Bono manages to sound an utter idiot in his top ten list for 2010, and really, I think even if someone sat him down and explained it, he wouldn't get it. He's bought into Universal's party line wholly, with nary a hint of struggle.
But--though it will do no good--let me lay this out for him, and anyone else who might still be a tad bit confused: the "young, fledgling songwriters" he so earnestly strives to protect are the same ones getting on MySpace in droves, offering up their songs via Amazon, iTunes or PayPal--and getting paid for it. The RIAA's avowed 'cleanup' of music piracy resulted in lawsuits being filed by the major music labels to get the RIAA to unclench their greedy fists on the millions obtained; then the singers and songwriters themselves had to sue the major labels--and many still haven't seen a dime from their own contracted publishers. How sick is that?
I don't think I'm alone in saying that, at this point, I'd much rather hop on Amanda Palmer's website and buy a poster, a t-shirt, or an album, knowing that the money goes to feed, clothe and support her, rather than wander some soulless music store and get the latest U2 album--knowing that, most likely, Bono and the gang will see perhaps 3% of the sale of that album--if they're lucky. And that has nothing to do with music piracy driving sales down. That has to do with cantankerous behemoths wanting more of the cut than the artists they claim to defend.
Bono should be ashamed of buying into the hypocrisy.
Via Miss Muse Carmona, comes this complex essay on device functionality regarding that spatial rift between simplicity of use (for the device makers) and the desire to customize and adapt said device (for the end user). It's somewhat ponderous, but it has a ton of other links to peruse.
And via Jarl Otenth Paderborn, a new da Vinci may soon see the light of day? I don't know, either, but it sounds fascinating. (And thank you again, Otenth.)
(And hee, the mistake I left in--it wasn't Otenth, it was William Gibson. I know I was following a link that Otenth gave out on Twitter around the same time, but of the fourteen-odd windows I have open currently, it was easy to confuse which link was sent by whom.)
Let's get back to SL. Pais Kidd takes on content rights in the metaverse; no definitive conclusions are reached, but it's an excellent essay on the topic.
Beginning from Miss Kamenev's comment from yesterday's post, I wanted to investigate a bit on trademark law, versus copyright law. As with all my entries on these procedures, they really only apply in the US; international trademark law gets as murky, country by country, as international copyright law.
From the US trademark law site:
The application should include your "basis" for filing. Most U.S. applicants base their application on their current use of the mark in commerce, or their intent to use their mark in commerce in the future.
The items bolded are legally defined terms. To wit:
*Current use: Essentially, "current use" boils down to identification: that the mark in question is in acceptable current use, is recognizable as identifying that brand, and accepted as identifying that brand. For example:
Instantly recognizable, right? Do I have to tell anyone out there who these logos represent? Maybe, if you're not up on fashion, I could have chosen this over this, but even so. Simple. Distinctive. And all in current use.
*In commerce: That's pretty simple, too. "In commerce" simply means that the logo (or mark) chosen must be either on the products sold themselves, or on the crates, shipping containers, boxes, or advertising and business adjuncts that are shipped from the brand in question.
*Intent to use is a bit more vague, but it boils down to the same thing: the brand maker or developer has a stated intent to use a certain mark or branding logo in the production, shipping, and sale of that brand, and states in the application that that mark will subsequently be used on the products sold, or on the shipping crates, boxes, containers, and advertising regarding that product.
So Miss Kamenev is right--many of the deeper issues are not, strictly speaking, copyright ones--they're becoming trademark issues. And trademark issues are much less well-defined.
More when I have more of a brain to lay it all out.