News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Minor things that bother you

Started by planxtymcgillicuddy, November 27, 2019, 12:15:11 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

hbelkins

Quote from: mgk920 on December 08, 2019, 07:48:47 AM
Which, IMHO, is absurdly too long.   If there is nobody alive who remembers a work in its 'first release', there is no reason whatsoever why it should not be in the public domain.

But should not the heirs of the person who created that intellectual property be entitled to continue to benefit from the proceeds of that work? Why should their entitlement to royalties be cut off after a certain time period?


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.


vdeane

Quote from: hbelkins on December 08, 2019, 04:22:52 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on December 08, 2019, 07:48:47 AM
Which, IMHO, is absurdly too long.   If there is nobody alive who remembers a work in its 'first release', there is no reason whatsoever why it should not be in the public domain.

But should not the heirs of the person who created that intellectual property be entitled to continue to benefit from the proceeds of that work? Why should their entitlement to royalties be cut off after a certain time period?
Alternatively, why shouldn't it?  Intellectual property laws were created to encourage innovation, be that technological (patents) or creative (copyright) (trademarks serve the tangential purpose of allowing businesses to brand themselves and their products and preventing others from hijacking that brand; IMO they should just disappear after a business goes away rather than be sold off as an asset).  Thus, a balance needs to be struck between rewarding someone for creating something and allowing new people to innovate further using that something.  Right now copyright is way out of balance, allowing people to only innovate on works that were out before their grandparents were even born (in other words, stuff that's so outdated that nobody cares about it anymore unless it's a classic like Shakespeare).  If copyright terms were still what they were when the founding fathers were alive, Star Wars would be public domain, for example.

Corporate ownership of works is probably in large part responsible for this distortion, since corporations will naturally care about profiting from something longer than a person would, and have the resources to buy off lobby the government to do what they want.  They basically pulled the ladder up after them - for example, there is nothing even remotely original about the Disney princess movies.  They're adapted fairy tales.  If those tales were still copyrighted, there would be no Snow White, Little Mermaid, Frozen, etc.  Hollywood would also have to make original movies again like they used to instead of endless sequels and reboots.  This also allows businesses like Disney to seal off works they feel embarrassed about, never to see the light of day again (see: Song of the South).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

J N Winkler

All eleven pages (so far) of this thread have been interesting to read.  The specific items that resonated with me are too numerous to list, but I have one addition that has not been previously mentioned:  throwing out wet trash in an unlined bin.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

mgk920

Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2019, 10:27:37 PM
Right now copyright is way out of balance, allowing people to only innovate on works that were out before their grandparents were even born (in other words, stuff that's so outdated that nobody cares about it anymore unless it's a classic like Shakespeare).  If copyright terms were still what they were when the founding fathers were alive, Star Wars would be public domain, for example.

The USA's original copyright and patent terms were 13 years.  I do agree, those were on the short side.  If that were still in effect, nothing released before 2006 would still be under copyright protection.  The UK's 50 year term is about the best balance that I know of.

Properly maintained, a modern-day USA patent lasts no longer than 20 years.

QuoteThis also allows businesses like Disney to seal off works they feel embarrassed about, never to see the light of day again (see: Song of the South).

Thus my desire to see a 'use it or lose it' provision added to the law.  There has to be a clandestinely hidden copy of Song of the South out there somewhere, just yearning for the chance to breathe free.

Ditto various news organizations' serious video coverage of the 2001-09-11 attacks, especially on NYC, also the full video and audio of Martin Luther King's famous speeches, which are closely held by the family and not allowed by them to be publicly played.  I've seriously believed for many years now that Congress should exercise eminent domain over both of those for the purpose of having them being placed into the public domain - lest we forget them.

