Posts Tagged music
There’s nothing I love better than watching what musical things grab hold of Liam’s interest and not let go. More and more he asks me about songs and instruments he thinks he hears. His quest for musical knowledge is matched only by his unrestrained joy in music itself in these ever-changing early days of his life.Recently, I’ve noticed he’ll be humming or singing something long after we heard or saw it on the stereo or TV. I’m amazed at his ability to almost instantly latch onto a chorus or line in a song and file it away for future use.He’s done that a few times with some of the songs that accompany the Thomas the Tank Engine stories.and then he’s done it with…Van Halen.
I’m not the world’s biggest Van Halen fan, by any stretch of the imagination. I have some favorites of theirs and I’ll readily admit that Van Halen without David Lee Roth never really existed in my eyes.But for the most part, I’m neutral.So the other morning on the way to day care and Liam and I in discussion about what to do later that night, I didn’t think anything of it when the new Van Halen single, “Tattoo,” came on the radio. We kept talking away. Liam was bobbing his head, but we were talking happy things and I figured the happy head nod was a byproduct of that.For those who haven’t heard “Tattoo,” Roth says “tattoo,” oh, maybe 437 times before the song is over. and that’s exactly the kind of repetition that hard-rocking 4-year-olds just love.a few minutes later, as we made our grand entrance into Liam’s classroom and received a warm greeting from a fellow student’s parent, Liam turned to her and belted out “Tattoo…tattoo…tattoo” just like the opening of the song.To my surprise, she turned to me and said, without ever losing her smile, “Is he singing the new Van Halen song?” Continued…
- See Full Story
Though a deeply divided Congress is currently considering Internet website censorship legislation, the US has no such official policy—not even for child porn, which is voluntarily blocked by some ISPs. Nor does the US have a government-backed “three strikes” or “graduated response” system of escalating warnings to particular users accused of downloading music and movies from file-sharing networks.
Yet here was the ultimatum that the US Embassy in Madrid gave the Spanish government in February 2008: adopt such measures or we will punish you. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have the text of the diplomatic cable announcing the pressure tactics.
We propose to tell the new government that Spain will appear on the Watch List if it does not do three things by October 2008. First, issue a [Government of Spain] announcement stating that Internet piracy is illegal, and that the copyright levy system does not compensate creators for copyrighted material acquired through peer-to-peer file sharing. Second, amend the 2006 “circular” that is widely interpreted in Spain as saying that peer-to-peer file sharing is legal. third, announce that the GoS [Government of Spain] will adopt measures along the lines of the French and/or UK proposals aimed at curbing Internet piracy by the summer of 2009.
The Watch List referenced is the US Trade Representative’s “Special 301″ list, updated annually. Spain was duly put on the list in 2008 after failing to take such measures. (“The United States is concerned by the Spanish government’s inadequate efforts to address the growing problem of Internet piracy, described by U.S. copyright industries as one of the worst in Europe,” said the 2008 report.) Spanish copyright holders applauded the move; indeed, the cables show that they repeatedly asked US officials to make it.
Spain certainly has a huge community of pirates and there are many that doesn’t expect to pay for downloaded content (some of this is due to rampant consumer confusion over a levy paid on blank media, which many believe covers such activity). Even the Spanish Secretary of State conceded in 2008 that “Spanish internet users were very heavy consumers of illicit content.” But how to address the issue? Perhaps by putting someone from the film industry in charge of Internet piracy policy?
Meet the Minister
Spain got a new Culture Minister in 2009—Ángeles González-Sinde Reig, who was formerly the head of the Academia de las Artes y las Ciencias Cinematográficas de España (Spanish Academy of Cinematographic Arts & Sciences). Sinde quickly promoted the “Sinde Law,” a plan to give a government committee the power to blacklist Internet sites trafficking in copyrighted files. Helpfully, the content industries already had a list of 200 sites drawn up for banning.
Sinde recognized the obvious conflict between her new position and her old one for the film industry; as the US embassy put it in a cable, “she also acknowledged the importance of fighting any perception that she was only interested in piracy for personal reasons, and she has taken a relatively low public profile on the issue in her first months.” Privately, however, “she is actively engaged in the fight against piracy.”
