Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
They're terrible flatmates though. Never have any money.
And they steal your girlfriends - <elvis> "Uh huh, baby, I play the guitar" </elvis>is such a crap pick up line (but it always seemd to work for them, the bastards)
-
so if you allow use you have control, so following that you're in favour of infinite term rights?
Nope. We established that somewhere round page 2 of the thread. Keep up.
how can you allow something if you don't have control over it?
Easy. You just do it. You lose no value from it being re-used, it's already served the purpose you developed it for. If it's software, you may get repaid by someone else improving it with a new idea. Under most open source licences, the user is required to return any changes to the project, so others can use them or so the base software can be improved. Some licences (like BSD) don't require this.
Creative Commons is good for this, as it allows the creator to specify what sort of licence they are offering to a fine granularity, without having to involve lawyers to create it from scratch.
you want to be allowed use without asking?
Yep, unless it's for commercial purposes, in which case I'd approach it differently. If I sampled a piece of your song and used it in one of mine, I wouldn't worry. But I then wanted to perform that song or make it available for money, I'd seek your permission and work out a deal that enabled me to do just that.
isn't that like not having any rights?
No, it's not.
-
ps the mums basement gag works just as well on musicians.
I'd dispute that, as all the musicians I know have a sense of humour.
-
is this you mark
Thank the gods, no. He pops up a lot when ego-surfing. Bloody awful stuff.
no wait this
Nope, although he's a new one to me. A lot closer to my erstwhile home, as I grew up in Fitzroy, just around the corner from my namesake, from memory. But I left there 35 years ago.
To save you time, I'm not the film stuntman out of Auckland, or the guy who runs the polo school. Nor the Man from Atlantis, though I had to suffer the jokes at school.
You'll find me at http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/
impressive page.
You have very low expectations, then.
I nicked one of your photos for a cd cover, is that cool? :)
Well, if you had to steal it, how could it be cool? I suggest you approach the copyright owner and ask him for permission.
is that your music under your page?
No, no, I do stuff with an ongoing melody. But I'm pleased he put an off switch on there.
-
Quite clear, thanks, And if you say it without your sarcasty voice, it's even more pleasant.
BTW it's not about giving away the rights - it's about allowing use. Really, very different.
-
open source/anti copyright. ie either or or both.
WTF?? What does this even mean?
I think you're tarring everyone with the same brush there. it can't be permission if no one asks you in the first place.
I'm not tarring anyone, I'm speaking technically. Copyright is about restricting re-usage as a default position. Open source, on the other hand, is about granting permission for re-use as the default position.
Clear now?
-
2) If it actually uses the words 'arab terrorist', who authorised it (how far up the tree can that one be traced)?
"I'm John McCain and I approve this message"
-
to the open source anti copyright guys, I'm interested in your income structure, how do you earn a living for stuff you give away? serious question asked sincerely.
Again with the lack of comprehension. "open source" does not equal "anti-copyright".
It's about permission, whereas current copyright practice is about restriction.
As Sacha says, you can make money through services (Red Hat is the obvious model), through being the system integrator (bringing a bunch of software and hardware packages together and customising them for the client) - you can even have dual-licensing, with an open source community edition, and a value-added enterprise edition (e.g. www.alfresco.com), although that is frowned on by some purists. It's likely that integrating open source packages is easier than closed source, because you can hack the source code directly.
It all revolves around finding new ways to do business. Plus the savings you can make in getting other people to improve your software by adding their own modules and ideas. The trade off is that you hand over exclusivity to your code.
But, unless you explicitly put the code in the Public Domain, you never hand over your copyright.
-
Excuse me but my piss is copyright and therefore not to be taken (I spent hours creating it, you know)
-
surely dropping off a burn to a 'fan' (who doesn't want to use his bandwidth) isn't too much to ask?
Not sure what you're point is as I already said I don't listen to the band so I'm not a fan. I was merely interested in getting hold of all the data to play with it as an experiment, as I do with a lot of software. It's a means of learning which, as someone pointed out upstream, was one of the purposes of the original Copyright Act.
You seem very bitter, robbery, like we're all after your stuff and you have to fight us off. Want to share why?