:nod:

Mike

texaskdog


DaBigE

- People who give their ideological viewpoints when you didn't ask to hear them.
- Drivers who ignore directional arrows in parking lots
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

Brandon

Quote from: texaskdog on December 09, 2019, 01:21:45 PM
Captcha

Damn, I hate Captcha crap.  Who thought up that POS garbage for verifying a user?
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

kphoger

Quote from: kurumi on December 07, 2019, 01:52:42 PM

Quote from: kphoger on December 06, 2019, 01:00:59 PM

Quote from: kurumi on December 06, 2019, 11:46:58 AM
Truly minor: the "vi" in the overused I - V - vi - VI chord progression.

Are you sure you wrote that correctly?  Or did you mean to type I - V - vi - IV63 instead?  Assuming that was a mistake, then you should remember that the chord of which you speak did in fact please the Lord.

Good catch, it's a typo. Fourth chord should indeed be IV. Ending at VI is an odd sort of Picardy Third cadence. Since the Picardy hymn ("Let all Mortal Flesh Keep Silence") doesn't end on a Picardy Third, the degree to which this might please the Lord is found wanting.

1.  Depends on what arrangement of Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence you're playing.  I just played one a couple of days ago that ended on a Picardy third, but I have another arrangement that doesn't.

2.  I dearly hope you actually got my song reference.

3.  For some time now, I've been wanting to come up with a term (and promote it) for the opposite of a Picardy third.  That is, when a piece in a major key ends on the i chord.  Any ideas?
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

hbelkins

Regarding copyright/public domain issues -- I'm hearing a glut of songs that were popular when I was young in commercials now. Is that because these tunes are now in the public domain, or because the writers/performers are licensing their use?

Similarly, you'll occasionally hear that some artist does not want some politician to use their songs at their events. Can an artist stop that if the politician pays the appropriate royalty fee? What's the difference between Trump playing "You Can't Always Get What You Want" at the end of one of his rallies, and some radio station or bar playing it? (Or, to be bipartisan, Obama playing "Don't Stop?")


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

texaskdog

Celebrities that think we care about their political views, and worse yet, people who actually do.

hotdogPi

Quote from: hbelkins on December 09, 2019, 02:36:54 PM
Regarding copyright/public domain issues -- I'm hearing a glut of songs that were popular when I was young in commercials now. Is that because these tunes are now in the public domain, or because the writers/performers are licensing their use?

Similarly, you'll occasionally hear that some artist does not want some politician to use their songs at their events. Can an artist stop that if the politician pays the appropriate royalty fee? What's the difference between Trump playing "You Can't Always Get What You Want" at the end of one of his rallies, and some radio station or bar playing it? (Or, to be bipartisan, Obama playing "Don't Stop?")

Another thing that bothers me: putting punctuation inside quotations where the punctuation is not part of the quotation.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

kphoger

Quote from: texaskdog on December 09, 2019, 03:48:09 PM
Celebrities that think we care about their political views

AMEN!

I want to watch you excel at your sport, not make a political statement.  You are an athlete, not a political expert.

I want to see you receive an award for your acting or musical skill, not tell me who to vote for.  You are an actor/musician, not a political expert.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

kphoger

Quote from: 1 on December 09, 2019, 03:49:47 PM
Another thing that bothers me: putting punctuation inside quotations where the punctuation is not part of the quotation.

American and British style differ on this point.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: kphoger on December 09, 2019, 03:50:13 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on December 09, 2019, 03:48:09 PM
Celebrities that think we care about their political views

AMEN!

I want to watch you excel at your sport, not make a political statement.  You are an athlete, not a political expert.

I want to see you receive an award for your acting or musical skill, not tell me who to vote for.  You are an actor/musician, not a political expert.

But neither you (I assume) nor I are political experts either and we're just average joes, so why should I care about your political views/vv either?
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

MNHighwayMan

Quote from: 1 on December 09, 2019, 03:49:47 PM
Another thing that bothers me: putting punctuation inside quotations where the punctuation is not part of the quotation.

That's how I was taught to do it, and I will continue to put "punctuation inside quotations." :bigass:

kphoger

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 09, 2019, 03:52:23 PM
But neither you (I assume) nor I are political experts either and we're just average joes, so why should I care about your political views/vv either?