Though Sinde repeatedly stressed that she had no intention of going after individual file-swappers, private communications made clear that this was only a starting position. in December 2009, the embassy noted the familiar pattern of IP litigation: always demand more, but do so in stages.
“While many content providers wish the government would go further, they also believe these measures probably represent the most that can be achieved at this point and that accepting them will enhance rights-holders’ ability to press the government for more stringent measures in the future,” said the cable.
In 2010, Sinde told the US ambassador not to worry about the legislation being watered down. “The Minister replied that the Government has committed to trying this approach first, and if it doesn’t prove effective, they will come back with additional and perhaps stronger measures,” said a cable. The thumbscrews can always be tightened further.
The US arranged to aid Sinde, and it lobbied hard for her measure, even carrying her position to other Spanish opposition parties to request their support. The goal wasn’t simply to affect Spanish law; Sinde’s “receptivity also gives us an opportunity during Spain’s EU presidency to influence developments beyond Spain,” one cable noted.
Resistance from locals was fierce. The US embassy, which enthusiastically supported the Sinde law, noted that “serious challenges” lay ahead, that the law was opposed by Internet groups and lawyers, and that “the outcome is uncertain.”
Still, the government didn’t think much of the opposition. Carlos Guervos, Deputy Director for Intellectual Property at the Ministry of Culture, told the US ambassador that “the dogs bark but the caravan moves on” and that the law would be passed.
The dogs put up a good fight, though. As the BBC noted, “Last year hacktivist group Anonymous organised a protest at the Goya Awards—Spain’s equivalent of the Oscars—which saw several hundred people in Guy Fawkes masks booing the minister of culture while applauding Alex de la Iglesia, then-president of the Spanish Film Academy. The movie director had previously voiced opposition to the Sinde law on Twitter and later resigned over the issue.”
Then in late 2010, opposition parties managed to halt the bill in parliament. On December 21, the Electronic Frontier Foundation declared victory and said that a committee had “just stripped the website shut-down provision from the Sustainable Economy Bill”—in part due to the revelations about US pressure.
But the government found a way to bypass the barking mutts, leaving the law for the incoming administration to handle after November 2011. (The law was so unpopular that the former administration elected not approve it after huge levels of animosity surfaced on social networking sites.) The new government did so quickly, passing a modified version of the Sinde law—judges will now have to issue the actual blacklist order, for instance.
Why the sudden movement? US pressure again played a role. As El País reported yesterday, the US ambassador sent a letter to Spanish government officials on December 12, 2011, in which Spain was blasted for not getting the job done. The US could move to put Spain on its Section 301 “priority” watch list, a more severe designation which could carry the threat of trade penalties.
Within weeks, the new Spanish government came through.
Paella and process
Whatever you think of the resulting legislation, the process was grotesque: the Spanish film industry got one of its officials into power, then promoted a tough new law backed by the threats (and even active lobbying) of the US government—though the US didn’t take the same measures itself.
As for the US position, it too was informed by self-interested Hollywood sources. “[US] Ambassador Solomont said he had heard a great deal about Spain’s Internet piracy problem, from MPAA [Motion Picture Association of America] CEO [Dan] Glickman and others,” said a February 2010 diplomatic cable, “and asked where things stand with the government’s legislative proposal on shutting down or blocking pirate websites.”
“We cast our minds back to the time of censorship, of the dictator.”
Hollywood exerts such pressure around the world, and the US State Department is generally willing to support a major American export industry like the movie business. The MPAA was behind a high-profile Australian legal battle in which it attempted to force a major Internet provider to cut off subscribers’ access without a judicial order. At Hollwyood’s behest, the US government has pushed hard in Canada for stricter theater camcording laws and tougher IP enforcement; the US threatened Canada with going on the “Priority” Special 301 Watch List in 2008 after Canada proved slow to act. WikiLeaks cables even showed that the US Embassy in New Zealand was drafting plans for the US taxpayer to spend half a million New Zealand dollars to bankroll a private intellectual property enforcement unit run by major rightsholders in the region.
That’s how the legislative paella gets made, but the paella-eaters don’t have to like it. Víctor Domingo Prieto, head of Spain’s Asociación de Internautas (Association of Internet Users), said this week in an over-the-top statement that the Sinde Law makes Internet users “cast our minds back to the time of censorship, of the dictator.”
