to ask, IMHO.
So I'm in the middle of the teeter totter because I do believe, absolutely, that Joe and his team would ALL be sympathetic and want to help anyone who had anything stolen off of hitrecord, but when it comes down to the reality of what they could actually do without risking too much of the business as a whole... I just wouldn't count on having the whole problem solved by hr.
But I think the level of action is probably, unfortunately, weighted by how valuable the copied piece of work could be for hitrecord. Was it a Collaboration in progress and numerous members got ripped off? You know, I don't think they'd take out the big guns for somebodies poem that nobody ever read except the theif. Although I DO believe that they would provide the coding that ensures unalterable proof of upload date and THUS an admissable form of Copyright. So there is a protection benefit in posting a piece here because the site in itself, as long as your record remains, is proof of the date YOU made your piece public. (See below for how they provide proof of theive's access to your record as well. Both VERY important in proving a case in United States copyright suits - I don't know about UK.)
Although I do believe there is also valuable ILLUSION provided by hitrecord that might deter some dumber theives: People who don't really understand how things work here may think that everything on this site belongs to *JOSEPH GORDON LEVITT* (did I spell that right? LOL) and might be scared off if they think they are stealing from HIM.
I don't know though... it's not really in ANYBODY'S power to stop creative thieves. Or it could be my jaded perspective working in an industry that does not ALLOW copyright on designs. The only thing you can copyright is a graphic pattern or logo. That's why I can make an EXACT duplicate of something off a runway and sell it at a local shop. I don't. But I could. The only way I could be sued is if I copied a company's graphic pattern (on purse fabric for instance) or logo. That's why Purses are one of the only prosecutable "knock-offs" that can be protected. Because when I invented a 3-seam hoody for Eddie Bauer that cut production costs by 2/3 THAT wasn't innovative or unique enough to be copywritten, right? Dumbasses in senate.
And copyright law is not much better for MOST creative industries. At least not the protections it ultimately offers when court cases start. Sure, you can copyright the entirety of your writing in a way you cannot copyright a garment, but when you go to court with your copywritten work you still have to prove a lot of things: one of which is ACCESS to your work. So there again, if HR keeps records, and the theif accessed your work from their home computer with its unique ISP, then HR could easily provide that electronic proof that the person who copied your work did in fact read it from the computer in the bedroom of their home address at 8:47:13 GMT on 3-15-2010. And then the encoded date in their file's origination information may read 8:49:17 GMT on 3-15-2010 and ::poof:: how much more do you need than that?? Unfortunately - still quite a bit. For every category of art there are different percentages of sameness that are allowed to account for coincidence and chance that two people actually DID form the same concept independantly. In some categories it's as much as 60%. It's been happening to my mom with her images from PugManor.com - She's number 1 Pug merchandise designer IN THE WORLD for 8 years now (and before that she was personally responsible for BOTH rhinestone on denim in the 70's AND acid wash jeans in the 80's LOL. My mom is awesome.) But others come along and copy not just her imprints (like a logo with pugs playing on a super-large font word - one woman justed changed the word and copied everything else and it was f-ing LEGAL!) but a couple have copied her whole website setup: PugManor... PugPARLOUR. Really. Seriously. They failed and their businesses folded because the Pug merch audience is small and people recognized the theft and stayed loyal to PugManor. But legally, the theives knew how to wiggle their way through the copyright laws.
So yeah, back to this direct topic, I guess hr could help someone quite a bit with their electronic trail the theif would leave behind and I can't imagine it would be skin off their backs to provide that info. But then it's still up to a judge and just like with my mom's logo the judge may SEE as clearly as everyone else that the outcome was obviously stolen from the original - but their hands are tied by the letter of the law and if the theif changed it enough to squeek by, the jusge can't do anything but apologize for the failings of the U.S. legal system. Which ACTUALLY happened to me once. Unfortunately there is no part of our legal system - or any I've studied - that is without flaw. And copyright law is no exception. In my opinion it sets the standard for what is wrong with the american legal system; loopholes you could drive 27 trucks full of stolen manuscripts through.
