« first day (505 days earlier)      last day (3017 days later) » 

5:26 PM
@Cerberus There?
 
@Alenanno Hi!
I just got home.
 
Hello!
haha nice
 
1 minute ago.
Good timing.
 
That's because I read minds.
 
Apparently.
 
5:27 PM
Ahah
 
And I can't even read my own mind.
 
Do you think the vocative "people" is too informal? As in "Invent, people!"?
 
In what context?
 
An article title.
 
If you are revising articles of civil law, then, yes, it is too informal.
If you are writing an article on your own website, it depends.
 
5:29 PM
What would you use of more formal?
I can't think of other vocatives...
I can read others minds, but mine is blank. ahah
 
Depends on whom you are addressing.
"Dear Readers"
 
Yes, but in this case it's a translation. I must stick to that other structure... :D I'm googling about this though.
 
You can't translate without context.
It will be like Google Translate...
What is the Italian word? Gente?
Popolo?
 
I don't google and copy what I find lol... When I google, I do it to see how used is an expression and how much.
Gente, yes. :)
 
I guess people is as informal as gente?
You might consider putting people before invent.
You could also use "everyone".
 
5:35 PM
Uhm
let me see.
 
lets you see
 
:D
Do you know Kanye West's song "Stronger"?
 
Nope.
 
It samples Daft Punk's song "Harder, better, faster, stronger".
Today I discovered that they sample another song in turn lol
Musiception!
 
@Alenanno I know that song.
@Alenanno Yeah, culture always builds on culture.
 
5:46 PM
Do you like it?
 
Yeah.
I haven't heard it in a long while.
 
:D
 
Sampling illustrates one of the major problems with copyright...
 
It's a controversial subject.
I can't imagine Rap music without it, but on the other hand I understand that people want you to value their product if you re-use/elaborate it.
 
But have those people valued the stuff they use?
 
5:50 PM
I don't understand your question sorry.
Can you rephrase it?
Ah wait, I got it.
Well, you pay them royalties... Like "I'm going to use this sample for the hook part" (example), and you pay them a price.
A very high price, for us. But considering the money you make in return, it's nothing.
 
No, I mean, when you make music, you are inspired by 1000 other artists.
And those artists were inspired by 1000 other artists.
And so on.
Should everybody be paying everybody all the time?
If you just copy what someone else spent hours on making, without investing any labour of your own, and may money out of it, that's not a nice thing to do, I think.
 
Inspiration is different, and you know it. :P Sampling, while I don't think is copying, is using a piece of another finished product (a song) and implement it in another "song" (drums, pads, etc).
Sampling is not as simple as it seems.
You need to work on the sample.
 
I don't know it. How is any of this different, except in degree? And what would be an easy, exact, fair way to measure it?
I think there is a significant problem there.
 
Measure it?
 
Measure much of an artistic work is owed to other artists.
If I simply copy your song without changing anything, that's 100 %.
 
6:04 PM
Well, you pay the sample you use of course.
You never use 100% of it.
You don't need it anyway... :P
 
But what is a reasonable price?
Well, anyway, I think there is a problem, just as with patents.
I wonder what it will be like in 100 years.
 
I've heard of prices around $50,000 but I haven't investigated thoroughly yet.
It depends on the sample, the artist, etc.
 
It's probably rather arbitrary.
 
I guess so.
 
I think it's cool that bands are making an increasingly large part of their money from concerts and such.
And you can't copy concerts.
 
6:14 PM
Is that true?
 
The best sampling is when you don't even know it was sampled.
That's good sampling.
I mean, it's done so well, the sample is hidden.
 
But the richer the musician, the more money he makes off recordings & composing.
 
True.
 
@Alenanno Yeah, it's should be too hard to hide?
 
6:17 PM
Well, I like it when it clear too lol.
But sometimes you're like "No way, it was sampled!"
 
So the richest 1 % make the most money from ways that involve copyright.
 
Do you remember the music beat from the Daft Punk song? This is what they sampled:
 
But even rich pop stars make only half their money off those sources.
@Alenanno It sounds somewhat familiar.
I couldn't be sure.
 
The sample starts at 00:20
 
Yeah sounds similar, though not exactly the same.
By the way, you can link to a specific time:
 
6:22 PM
The notes are the same. :D
Yes I know, I was lazy.
:D
 
Heh.
@Alenanno It is faster.
Didn't you read the song's title?
 
Ahah
Even if it's faster the notes are the same. That's what I mean.
 
Yeah.
I don't think it's a big deal.
 
What do you mean?
 
They should just be allowed to use those notes.
I don't feel that the state should grant and enforce a monopoly on something like a couple of notes.
 
6:29 PM
A couple of notes no, but after a certain number of consecutive notes, it's considered plagiarism I think (unless you get permission of course).
 
Plagiarism is different.
It is a violation of copyright.
 
Plagiarism is copying. If you use the same notes, it's obvious you're copying, of course after a certain threshold.
 
Plagiarism is copying something, then using it in a publication of your own while pretending your wrote it, in a publication where you have an obligation to attribute material that is not your own to its source.
Violating copyright is violating copyright laws.
 
You just said what I said but with more words and some extra detail. :P
 
Haha. No, no.
I don't think you can plagiarise non-text.
 
6:36 PM
Yes you can, otherwise there wouldn't be lawsuits for that.
While there are.
 
And you can plagiarise a text that is in the public domain.
 
It's a work of art, it can be plagiarized.
 