For its part, a Spanish government spokesperson said that “Spain joins the international standard in the fight against piracy” with the passage of the new law.
The “borderless Internet”? Despite the hopes and fears of the 1990s, the Internet has turned out to be quite “borderable” after all. The Sinde Law simply tosses one more shovel-full of dirt on the idea’s coffin. Digital borders, like borders everywhere, will always leak, but sufficiently determined governments can and will erect them on the ‘Net. especially with the US government pushing hard to erect them.
"that was an education in how to take tension and build it into music, to take found sounds that you’re not identifying but are making you feel uncomfortable," Reznor said. "There’s a lot of moments of feeling uncomfortable. There’s a lot of unpleasantries dealt with in this film. we wanted to make a score that had that sense, where you feel a sense of anxiety."
At times, the score, which will be released digitally on Friday (Dec. 9), even gives way to the effects in the film. "we were able to fade into songs that fade into things that are happening in the film," Reznor said. "There’s a scene where a character walks out of a room, and something pretty uncomfortable happens. It segues into the sound of a floor buffer, which is the same key.
"we were trying to consider all those things. the score and the sound design feel as a whole. That’s what we wanted to do. that takes us out of the world of grand sweeping melodies. This isn’t a soundtrack that’s filed with ‘Star Wars’-esque theme songs."
There were practical challenges as well for the American remake of "Dragon Tattoo," set to open Dec. 21. Ross characterized it as "experimentation in the notion of space," adding that it wasn't easy to achieve such a sound due to his daily close proximity to Reznor.
"without that sounding too pretentious," Ross clarified, "it was simply spacial experimentation. It feels like there’s a depth. getting that was something we spent a lot of time on, especially because we’re sitting less than five feet from each other."
Reznor, poking fun at his partner's theoretical explanation, quickly added, "Atticus will be appearing in an interpretive dance performance at the coffeeshop down the street."
Image: Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross in 2010. Credit: Columbia TriStar
How To Destroy Angels Cover Bryan Ferry For ‘Dragon Tattoo’ Soundtrack; Nearly 3 Hours Of Music Will Span Six LPs
Are you one of those folks who still buys music on vinyl? Well, better make some shelf space because "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" soundtrack is coming and it's fucking massive.
Twitter-happy Trent Reznor teased fans a bit more today, tweeting "Working with @rob_sheridan and Neil Kellerhouse on a cool package to house the Dragon Tattoo soundtrack's SIX vinyls." Whoa wait, 6 LPs? There's a very good reason for that. Earlier this month, Reznor revealed that he's created a ton of music for the movie, tweeting "It's clocking in at two hours and forty-some odd minutes! We've lost our minds. Clear some disk space!" if that jibes with what we've heard about the running time for the movie, it pretty much means the score will be constant throughout and ever changing or Reznor has created a boatload of work that won't be used.
but one request he did received from David Fincher was to cover a song that we never imagined would come near "the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo." "Yes, David Fincher asked us to do a cover of Bryan Ferry's 'Is Your Love Strong Enough?' for Dragon Tattoo. It will be on the soundtrack," the Twitter account of Reznor's band How to destroy Angels revealed this afternoon.
the song was first commissioned by Ridley Scott from Ferry way back in 1985 for the Tom Cruise film "Legend" and it featured Pink Floyd's David Gilmour. So we're massively curious to see how it will fit in here, how Fincher will position the tune and of course, how Reznor and co. will re-fashion it. More news regarding the soundtrack and its release on Reznor's Null Corporation expected this Friday. We're guessing a bunch of versions/packages of the album will be available. As for the film, it lands on December 21st. [via Pitchfork]
The public domain is a range of abstract materials-commonly referred to as intellectual property-which are not owned or controlled by anyone.The term indicates that these materials are therefore public property, and available for anyone to use for any purpose.
The laws of various countries define the scope of the public domain differently, making it necessary to specify which jurisdiction’s public domain is being discussed.furthermore, the public domain can be defined in contrast to several forms of intellectual property; the public domain in contrast to copyrighted works is different from the public domain in contrast to trademarks or patented works.
The public domain is most often discussed in contrast to works restricted by copyright.Under modern law, most original works of art, literature, music, etc are covered by copyright from the time of their creation for a limited period of time (which varies by country).when the copyright expires, the work enters the public domain.
