I love Brainiac. I love youtube
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Dear Mike Doughty
Dear Mike, can I call you Mike? I've listened to you so much for so long and seen you so many times that I feel like I can call you Mike. I just want to say, please, please please, for the love of God, drop your fucking producer. I really like your music, but the damn over production just makes you sound less honest. And that's what your music has always had going for it. Your voice especially has a quality that sounds like you are singing to me. And I love your clever lyrics. Please, tho, your album just sounds like clear channel fodder. Then I hear you live, and I remember why I enjoyed you so much for so long. you're full of energy. Spontaneous. exciting. And you sound like you are signing to me. Please, please please... i get that you get more chance for fame, fortune, and radio play with ATO and all... but please... just find a different producer. he's making you boring... I don't want soul coughing back. That's the past... but i know you have great music in you. I know you do... but I don't think stream line, clean sounding is your thing. please... strip it down. Learn to produce yourself... hell... call me up.. I'll find someone for you. But please, be yourself... don't be what your producer wants you to be. Fuck dave matthews. I still love you mike. But I just know there's more to you.
stephen
stephen
Sunday, March 23, 2008
google-zor
So, i applied today for a job with google. And as much as I keep saying that I don't really have anything invested in this job.... I really do hope they call me. If you're spying on my right now google (as I use your services), I'M a good guy. Funny. Charming. And I could do awesome work for you in Trademark. Awesome. awesome. come one guys! Hire me. call me. call me. I'm just going to keep applying until you hire me. :) It's be pretty sweet to work there... I'd love to actually be part of a company whose product I really like. and whose culture is awesome. rather than rotting in a firm where i want to kill myself every second of every day. Come on google... give me that chance. Of course, as i just realized, if they are spying on this posting, they are probably spying on all my other posts. and my email. ummmm.... yea... about all that bad stuff... ummmmm... *embarassed grin* about that... ummmm.... well, just give me the interview..... forget all that stuff...:)
Thursday, March 20, 2008
copyright demo
Ok.... so this won't be interesting to anyone reading this, but I'm going to be doing some copyright hypos over the next couple of posts to prep for my exam. Here goes.
I was sitting in Victorian's Midnight Cafe eating breakfast yesterday morning and I noticed somthing. Well, actually, I noticed a couple of things. First, my waitress was really good looking. She sat down with me to take my order and i was a bit flabbergasted at first. I almost had to say "can you please stand up because I can't concentrate on the menu and form a sentence to order because I can't take my eyes off of you. But I didn't. Anyway, my eggs and toast were pretty good. The eggs were nice and fluffy, as if they were very fresh, and the yolk was perfectly runny...like i like it. Anyway, I also noticed that they were playing the broadcast feed from a satellite tv thing of a music channel. Apparently the crappy 70s rock station. Anyway, it got me to thinking, was this copyright infringement? The first questions in a copyright infirngement case is whether there isa valid copuyright at all. In this case, it is very clear that the songs I heard would qualify as having a copyright. There are 2 requirements for a copyright: fixation and originality. Fixation is not a problem. These were all songs that were written down, cut on wax, and even published to the people. (since these songs may have been out before 1976, there could be public domain issues associated with copyright notice, but i'm going to ignore that right now). Anyway, fixation... not a problem. Second, it would need originality. Under the Feist holding, to have originality can be found by having independent creation and some small amount of creativity. Again, this is pretty clear here. The Songs I heard were probably not copied from somewhere else (tho, i don't know that, and it could be contested) and they are at least a little bit creative. Probably much more so. So, copyright seems to exist.
The second initial issue could be copyright ownership. Here, I don't have enough facts. It is likely that these songs copyrights are owned by the record studio. But I don't know that. Either way, under 201, copyright ownership first vests in th author of the work. This could either be the composer or the studio if this were a work made for hire situation. Again,I don't know, so I'll assume that the studio owns the copyright. For simplicity sake, I will also assume that the studio owns the sound recording rights (because with songs there are rights to the musical work and to the sound recording).