Lawsuits are seldom about plagiarism. They are about copyright.
Because there are no laws about plagiarism, or none that I know of.
Plagiarism is about misleading your readers.
Copyright is about depriving your source of income.
Plagiarism is normally not punishable by law.
Except when you are under a legal obligation to attribute texts to their sources.
Or under contract. But then it is just a breach of contract.
Of course you can plagiarise and infringe on copyright in the same act.
 
Are you trolling? :P If you plagiarize a copyrighted work, you're violating a copyright, yes, but you're also plagiarizing. Please, let's not play with words lol. Perhaps the offense is not called "plagiarism" (I doubt it), but we're arguing on the wrong stuff.
 
@Alenanno Yes, can do both by the same act. But plagiarism is not in the law.
> Plagiarism is not a crime per se but in academia and industry it is a serious moral offence,[7][8] and cases of plagiarism can constitute copyright infringement.
From Wiki on Plagiarism.
 
6:41 PM
Where?
What country is that for?
 
My point is that perhaps many instances of copyright violation, while perhaps immoral, should perhaps not be punished by the state.
Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work. The idea remains problematic with unclear definitions and unclear rules. The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement. Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics. It is subject to sanctions like expulsion. Plagiarism is not a crime per se but ...
@Alenanno I think it is the same in most/all countries.
 
If you don't punish them with the law, how else are you going to do it?
@Cerberus That's your speculation.
 
@Alenanno You don't.
 
Hell naw. lol
 
@Alenanno Speculation? My experience based on what I have read over the years, rather.
@Alenanno The state doesn't have to punish all immoral acts. Like adultery. Or calling someone a bitch.
Nor do all good deeds have to be rewarded.
 
6:43 PM
But stealing yes. Intellectual property must be protected. I know, it sucks that you have to pay a CD or a book, but you must. It's just that you do it.
 
Why must the state do it?
 
Because otherwise no-one else would protect you from who steals your work.
 
Why must the state punish copyright violations but not adultery?
 
Why would adultery be punished?
 
Because it is immoral?
Who else is going to protect you from adultery?
 
6:45 PM
Don't be sarcastic lol
 
I'm serious.
 
Do you think stealing is punished only because it's immoral?
 
This is an important philosophical point.
You tell me why you think it is / should be punished. We may have different reasons.
 
The creation is mine. I don't want others to abuse it or claim it as theirs. What do you do? Put a copyright. Is the law bad formulated? Perhaps, but I want my intellectual rights to be preserved. Adultery is on a different level, I think. I don't know the law on this point. I suppose it's because adultery is not stealing.
 
All right.
 
6:52 PM
Do you agree?
 
Not entirely.
I think the ultimate purpose of anything like copyright should be what benefits mankind. I don't care so much about whether individual creators are rewarded. Many good deeds go unrewarded, and I don't feel that is necessarily a problem.
Do you like this song?
 
> I don't care so much about whether individual creators are rewarded.
Even if you're the author?
If you ever make a song or write a book, let me know. :P
@Cerberus Not bad, yeah. :)
 
@Alenanno Yes.
I have created things.
And made money off them.
 
Allow me to be sceptical. But if you really think that, kudos to you.
 
In any case, you don't need to convince me that people are greedy!
My main point is: yes, some violations of copyright are immoral (though most are not, like the sampling we discussed); but I'm not so sure the state should enforce such things.
 
7:01 PM
It's not being greedy. It's normal that people want their reward for it. That's why if they don't want it, then that's admirable.
 
Desiring money => greed.
 
Let's make an example... (I'm writing it.)
(Desiring what you deserve => not greed.) :D wait... let me write this.
 
I'm not saying greed is necessarily evil.
@Alenanno Sure it's greed!
 
You live in a state where copyright doesn't exist or any law that seems like it. You create something but you don't tell anybody. Someone steals that from your house and goes around saying he did it, publishing articles about it, making interviews.
How do you feel?
 
That is of course immoral.
 
7:04 PM
Ok but what can you do about it?
 
I am not disputing that some cases of copyright violation are immoral.
If you can't prove that he stole it, you couldn't do anything about it even if you had copyright. If you could prove it, it would be theft, so you could have him punished in this copyright-less state.
 
Cerberus, if you have copyright and there is no proof that you gave permission, you can prove he stole it.
You registered it with your name.
 
Nope.
You don't need to register copyright: you get it automatically.
99 % of copyrighted works are never registered.
 
Without a patent, it means nothing.
 
Patents are unrelated.
 
7:06 PM
or a registered trademark.
 
The Berne Convention.
Trademarks are also unrelated.
Copyright ≠ patent ≠ trademark ≠ plagiarism.
There are similarities, but they are different things.
And you can only get copyright on a song/text, not a patent or a trademark.
 
You do register copyrights... Otherwise what does that "Copyright ® 2010" mean?
oh wait
 
You can register a copyright, but you don't need to.
 
©
Wrong symbol.
 
It doesn't add anything to your copyright if you register it, except that it makes it easier to prove that the copyright is yours.
But, by typing this very line, I automatically have copyright over it.
Except if I waved that in some EULA with Stack Exchange.
> Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration
You may have to register your copyright in Iran or Somalia.
 
7:15 PM
I'll read more about that.
Uhm. It doesn't take svg files?
 
You don't see the thumbnail?
 
I see "Image not found".
 
Countries that have signed the Berne Convention.
 
I opened the picture, but thanks. :)
 
Heh.
 
7:29 PM
I've gotta go now. I'll see you later!
 
Bai!
 

« first day (505 days earlier)      last day (3017 days later) »