I don't think you necessarily should care about mine either.  But I don't go on national TV and spout them.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

formulanone

#266
Quote from: texaskdog on December 09, 2019, 03:48:09 PM
Celebrities that think we care about their political views, and worse yet, people who actually do.

Quote from: kphoger on December 09, 2019, 03:57:54 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 09, 2019, 03:52:23 PM
But neither you (I assume) nor I are political experts either and we're just average joes, so why should I care about your political views/vv either?

I don't think you necessarily should care about mine either.  But I don't go on national TV and spout them.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing that phrase, here's why:

Where does the line get drawn? It's a wide spectrum from A-List celebrity to Local Instagram Legend with 3000 followers. Can they only keep quiet from TV, or are they allowed to let it spill over onto their blog/social media account. Should only politicians be able to voice an opinion? It's easy to cast a net upon those we disagree with, and want to hear more from those we align values with.

As much as I can't stand politics: They're only human. Some know what they're talking about and many don't know the woods from the trees in their little bubbles.

DaBigE

Quote from: formulanone on December 09, 2019, 04:11:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 09, 2019, 03:57:54 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 09, 2019, 03:52:23 PM
But neither you (I assume) nor I are political experts either and we're just average joes, so why should I care about your political views/vv either?

I don't think you necessarily should care about mine either.  But I don't go on national TV and spout them.

Where does the line get drawn though? It's a wide spectrum from A-List celebrity to Local Instagram Legend with 3000 followers. Can they only keep quiet from TV, or are they allowed to let it spill over onto their blog/social media account. Should only politicians be able to voice an opinion? It's easy to cast a net upon those we disagree with, and want to hear more from those we align values with.

I can choose to follow someone's social media account; I can't choose what they decide to air during the gamecast/awards ceremony/news segment. Politicians are different -- they're paid to have opinions.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

formulanone

#268
Quote from: DaBigE on December 09, 2019, 04:16:32 PM
Quote from: formulanone on December 09, 2019, 04:11:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 09, 2019, 03:57:54 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 09, 2019, 03:52:23 PM
But neither you (I assume) nor I are political experts either and we're just average joes, so why should I care about your political views/vv either?

I don't think you necessarily should care about mine either.  But I don't go on national TV and spout them.

Where does the line get drawn though? It's a wide spectrum from A-List celebrity to Local Instagram Legend with 3000 followers. Can they only keep quiet from TV, or are they allowed to let it spill over onto their blog/social media account. Should only politicians be able to voice an opinion? It's easy to cast a net upon those we disagree with, and want to hear more from those we align values with.

I can choose to follow someone's social media account; I can't choose what they decide to air during the gamecast/awards ceremony/news segment. Politicians are different -- they're paid to have opinions.

...you and I can turn off any one or most of them. And the bubble begins.

Just remember that most celebrities have a lot of extra time and PR on their hands; it's easy to show off what they believe in. Nobody outside our households gives a crap what we think (no offense).

jakeroot

Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 09, 2019, 03:56:43 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 09, 2019, 03:49:47 PM
Another thing that bothers me: putting punctuation inside quotations where the punctuation is not part of the quotation.

That's how I was taught to do it, and I will continue to put "punctuation inside quotations."

American English = inside quotation, Everywhere else English = outside quotation.

I always put the punctuation outside the quotation because inside looks moronic, especially when the quote doesn't include punctuation. Lucky me, the rest of the world agrees, so I'm sticking to my guns.

formulanone

#270
Quote from: jakeroot on December 09, 2019, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 09, 2019, 03:56:43 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 09, 2019, 03:49:47 PM
Another thing that bothers me: putting punctuation inside quotations where the punctuation is not part of the quotation.

That's how I was taught to do it, and I will continue to put "punctuation inside quotations."

American English = inside quotation, Everywhere else English = outside quotation.

I always put the punctuation outside the quotation because inside looks moronic, especially when the quote doesn't include punctuation. Lucky me, the rest of the world agrees, so I'm sticking to my guns.

