August 2004 Archives

It appears that there's been a little spat going on over Wikipedia, the Open Source encyclopedia caused by a rather short sighted librarian. See the whole fight on TechDirt.

The whole shooting match stems from an article by Al Fasoldt on The Post Standard, in which he reports the opinion of a high school librarian call Susan Stagnitta. According to Ms. Stagnitta,

[WikiPedia is] not the online version of an established, well-researched traditional encyclopedia. Instead, Wikipedia is a do-it-yourself encyclopedia, without any credentials.

Apparently it is those "supposedly authoritative Web sites that are untrustworthy". Despite the fact that it does have disclaimers that it isn't a traditional resource.

The interesting point in the whole argument is raised or illustrated by the following quotes:

"As a high school librarian, part of my job is to help my students develop critical thinking skills," Stagnitta wrote. "One of these skills is to evaluate the authority of any information source. The Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It even states this in their disclaimer on their Web site.
-Susan Stanitta

and

I was amazed at how little I knew about Wikipedia.
-Al Fasoldt

In the first Ms Stagnitta states that her job is to teach how to "evaluate the authority of any source", which evidentially she hasn't done with WikiPedia, and has decided that because anyone can contribute, it must not be valid. I'm sure that there are one or two (sarcasm btw) articles that might have been written by experts in that field.
On the heels of this is Mr Fasoldt's admission that he didn't know much about WikiPedia, which had been the subject of an earlier column that he had been aware of...surely in the realms of unbiased and reliable reporting (both requirements for being authoritative and apparently lacking in WikiPedia) he should have found out more and made himself an expert(temporarily at least).

I would also dispute Ms Stagnitta's claim that there is "no editorial review of the content". Surely being being editable by everyone, and easily restorable, this is the purest form of peer-review? A system that appears to work ratherwell in the realms of, well lets see...research.

I'm going to stand by WikiPedia, I have used it to great effect, its fast and accessible. Having been taught at the basics of research, I'm not going to rely on it exclusively, but it provides a good start. Afterall there is much to gain from contradictory information as this is for corrobative information, but then I might just be being sensible about that....

Some interesting comments regarding the "War On Terror" by linguistics Professor George Lakoff as well as the language used by progressives against conservatives in politics...worth a read....

You've said that progressives should never use the phrase "war on terror" — why?

There are two reasons for that. Let's start with "terror." Terror is a general state, and it's internal to a person. Terror is not the person we're fighting, the "terrorist." The word terror activates your fear, and fear activates the strict father model, which is what conservatives want. The "war on terror" is not about stopping you from being afraid, it's about making you afraid.

Next, "war." How many terrorists are there — hundreds? Sure. Thousands? Maybe. Tens of thousands? Probably not. The point is, terrorists are actual people, and relatively small numbers of individuals, considering the size of our country and other countries. It's not a nation-state problem. War is a nation-state problem.

What about the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty"?

Those are metaphorical. Real wars are wars against countries, and in the "war on terror," we are attacking countries. But those countries are not the same as the terrorists. We're acting at the wrong level. Meanwhile, by using this frame, we get a commander in chief, as the Republicans keep referring to Bush — a "war president" with "war powers," which imply that ordinary protections don't have to be observed. A "war president" has extraordinary powers. And the "war on terror," of course, never ends. There's no peace treaty with terror. It's a prescription for keeping conservatives in power indefinitely. In three words — "war on terror" — they've enacted vast political changes.

Read the rest of the article

RespectCopyrights.org is the MPAA's web site demoting (opposite of promoting??) P2P file sharing services, and pushing their own CopyRight agenda.

One of the interesting sections is the "So What's In In It To Me?" (surely What's In It For) which states what you get out of not downloading movies from the net(View image).

So... What's In In It To Me? Answer: Absolutely Nothing.

I'm really starting to resent this stance, in which the MPAA/RIAA say "this is bad, you will stop doing this or we will make your life a misery", instead of "this is bad, stop doing it and we will...." make better movies, not rip you off as badly, take our heads out of our asses.