But this is all speculation at present. Luckily so far - in the years I've been here - I have not heard of ANYONE feeling like their work had been stolen by an outside party, so this has never come up in reality. That in itself reassures me.
Well, I'm gonna go back to sleep. Life. Yuck. G'night.
ashleewithani
recommended
Question at the HEART of suggestion: been ... on July 18, 2010
RE: Question at the HEART of suggestion: ...
Lawrie Brewster remarked on July 18, 2010
Sure,
I think so long as we bear in mind that there is no company that asks us to give as much without guarantee for our works either now or future as HR. See we must as individuals balance that with the opportunity HR represents with both remixing and the chance to devise productions for profit sharing.
When i see unashamed fans clouding serious topics with fanboysih defence, that sometimes makes me wary. Especially if that is exploited to easily safe face so that difficult decisions are not taken or postponed.
Lawrie Brewster remarked on July 18, 2010
Sure,
I think so long as we bear in mind that there is no company that asks us to give as much without guarantee for our works either now or future as HR. See we must as individuals balance that with the opportunity HR represents with both remixing and the chance to devise productions for profit sharing.
When i see unashamed fans clouding serious topics with fanboysih defence, that sometimes makes me wary. Especially if that is exploited to easily safe face so that difficult decisions are not taken or postponed.
RE: Question at the HEART of suggestion: ...
ntheon remarked on July 18, 2010
Lawrie, I'm going to let things gel for awhile and allow others to weigh in before I comment any further on your main point.
But, I do want to agree with you on one side point. I may trust Joe quite a bit, but I too have had concerns about what happens if Joe someday no longer controls the company. Even if I trust him to never voluntarily sell the company, he could potentially lose control involuntarily (lawsuit, tax problems, bankruptcy, what have you).
I too would like to see some sort of guarantee on this, something irrevocable that would bind any future owners. Possibly a sort of "poison pill" where in the event of a management change any licenses to our RECords terminates.
Any such guarantee would clearly be of some detriment to the market value of the company, but this would not be relevant to anyone who never plans to give up personal control voluntarily.
ntheon remarked on July 18, 2010
Lawrie, I'm going to let things gel for awhile and allow others to weigh in before I comment any further on your main point.
But, I do want to agree with you on one side point. I may trust Joe quite a bit, but I too have had concerns about what happens if Joe someday no longer controls the company. Even if I trust him to never voluntarily sell the company, he could potentially lose control involuntarily (lawsuit, tax problems, bankruptcy, what have you).
I too would like to see some sort of guarantee on this, something irrevocable that would bind any future owners. Possibly a sort of "poison pill" where in the event of a management change any licenses to our RECords terminates.
Any such guarantee would clearly be of some detriment to the market value of the company, but this would not be relevant to anyone who never plans to give up personal control voluntarily.
RE: Question at the HEART of suggestion: ...
Lawrie Brewster remarked on July 18, 2010
"So, when you upload here, you gain the advantage of a reputable company, with all it's legal and financial resources as an ALLY in protecting your work"
Ntheon I don't understand this thought process? Of course there not an ally, they are an owner - an owner of a non-exclusive agreement like the HR user. But don't kid yourself, non-exclusive means in effect owned. Sure it still allows a user to self distribute (that component of a record they own) but no publisher/studio or whatever will work to distribute material that the author does not own, that they can't sell exclusive rights too. So the whole its okay as its non-exclusive argument is too casual.
That is why artists submitting content that took them a lot of effort and time, must be very wary. Especially when it comes to the implications of derivatives works that can be produced from their ideas. As some might imagine uploading a whole album or something could lead to a product, only to find it remixed, or even re-recorded from scratch from the popular talent of the day. While if HR is ever sold, then who owns the materials then?
Now that isn't to put off folks making significant invesments (thats what i call fancy records that obviously took time to make) but it is worth noting.
So HR like any company deserves a level of impartial scrutiny on the parts of its users. There are a lot of fans willing to just comment and say everythings great. Yes they contribute encouragement too but... its still a serious business.
