Copyright Bite

I received a warning when I logged into my YouTube account recently. I had openly and with attribution used a couple of popular tunes in some of my videos. Those have been flagged as violations of copyrights, my account to be reviewed, and the videos may be pulled, or my account suspended. Meanwhile, those videos sport pop-up ads to buy the tunes. The two offending videos use tunes that had their heydays in the 1930's and 1970's. Even the children of the original creator and performer of the older tune are all dead. Is it right that some corporation is making a fuss over my sharing this with a few friends? There have been less than 75 views in the year since it's been posted. I see no reason to fight this. I'd be quite content to have ads pop up for the tunes I use. I even wish there were a mechanism in place to request ads to pay for use of related content. It's not so much that I like ads, but that I respect content creators. But I don't respect any right in perpetuity for corporations to hold creative rights once a creator and his direct heirs are out of the picture. Like McCartney having to pay the estate of Michael Jackson to use his own songs.

Continue ReadingCopyright Bite

On the Value of Information Technology

I'm not writing about gadgets here, but about the information that makes the gadgets useful: Software. This video is nominally about web design consulting. But I've lived these situations back before the web, as well as with web clients. One problem is that the buyer of information has no idea what it's worth until he has it. And once he has it, why should he pay someone for it? Therefore, it isn't valuable. This dovetails neatly into other copyright issues, but I'm not going there. I have a few websites, most of which are loaded with free information that I painstakingly collected and developed. The sites are also built from scratch, mostly with a simple text editor. Some people see value in this; I receive donations. Some years as much as the low three figures. People used to ask me if HTML was easy. I'd say, "Yes, you just need to remember how a few hundred easy commands interact." Most developers don't bother to make sure their site even meets official web standards (as published and tested for free by W3C.org). Even WordPress, the engine on which this site is built, shows errors in the validator. Google? Thousands of errors on every page. I've had clients who understand what I do, and were happy to pay. Unfortunately, usually their superiors had to be cajoled. Eventually, these situations melt down and leave me out of work. The "Just a small change" problem comes up often. After I've been reporting and demonstrating every step of the way, and finally a web site is finished, then do they bother to look and notice that it isn't what they need. They make "little" requests comparable to having a builder simply move a bathroom from the first floor to the second as the keys to a house are handed over. This video made me cringe.

Continue ReadingOn the Value of Information Technology

Right to Link

We all know how nearly fastidious Erich has been about making sure that we don't violate any copyrights with the images we use on this blog. One way we manage this is by linking to content that we cannot properly copy or post. But now the issue of whether one can violate a copyright merely by linking to another web site is making legal rounds. I found out about the Right to Link movement via my WebProNews subscription. There is more information at www.right2link.org. What's stirring this up is Rupert Murdock blocking access to his content coming from certain legitimate url's. Here's a link to the story.

Continue ReadingRight to Link

The Monsanto monster

Monsanto has been a target for many years. They have a terrible environmental and health record, they have harassed small farmers for years, they've bribed officials in Indonesia, and they've joked about performing "rural cleansing" (a play on the words "ethnic cleansing", i.e. genocide), and told small seed cleaners that rather than buy them out, "We'd rather put you out of business, it's more fun that way." All this from the company that brought Agent Orange to Vietnam, resulting in 400,000 deaths and disabilities, as well as 500,000 children born with birth defects. However, in the world of corporate PR, no sin is too big. Monsanto has sought to remake its image as the company that's helping to feed the world. Their website claims that "We apply innovation and technology to help farmers around the world produce more while conserving more. We help farmers grow yield sustainably so they can be successful, produce healthier foods, better animal feeds and more fiber, while also reducing agriculture's impact on our environment." High claims, to be sure. Too bad we don't know if they hold up to scrutiny. A new article by the editors of Scientific American explains the situation:

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.

Continue ReadingThe Monsanto monster

Amazon Accidentally Increases Internet Disinformation

We have previously posted regarding the latest reprint of Darwin's "The Origin of Species", by Ray Comfort. If you don't know about it, it has a 50 page forward full of untruths, confusion, and misdirection in an attempt to discredit the original text that follows. Yes, he's trying to use Darwin to discredit 200 years of thoroughly tested evolutionary biology. Unfortunately, Amazon.com reviews and ratings confuse it with another (reputable) reprint by the same name, as discussed in detail here:

Continue ReadingAmazon Accidentally Increases Internet Disinformation