About 15 percent of all books are in the public domain, including 10 percent of all books that are still in print.
The public domain can also be defined in contrast to trademarks. Names, logos, and other identifying marks used in commerce can be restricted as proprietary trademarks for a single business to use.Trademarks can be maintained indefinitely, but they can also lapse through disuse, negligence, or widespread misuse, and enter the public domain.
It is possible, however, for a lapsed trademark to become proprietary again, leaving the public domain.
The public domain also contrasts with patents.
New inventions can be registered and granted patents restricting others from using them without permission from the inventor.
Like copyrights, patents last for a limited period of time, after which the inventions covered by them enter the public domain and can be used by anyone.
Intellectual property law, Primary rights, Copyright, Patents, Trademarks, Industrial design rights, Utility models, Geographical indication, Trade secrets, Related rights, Trade names, Domain names, Sui generis rights, Database rights, Mask work, Plant breeders rights, Supplementary protection certificate, Indigenous intellectual property.
A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large. for instance, a work may be in the public domain if no laws establish proprietary rights over the work, or if the work or its subject matter are specifically excluded from existing laws. Because proprietary rights are founded in national laws, an item may be public domain in one jurisdiction but not another. for instance, some works of literature are public domain in the United States but not in the European Union and vice versa.
The underlying idea that is expressed or manifested in the creation of a work generally cannot be the subject of copyright law (see idea-expression divide). Mathematical formula will therefore generally form part of the public domain, to the extent that their expression in the form of software is not covered by copyright; however, algorithms can be the subject of a software patent in some jurisdictions.
Works created before the existence of copyright and patent laws also form part of the public domain. The Bible and the inventions of Archimedes are in the public domain. However, copyright may exist in translations or new formulations of these works. Although intellectual property laws are not designed to prevent facts from entering the public domain, collections of facts organized or presented in a creative way, such as categorized lists, may be copyrighted.
Collections of data with intuitive organization, such as alphabetized directories like telephone directories, are generally not copyrightable.
In some countries copyright-like rights are granted for databases, even those containing mere facts. a sui generis database rights regime is in place in the European Union.
Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries. they may also be in the public domain in other countries as well.
All copyrights and patents have always had a finite term, though the terms for copyrights and patents differ.when terms expire, the work or invention is released into public domain.
In most countries, the term for patents is 20 years.
A trademark registration may be renewed and remain in force indefinitely provided the trademark is used, but could otherwise become generic.
Copyrights are more complex than patents; generally, in current law, the copyright in a published work expires in all countries (except Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Samoa, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) when any of the following conditions are satisfied :The work was created and first published before January 1, 1923, or at least 95 years before January 1 of the current year, whichever is later;The last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1 of the current year;No Berne Convention signatory has passed a perpetual copyright on the work; and neither the United States nor the European Union has passed a copyright term extension since these conditions were last updated. this must be a condition because the exact numbers in the other conditions depend on the state of the law at any given moment.
These conditions are based on the intersection of United States and European Union copyright law, which most other Berne Convention signatories recognize. Note that copyright term extension under US tradition usually does not restore copyright to public domain works (hence the 1923 date), but European tradition does because the EU harmonization was based on the copyright term in Germany, which had already been extended to life plus 70. United States law all or part of this article may be confusing or unclear.
In the United States, copyright law has changed several times since the founding of the country.
Rural that Congress does not have the power to re-copyright works that have fallen into the public domain.
After World War I and after World War II, there were special amendments to the Copyright Act to permit for a limited time and under certain conditions the recapture of works that might have fallen into the public domain, principally by aliens of countries with which we had been at war.
Works created by an agency of the United States government are public domain at the moment of creation.
Examples include military journalism, federal court opinions (but not necessarily state court opinions), congressional committee reports, and census data. However, works commissioned by the government but created by a contractor are still subject to copyright, and even in the case of public domain documents, availability of such documents may be limited by laws limiting the spread of classified information.
Before 1978, unpublished works were not covered by the federal copyright act this does not mean that the works were in the public domain. rather, it means that they were covered under (perpetual) common law copyright The Copyright Act of 1976, effective 1978, abolished common law copyright in the United States; all works, published and unpublished, are now covered by federal statutory copyright.
