Friday, February 24, 2006

Burnoff: Part 2 - The Good Guys Win

Tarmle described another scenario when "No one has to pay for numbers anymore."
Copyright is your right to copy... anything. You are permitted to duplicate, to alter, to republish any piece of information, any text, sound, image or source code, even any object, anything that does not impinge on the privacy of another individual. It even protects your right to make money out of such duplication, if you can.

Increasingly companies rely on getting information about their products integrated into the media, making them inseparable. You won't find a new album online that doesn't contain at least two tracks named after brands of sneakers or snack foods. The rewards for a rapper willing to name a financial services company somewhere in their lyrics are awe-inspiring - a once-off commercial concession like that can fund a popular artist for long time. Your favourite comedy sketch vlog regularly uses humour based on commercial products and services - a few years ago such a thing might have appalled you, yet you still see collections of old TV ads in the media libraries prominently tagged as humour. The Grand Theft Auto MMOG doesn't charge it's players for software or access, instead it sells in-game billboard space for fifty times the price of billboards in the real world, and the virtual cars the players are boosting will often be the latest models, performance and polygon counts boosted by higher paying sponsors, of course. Armed with suitable Creative Commons Contracts, protecting them from restrictive and exploitative deals, artists have little to fear from their sponsors.

Once upon a time, on a sunny evening with a distant rainbow in the east, sitting on the wet green lawn near the roses, Albert and Trebla went into an argument AGAIN...

Albert: In the spirit of copycat, here is Treble again, describing yet another scenario based on Tarmle's Burnoff: Part 2 - The Good Guys Win

Trebla: Here it goes:

The world is now overloaded with informercial (a blend of information, entertainment and commercial). People is now crying for legislation to put tags around the commercial segments of the informercial so that their personal entertaining device can filter out the commericals. There are several legal cases in the court at the moment between CFM (Commerical Free Movement) and AAAA (American Advertising Agencies Associations).

Side bar here
The fundamental technical issues is:
The interpretation of any bit stream depends on the header to indicate the boundary of meaningful blocks of bits and the header will indicate to the software how to play the blcok of bits in a meaningful sense.

Previously, the commercial segment is in a block and hence it is quite easy for the personal intelligent player agent to filter off the unwanted commercials. AAAA is now pushing a coding scheme so that the media data is distributed over several blocks. In today's terminology, the commercial is like the static frames in a movie on which the real information is based. Several highly commercially successful artists have adopted such coding scheme.

Side bar End

CFM, formerly EFF, argues that it is the right of anyone to remix any segment of a string of numbers (digitalised media). Those artists, who insisted that commercial part embedded their work should not be removed from any remix is illegal.

AAAA wants to protect the integrity of the embedded commercial segments in the informercial and argues that it is the right of the artists to ensure the work is presented as a whole - as originally intended, otherwise the interpretation of the work may be misled. Any remix is a violation of the creative right of the artists. People who worked for AIAA previously are now working for AAAA. Anyone can still use, duplicated or distribute the work, except it must be as a complete whole.

There are also several cases in the court involving the improper or lack of attribution to the original work. One of the case is like this.

John Duo Smith Junior IV has written a software which generated all the combination of notes in all scales and all tempos for a four-beat bar of music. He released the result as a library with a license requiring attribution to him. It was initially a great welcome by most hobbyist musician and millions of songs were created based on John Duo Smith Junior IV's library of 4-beat music bars. Later he also released libraries for all other number of beats. As his citation index sky-rocketed, he has many high value endorsement from the advertising agencies.

These days, the music creation software automatically manage the attribution. The creator of a piece of music owns the aggregation attribution. Although the some bars are attributed to John Duo Smith Junior IV, the sequencing of the bars is attributed to the creator. As the remix continues, the attribution list becomes longer and longer every iteration and is a nightmare to maintain. A 30-second sound track may have an attribution list 10 times longer than the actual media. Although the bandwidth and storage is cheap, they have never kept up with the demand. People started to separate out the attribution list from the media. As a result, many users who are just consumer of the media and have no intention to remix or reuse, opted to download the media without the attribution. Recently, John Duo Smith Junior IV found out that his citation index has dropped. As a result of his investigation, he is now suing several major peer to peer networks for violation of attribution requirements by separating the attribution from the distribution.

John Duo Smith Junior IV is backed by MSLIA (Musical Segment Libraries Industry Associations).

People who worked for Music Industry Associations in the early 2000 found themselves have more job than ever. The law department is the most difficult department to get in for any university.