If we can discuss this (as users) in a mature and business like way, without it painted as negativity... or censored then great, if not it says enough in itself.
Lawrie Brewster remarked on July 18, 2010
"So, when you upload here, you gain the advantage of a reputable company, with all it's legal and financial resources as an ALLY in protecting your work"
Ntheon I don't understand this thought process? Of course there not an ally, they are an owner - an owner of a non-exclusive agreement like the HR user. But don't kid yourself, non-exclusive means in effect owned. Sure it still allows a user to self distribute (that component of a record they own) but no publisher/studio or whatever will work to distribute material that the author does not own, that they can't sell exclusive rights too. So the whole its okay as its non-exclusive argument is too casual.
That is why artists submitting content that took them a lot of effort and time, must be very wary. Especially when it comes to the implications of derivatives works that can be produced from their ideas. As some might imagine uploading a whole album or something could lead to a product, only to find it remixed, or even re-recorded from scratch from the popular talent of the day. While if HR is ever sold, then who owns the materials then?
Now that isn't to put off folks making significant invesments (thats what i call fancy records that obviously took time to make) but it is worth noting.
So HR like any company deserves a level of impartial scrutiny on the parts of its users. There are a lot of fans willing to just comment and say everythings great. Yes they contribute encouragement too but... its still a serious business.
If we can discuss this (as users) in a mature and business like way, without it painted as negativity... or censored then great, if not it says enough in itself.
RE: Question at the HEART of suggestion: ...
ntheon remarked on July 18, 2010
I have had my own crises of faith here, though for different issues. The discussions of the last couple of days have been partially reassuring.
Ultimately it's true, you can never really know how much hR will stand by it's user community, until it comes to a crunch and you see what they do. I'm putting a certain amount of trust and faith in Joe and his team.
Some community based sites are in almost constant tension with their users. Facebook leaps to mind. Every time you turn around, there is a user revolt over some abhorrent practice.
But that's the thing - users always retain ultimate power to walk away. And arrogant as they are, Facebook has always ultimately backed down in the face of such threats. They can't afford to lose everybody.
But the constant conflict is unsettling. So far, hR has remained wonderfully free of arrogant management and disgruntled users. I do sense some growth of user discontent, from different quarters, and I do worry that loss of good people might be resulting. (Though I felt strongly that the proposals put forward recently and decided against would have made things much worse rather than better for the overwhelming majority of users.)
While I see some growth of restiveness in the users, I also see much room for hope in Joe's personal willingness to dialog and shoot straight with us. Thus, I find the current discussions reassuring.
So, until proven otherwise, I prefer to trust that Joe is no Mark Zuckerberg, that he will continue to be vastly more enlightened, and will continue to do right by us the users.
ntheon remarked on July 18, 2010
I have had my own crises of faith here, though for different issues. The discussions of the last couple of days have been partially reassuring.
Ultimately it's true, you can never really know how much hR will stand by it's user community, until it comes to a crunch and you see what they do. I'm putting a certain amount of trust and faith in Joe and his team.
Some community based sites are in almost constant tension with their users. Facebook leaps to mind. Every time you turn around, there is a user revolt over some abhorrent practice.
But that's the thing - users always retain ultimate power to walk away. And arrogant as they are, Facebook has always ultimately backed down in the face of such threats. They can't afford to lose everybody.
But the constant conflict is unsettling. So far, hR has remained wonderfully free of arrogant management and disgruntled users. I do sense some growth of user discontent, from different quarters, and I do worry that loss of good people might be resulting. (Though I felt strongly that the proposals put forward recently and decided against would have made things much worse rather than better for the overwhelming majority of users.)
While I see some growth of restiveness in the users, I also see much room for hope in Joe's personal willingness to dialog and shoot straight with us. Thus, I find the current discussions reassuring.
So, until proven otherwise, I prefer to trust that Joe is no Mark Zuckerberg, that he will continue to be vastly more enlightened, and will continue to do right by us the users.
Load More