The claim that pre-1923 works are in the public domain is correct only for published works; unpublished works are under federal copyright for at least the life of the author plus 70 years.
For a work made for hire, the copyright in a work created before 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or registered for copyright, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. If the work was created before 1978 but first published on or before December 31, 2002, the work is covered by federal copyright until 2047.
Works published with notice of copyright or registered in unpublished form prior to January 1, 1964, had to be renewed during the 28th year of their first term of copyright to maintain copyright for a full 95-year term.
Until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the lack of a proper copyright notice would place an otherwise copyrightable work into the public domain, although for works published between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989, this could be prevented by registering the work with the Library of Congress within 5 years of publication. after March 1, 1989, an author’s copyright in a work begins when it is fixed in a tangible form; neither publication nor registration is required, and a lack of a copyright notice does not place the work into the public domain.
Sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, were generally covered by common law or in some cases by statutes enacted in certain states, but were not covered by federal copyright law.
The 1976 Copyright Act, effective 1978, provides federal copyright for unpublished and published sound recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972. Recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are still covered, to varying degrees, by common law or state statutes. Any rights or remedies under state law for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are not annulled or limited by the 1976 Copyright Act until February 15, 2067.
Critics of copyright term extensions have said that Congress has achieved a perpetual copyright term on the installment plan.
British government works are restricted by either Crown Copyright or Parliamentary Copyright.
Published Crown Copyright works become public domain at the end of the year 50 years after they were published, unless the author of the work held copyright and assigned it to the Crown.
In that case, the copyright term is the usual life of author plus 70 years Unpublished Crown Copyright documents become public domain at the end of the year 125 years after they were first created.
However, under the legislation that created this rule, and abolished the traditional common law perpetual copyright of unpublished works, no unpublished works will become public domain until 50 years after the legislation came into effect.
Since the legislation became law on 1 August 1989, no unpublished works will become public domain under this provision until 2039.
Parliamentary Copyright documents become public domain at the end of the year 50 years after they were published.
Crown Copyright is waived on some government works provided that certain conditions are met.
These numbers reflect the most recent extensions of copyright in the United States and Europe.
Canada and new Zealand have not, as of 2006, passed similar twenty-year extensions
Consequently, their copyright expiry times are still life of the author plus 50 years.
Australia passed a 20-year copyright extension in 2004, but delayed its effect until 2005, and did not make it revive already-expired copyrights.
Hence, in Australia works by authors who died before 1955 are still in the public domain.
As a result, works ranging from Peter Pan to the stories of H. Lovecraft are public domain in both countries.(The copyright status of Lovecraft’s work is debatable, as no copyright renewals, which were necessary under the laws of that time, have been found.
Also, two competing parties have independently claimed copyright ownership on his work.
As with most other Commonwealth of Nations countries, Canada and Australia follow the general lead of the United Kingdom on copyright of government works.both have a version of Crown Copyright which lasts for 50 years from publication.
New Zealand also has Crown Copyright, but has a much greater time length, at 100 years from the date of publication.
India has a government copyright of sixty years from publication, to coincide with its somewhat unusual life of the author plus sixty years term of copyright. according to Thai copyright law, the copyright term is the life of author plus 50 years.when the author is a legal entity or an anonymous person, the copyright term is 50 years from the date of publication.
Works of applied art (defined as drawings, paintings, sculpture, prints, architecture, photography, drafts, and models) have a copyright term of 25 years from publication.
Republication of works after the expiration of the copyright term does not reset the copyright term.
Thai state documents are public domain,but creative works produced by or commissioned by government offices are protected by copyright.
Japanese copyright law does not mention public domain. hence, even when some materials are said to be in the public domain there can be some use restrictions. In that case, the term copyright-free is sometimes used instead. many pre-1953 both Japanese and non-Japanese films are considered to be in the public domain in Japan.
Examples of inventions whose patents have expired include the inventions of Thomas Edison.
Examples of works whose copyrights have expired include the works of Carlo Collodi, Mozart, and most of the works of mark Twain, excluding the work first published in 2001, a Murder, a Mystery, and a Marriage.
In the United States, the images of Frank Capra’s classic film, It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) entered into the public domain in 1974, because someone inadvertently failed to file a copyright renewal application with the Copyright Office during the 28th year after the film’s release or publication.
Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to abandon copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear.