This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How did I harm a Beatle?
A short while ago, I started a TED conversation discussing the meaning behind John Lennons' song "Imagine" and it's relevance to our new internet connected world.
Starting the conversation took a couple of attempts as my first attempt was blocked by TED on infringement of copyright grounds. My "crime"? I copied out the words to "Imagine" in this explanation section to illustrate my conversation.
The original use of copyright was to protect artists and creators investment in their creations and safeguard their income from these endeavours.
I'm not sure how my original attempt at the conversation could have damaged either John, if he was still alive, or his estate.
So how much is copyright and IP stifling creativity in this generation. We're all standing on the shoulders of the previous generations of giants. What if the shoulders of giants become out of bounds? Does each successive generation have to start from scratch?
Debra Smith 200+
Douglas Bell
Best wishes,
Doug Bell
Scott Armstrong 50+
The internet is for the consumer not the producers. Fight the good fight.
John would have been disgusted.
Nigel Bamber
"Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can" oops! Did I just infringe copyright?
I find it bizarre that a combination of words or thoughts can belong to someone.
Even Martin Luther Kings' "I have a dream" speech is subject to copyright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.,_Inc._v._CBS,_Inc.
Scott Armstrong 50+
It was all about how music is for everyone, it was the industry that made it owned by this person or that person.
Of course, he drew fire for being hypocritical in that he sang of having no possessions and yet made millions from his songs.
Yoko runs the Lennon foundation and is pretty quick to jump on any unofficial use of name, image, etc. She probably defends it by saying it's important to control John's image/message so that it stays "pure" but it's just business.
Chris Kelly 20+
Note:
"the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes of criticism and commentary is not an infringement of copyright."
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/files/blogs/Order%20Denying%20Federal%20PI.pdf
Nigel Bamber
That's an amazing bit of research on your part. I had no idea this case had been brought. Don't understand what Yoko's up to these days. :-)
IP and copyright laws are very complex. These sorts of laws stifle activities not only when they apply, but also when someone doesn't have the specialised knowledge to know if they apply or not.
They've become the tools of institutions with large enough budgets to have lawyers at their shoulders. Often when cases are brought, a defendent will settle out of court, even if they are technically in "the right" because they do not have the resources to argue the case to completion.
Have you seen this TED talk by someone who fought back?
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/drew_curtis_how_i_beat_a_patent_troll.html
Chris Kelly 20+
No, I hadn't seen the talk (before but like Drew, I am a champion for the truth.
Yes, the legal bureaucracy is the macrocosm and within this site, TED and their admin's reflect the same issues in a microcosm.
Their power is limited, but they do have the "power to delete" which is often abused in the most arbitrary way. Despite being provided with evidence of their err, (such as the proof I provided that it is not a copyright infringement), they never apologize or make amends or corrections.
As you've witnessed, they can block a conversation from happening; they can also delete an account without just cause, without warning, without acknowledging you exist. They can also close a conversation if they don't like the direction it's heading. They can also delete a conversation mid-flow. There's no way to 'fight' their decisions because TED is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship.
In the end, all we can do is 'modify' our behavior to 'conform' to big brother TED.
As an aside, did you know Cee Lo Green used artistic license when singing "Imagine"? He changed the lyrics from "and no religions, too" to "and all religion's true" ... lol ... it did not sit well with the atheist crowd.
Keep dreaming ... you're not the only one. :-)