I've decided that I'm developing a probably unhealthy interest in "Random Things", especially on the Net with the addition of the "Random Blogger Blog" button on the sidebar.

as circumventing a copy protection device? ;-)

Via Xeni @ BoingBoing, but this is Just Plain Weird!
The Mineralarians

It seems that BugMeNot.com has had its hosting pulled by HostGator, according to this article on WiredNews. Fortunately its back up online and is now hosted by NearlyFreeSpeech.net.
NearlyFreeSpeech seems to be offering an alternative model to the typical hosting package: $1 per 1Gb of bandwith, and $0.01 per Mb per month for web space, which in theory means you only pay for what you use...which would mean that to host this blog (and the other stuff that runs on Phoenixproductions) would cost a grand total of $84 a year! The only problem I can foresee with this idea is that if you should get /.ed, as the hosting page says:

If your personal bandwidth account is depleted, your web site hosting will end automatically

Hmm a little clarification maybe here? Does it just end or will you get notified that it has and get a grace period to top it up? So if you get /.ed there's a good chance that your web site will actually just disappear!

That said looking at the hosting package it seems like quite a good deal.

As most people know if you live outside the US you now have to (basically) apply for a visa and get your photo and fingerprints taken, in the name of fighting the "war on terror" (I'm gonna refuse to use caps on that from now on!). What a lot of people probably don't know (especially if your not from/in the States) is that there is a court case currently going on that is challenging the idea that presenting identification papers has any effect on terrorists carrying weapons. I picked this press release off the EFF, which says that

the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the plaintiff, arguing that compulsory ID checks at airports violate the Fourth Amendment.

So it appears that the US Government isn't just paranoid about "aliens" but also their own citizens, and that there is someone who has a problem with that.

Judge Richard Posner, who is looking after Lawrence Lessig's blog this week, has posted an interesting sequence of posts. The first looks at Fair Use and a (re-) introduction of some sort of copyright registry that would allow rights holders to signify their continuing interest in holding on to their copyright, and the second is an expansion on the whole idea of Fair Use. An interesting and quite light weight read, and probably a couple of links worth passing on to anyone who has an interest in Fair Use.

I seem to be spending so much time trawling the net on Copyright related stuff that I think I'm rapidly running out of time to any real work..maybe I should try to be an actual journalist but anyway I digress.

I was searching Technorati for stuff related to the UK music industry, and came across this post on Peer Pressure (a blog attached to AllPeers-a "unique file-sharing application to be released in 2004.") and Matt makes a very good point, in fact a couple of good points. I'd like to think that Apple wanted a DRM-free iTMS and were forced into it by the content providers, and I certainly agree that if content was available without restriction people would pay for it, providing that they found some value to it. I certainly have no problem paying for music, providing I like it, and the only reason that I don't (and I hasten to add I don't generally use P2P to copy music) is that the amount of money that I am paying for a CD is not equivalent to the value I'm getting from the CD.

I also dislike the fact that I can pay for a CD and then not be able to do whatever I like with it, whether that is rip it on to my pc, burn a cd to play in work/car, stick in on my iPod and, probably most illegally, give a copy to a friend saying "listen to this". If I can do all of that legally for a reasonable cost, then for me a CD has value.

I'll even say that I'd be happy with a "micro-payment" system for it: someone gives me a copy of a song (or I download it) and i'm charged maybe 15p every time I listen to it up to the point where I have paid the "full price". This gives the artist a royalty for each listen, and if I don't like it, I've not spent a fortune but if it is something that I really like, I'm not paying for it for ever. Of course this requires some form of DRM, but it would be a much more customer friendly form and would not (hopefully) limit any organic (word of mouth etc) spread.

This looks like a really interesting project, that is being set up by JD Lasica and Marc Canter, which aims to open up repositories of Public Domain and Creative Commons materials as well as setting up a huge repository of Public Domain & CC licensed materials.

It kinda ties up to the couple of blogs that I've been trying to setup promoting the idea of grass roots journalism (Damnit!Someones Got It Already and Glasgow Theatre Underground).

If this project and the BBC Creative Archive could be combined I think that there is gonna be a great resource for, well, everyone.

View image
And the actual site
And yes that is a third monitor on the right...:-D

I was in the pub yesterday with a couple of friends, one of whom mentioned that early rock & roll music has entered the Public Domain after 50 years (on the basis of it being recordings) which means that as this article (via Boing Boing) states means that "That's All Right" is going to enter it on Jan 1 2005. Except that the music industry in Europe is lobbying for the copyright term to be extended by another 45years, thus meaning that early rock and roll will only be availble to buy (if its even still available in any format) until 2050.