I was taught to put everything in the quotation marks...

Example: "You know if you lived here, you'd be home by now."

...unless you're using parts of a quote or a "hypothetical" inside a sentence. To me, it just seems like proper form.

Example: Marge, there's the truth, and there's "the truth".

DaBigE

Quote from: jakeroot on December 09, 2019, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 09, 2019, 03:56:43 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 09, 2019, 03:49:47 PM
Another thing that bothers me: putting punctuation inside quotations where the punctuation is not part of the quotation.

That's how I was taught to do it, and I will continue to put "punctuation inside quotations."

American English = inside quotation, Everywhere else English = outside quotation.

I always put the punctuation outside the quotation because inside looks moronic, especially when the quote doesn't include punctuation. Lucky me, the rest of the world agrees, so I'm sticking to my guns.

I always thought placing it inside the quotes felt weird from a functional and dialogue context, but I will admit that inside the quotes looks a little better.
"We gotta find this road, it's like Bob's road!" - Rabbit, Twister

Ben114

Quote from: DaBigE on December 09, 2019, 01:32:28 PM
Drivers who ignore directional arrows in parking lots
My school has a one way system to get in and out, and I love seeing all the future parents mess up on the admissions test day and open house day. Even better when they go in the exit when coming off of the main road.

texaskdog

Quote from: 1 on December 09, 2019, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 09, 2019, 02:36:54 PM
Regarding copyright/public domain issues -- I'm hearing a glut of songs that were popular when I was young in commercials now. Is that because these tunes are now in the public domain, or because the writers/performers are licensing their use?

Similarly, you'll occasionally hear that some artist does not want some politician to use their songs at their events. Can an artist stop that if the politician pays the appropriate royalty fee? What's the difference between Trump playing "You Can't Always Get What You Want" at the end of one of his rallies, and some radio station or bar playing it? (Or, to be bipartisan, Obama playing "Don't Stop?")

Another thing that bothers me: putting punctuation inside quotations where the punctuation is not part of the quotation.

Grammer Nazis

formulanone

#274
Quote from: hbelkins on December 09, 2019, 02:36:54 PM
Regarding copyright/public domain issues -- I'm hearing a glut of songs that were popular when I was young in commercials now. Is that because these tunes are now in the public domain, or because the writers/performers are licensing their use?

Interestingly, there was a change to this last year > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Modernization_Act

(Side note: it probably made limited news because it was unanimously passed by House and Senate, and signed into law.)

Quote
In US Copyright Law, sound recordings made prior to February 15, 1972 were not covered under federal copyright law, leaving them up to the individual states to pass laws for recording protection. This had created a complex series of laws that made it difficult for copyright enforcement and royalty payments. The CLASSICS Act established that sound recording before 1972 are covered by copyright until February 15, 2067, with additional language to grandfather in older songs into the public domain at an earlier time. Recordings prior to 1923 will enter the public domain three years from passage (January 1, 2022, as all U.S. copyright terms end on December 31), and with recordings between 1923 and 1956 being phased into the public domain over the next few decades.

I think so as long as the permission for public broadcast is granted and a price negotiated, it's essentially fair game. The permission part has to come from the artist, and/or whomever holds the copyright to it (music label). So even songs like Happy Birthday to You required a license, until it finally was determined to be a derivative work of an even older song which was already in the public domain by age. Some artists don't want to "sell out" - Led Zeppelin*, for example -  or their work isn't widely recognized enough for anyone to care (other than ASCAP), or not marketable enough (not sure how many G.G. Allin songs are ever going to be used in commercials, but it's a chance that approaches zero).

I've heard things like $25,000 - $50,000 to use part of a song in a movie or TV show, but I have no idea how much it is for a song to be used repetitively in a TV/radio commercial. Maybe a one-hit-wonder is just glad to take a quick payday. I suppose it depends on how badly the producer wants that one song.


* there was that Cadillac ad about a decade ago.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.