Ok. so we have a valid copyright and it is owned by the studio. Now, under 106(4), the copyright owner has the exclusive rightto public performance of his/her work. Here the playing of the songs is a public performance. Therefore, without some licensing agreement (and I doubt that Victorian's has one--like from ASCAP), they would be infringing the copyright owners right to public performance. However, they may be exempted by 110(5). While this may be a little unclear in some areas, it still appears to be an easy application of this exemption. Under 110(5)(A), the communication of a transmission which is received by a single apparatus of the kind commonly usd in pivate homes is exempt unless there is a direct change made to see or hear the transmission or the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public. Here, there was no retransmission and no charge made for the performance. Also, this was being played out of a simple, large screen tv-the kind you could easily buy at Best Buy or some retail electronics store. I think these are pretty common today. So, I think they would be covered under 110(5)(a)
If they were not covered under 110(5)(a), they may still be exempt under 110(5)(b). Even if A does not apply, this seems to be an easy case for B. This provides an exemption for eating or drinking establishments to play a nondramatic musical work intended to be receivd by the general public or an audiovisual transmission by a cable system or satellite carrier if the eating/drinking establishment is less than 3750 sq/feet or if larger, then it only has no more than 6 speakers and no more than 4 in 1 room. Here, victorians seemed to be smaller than 2000 sq/feet. However, even if it isn't, there were only 2 speakers playing this: those coming from the tv. Therefore, it would fall under this exemption.
So, it seems that victorians is in the clear. However, I'm a little bit unclear about the digitial performance rights and if the aiken and 110(b) exemption count here. I'm going to find out tho.
I was sitting in Victorian's Midnight Cafe eating breakfast yesterday morning and I noticed somthing. Well, actually, I noticed a couple of things. First, my waitress was really good looking. She sat down with me to take my order and i was a bit flabbergasted at first. I almost had to say "can you please stand up because I can't concentrate on the menu and form a sentence to order because I can't take my eyes off of you. But I didn't. Anyway, my eggs and toast were pretty good. The eggs were nice and fluffy, as if they were very fresh, and the yolk was perfectly runny...like i like it. Anyway, I also noticed that they were playing the broadcast feed from a satellite tv thing of a music channel. Apparently the crappy 70s rock station. Anyway, it got me to thinking, was this copyright infringement? The first questions in a copyright infirngement case is whether there isa valid copuyright at all. In this case, it is very clear that the songs I heard would qualify as having a copyright. There are 2 requirements for a copyright: fixation and originality. Fixation is not a problem. These were all songs that were written down, cut on wax, and even published to the people. (since these songs may have been out before 1976, there could be public domain issues associated with copyright notice, but i'm going to ignore that right now). Anyway, fixation... not a problem. Second, it would need originality. Under the Feist holding, to have originality can be found by having independent creation and some small amount of creativity. Again, this is pretty clear here. The Songs I heard were probably not copied from somewhere else (tho, i don't know that, and it could be contested) and they are at least a little bit creative. Probably much more so. So, copyright seems to exist.
The second initial issue could be copyright ownership. Here, I don't have enough facts. It is likely that these songs copyrights are owned by the record studio. But I don't know that. Either way, under 201, copyright ownership first vests in th author of the work. This could either be the composer or the studio if this were a work made for hire situation. Again,I don't know, so I'll assume that the studio owns the copyright. For simplicity sake, I will also assume that the studio owns the sound recording rights (because with songs there are rights to the musical work and to the sound recording).
Ok. so we have a valid copyright and it is owned by the studio. Now, under 106(4), the copyright owner has the exclusive rightto public performance of his/her work. Here the playing of the songs is a public performance. Therefore, without some licensing agreement (and I doubt that Victorian's has one--like from ASCAP), they would be infringing the copyright owners right to public performance. However, they may be exempted by 110(5). While this may be a little unclear in some areas, it still appears to be an easy application of this exemption. Under 110(5)(A), the communication of a transmission which is received by a single apparatus of the kind commonly usd in pivate homes is exempt unless there is a direct change made to see or hear the transmission or the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public. Here, there was no retransmission and no charge made for the performance. Also, this was being played out of a simple, large screen tv-the kind you could easily buy at Best Buy or some retail electronics store. I think these are pretty common today. So, I think they would be covered under 110(5)(a)
If they were not covered under 110(5)(a), they may still be exempt under 110(5)(b). Even if A does not apply, this seems to be an easy case for B. This provides an exemption for eating or drinking establishments to play a nondramatic musical work intended to be receivd by the general public or an audiovisual transmission by a cable system or satellite carrier if the eating/drinking establishment is less than 3750 sq/feet or if larger, then it only has no more than 6 speakers and no more than 4 in 1 room. Here, victorians seemed to be smaller than 2000 sq/feet. However, even if it isn't, there were only 2 speakers playing this: those coming from the tv. Therefore, it would fall under this exemption.
So, it seems that victorians is in the clear. However, I'm a little bit unclear about the digitial performance rights and if the aiken and 110(b) exemption count here. I'm going to find out tho.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
NEW BLOG!!!
Hey all... you should go over and read my brand new totally new smells like new blog: stuff stephen hates (stuffstephenhates.blogspot.com). I think its going to be fun.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
as previously mentioned, the end is nigh
So... another 2 signs of the apocalypse. First...the snow... or at least, columbus thought it was the end of the world. I hear cleveland had something called a "level 3 snow warning." or something. Columbus had a level 2. or something. I don't really know what that means, but Mike suggested that at the level 3, you're shot on sight if outside of your house. Sounds right down the Bush Administration ally... so, I'm going with that. Second, 10,000 BC was tops in the box office with $35M dollars. What the fuck? I mean, i can believe seeing this movie. I can believe renting this movie. but $35 million dollars for this crap?
I get it. big effects-spoitation stuff. I get it... But seriously, couldn't the 'fans' have waited a week or two just so it wouldn't be tops. Can't we have some substance in our action effects movies? fuck!
http://tvshack.net/
there's a link to tvshack. I don't know if its on there yet, but if it is, please, please, don't go see it in the theater for at least a couple more weeks. Just so its profits look less interesting.
I went to see the bank job. Now, heist movies have a habit of sucking, but i don't really understand why. It seems like a pretty simple sort of movie to pull off. Here, I'll help every director in the world with this. Put the foot on the gas and don't let off until the end. Make your characters fun... let them be either humerous, ruthless or both. Choose either very dark or more light hearted (I think the later works better). Film it... put it in the can. Done. So, i like the bank job. It wasn't the best movie I'd ever seen... but it was good enough. Fast, implausible-yet-based-on-real-events. And I can't help but love Jason Statham. Did you know he's only 5'8". WOOT!!! That's my height!!! But it definitely missed some chances. Like, only most of the characters were good. at least one or 2 were totally undefined. But it had the potential for them to be bumblind, funny, yet still successful. Sort of like a Oceans 11 if the 11 were totally crappy at what they did, but they won anyway. That's how it could have been, and i think it would have been more effective. Instead, it tried at points to add seriousness where it wasn't needed. Oh well.. I liked it anyway. What it really needed was Jason Statham driving a BMW 745i. By the way, why the fuck wasn't he cast as "The Hitman" in "the Hitman"? Because he'd have been perfect... way better than that loser from Die Hard WITH A VENGANCE!!! (how it should be written). anyhoo... out... back to copyright. god i hope i do well in this class... i really like it.
I get it. big effects-spoitation stuff. I get it... But seriously, couldn't the 'fans' have waited a week or two just so it wouldn't be tops. Can't we have some substance in our action effects movies? fuck!
http://tvshack.net/
there's a link to tvshack. I don't know if its on there yet, but if it is, please, please, don't go see it in the theater for at least a couple more weeks. Just so its profits look less interesting.
I went to see the bank job. Now, heist movies have a habit of sucking, but i don't really understand why. It seems like a pretty simple sort of movie to pull off. Here, I'll help every director in the world with this. Put the foot on the gas and don't let off until the end. Make your characters fun... let them be either humerous, ruthless or both. Choose either very dark or more light hearted (I think the later works better). Film it... put it in the can. Done. So, i like the bank job. It wasn't the best movie I'd ever seen... but it was good enough. Fast, implausible-yet-based-on-real-events. And I can't help but love Jason Statham. Did you know he's only 5'8". WOOT!!! That's my height!!! But it definitely missed some chances. Like, only most of the characters were good. at least one or 2 were totally undefined. But it had the potential for them to be bumblind, funny, yet still successful. Sort of like a Oceans 11 if the 11 were totally crappy at what they did, but they won anyway. That's how it could have been, and i think it would have been more effective. Instead, it tried at points to add seriousness where it wasn't needed. Oh well.. I liked it anyway. What it really needed was Jason Statham driving a BMW 745i. By the way, why the fuck wasn't he cast as "The Hitman" in "the Hitman"? Because he'd have been perfect... way better than that loser from Die Hard WITH A VENGANCE!!! (how it should be written). anyhoo... out... back to copyright. god i hope i do well in this class... i really like it.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
yay!
So... as i've said many times now, i've been quite a bit depressed recently... so I realized there was only 1 thing to do. or, i guess, 2.
Wow. I wish everyone I know could understand just how awesome HATP are live. Its just pure fun. nothing else.. pure fun. and, I mean, sometimes i know exactly what harry means. "when you were young and innocent/i saved you from a basilisk/i think that that deserves a kiss/but you're all over dean thomas."
and second.
She's so hot. That video is go good. damn. night. bed.
Wow. I wish everyone I know could understand just how awesome HATP are live. Its just pure fun. nothing else.. pure fun. and, I mean, sometimes i know exactly what harry means. "when you were young and innocent/i saved you from a basilisk/i think that that deserves a kiss/but you're all over dean thomas."
and second.
She's so hot. That video is go good. damn. night. bed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