Only a couple of the songs would have a commercial value, others are effectively worth nothing and by keeping theses out of PD we loose a valuable commodity showcasing the whole of early Rock'N'Roll, not just the famous artists.

Think of the value of a digital libraries where you could go and listen to the very earliest recordings of a genre and see its development through to the current state.

I would go so far as to suggest that if you have recordings that pre-date 1954, digitise them, start your own archive of recordings. (I 'm not entirely clear that this includes CDs that include recordings from pre-1954 but as far as I can see, as a layman, it should).

View image
Err...surely not? I really don't think that this is infringing anyone!?!

Following on from the Play It Safe In Cyberspace, is good news that the ALA (American Library Association) will be sending materials to school librarians in an attempt to balance the endevours by pro-copyright groups such as the RIAA,MPAA & BSA. (See this article at Wired News)

I agree with the quote from Rick Weingarten ("The idea that elementary-school kids are ripping off business software is a little strange") after all all kids at that age are copying and peddling copies of M$ Office and the like. Ok Disney is probably quite likely but not M$.

The article also highlights other measures that the various copyright groups have set up as well as one or two that the "CopyLeft" groups (EFF etc). However there seems to be a recurring theme in that most of the Copyright groups have substantial funding, and the Copyleft ones don't. So as a resolution to this, I'm definately going to have to start making at least some form of donation to EFF and Privacy Intl. etc.

-Update-
Tim Wu, who is looking after Lawrence Lessig's Blog has linked to this site now, via A.S.Bradbury

More news on the "Stealing is Wrong" lessons for school kids on The Register this time they're looking for the enrolled kids to name their mascot, which is a ferret, appropriate really, although a weasel would have been even better.

I've been trawling around their website....

-Update-
Thanks to Ian Ward who pointed out to me that the "J" after the line is meant to be a smiley...err I'd just like to say, typical of M$ to use a "non-standard" :-) way of doing it!

Was just looking at a web site that Sammiches recommended on the basis of a quite cool strikeout feature for links you've visited, when I can across this blog by Tony Chur, Group Program Manager for IE team, which contains the following paragraph:

We give users more control over their browsing experience in a few ways. First, we block most things from coming up without some user action; for instance, pages can no longer automatically start a download unless the user clicks a link or accepts the download via our new Information Bar UI. We also came up with a very original idea – popup blocking. J Sites can now no longer open windows except when the user clicks a link or button to initiate it. Similarly, sites cannot change your home page without a user click as well.

I draw your attention to the line highlighted...a Very Orginal Idea...popup blocking????errr...since when was that Original?

Once again the paranoia that everyone thinks that the Bush administration suffers from is shown to be true, according to this article on El Reg.

Apparently the Bush administration have connected building plans to Al Quaeda, and decided that these plans must be targets, and that all of this is connected to ongoing plans to sabotage the election in November (easy way to do that...vote for Bush again!)

Fortunately our protector of personal privacy and civil liberties stepped in to berate the Americans shitstirring:

The information on which the Bushies decided to raise the terror alert level is "of dubious worth," Blunkett said, adding that such information should be published "only if it would prove useful in preventing injury and loss of life," which he obviously believes the Bush hysteria would not do.

"There has been column inch after column inch devoted to the fact that in the United States there is often high-profile commentary, followed - as in the most current case - by detailed scrutiny with the potential risk of inviting ridicule,"

yep, i'm talking about David "I've got a prize (and not a good one) named after me" Blunkett.

Senator Orrin Hatch's (R-UT) INDUCE looks like its running into a couple of problems, certainly if Rick Boucher(VA-9), guest posting on Lessig Blog, gets his way. He and John Doolittle have also introduced H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, which looks like it goes someway in redressing the imbalance created by DMCA.

I must remember to try to make one of these meetings if I'm ever in Islamabad, being the BareNaked Ladies fan that I am....errr maybe not...:-)

Some news from the West End of Glasgow which I was quite shocked to hear, but it appears that there is a chance that Tchai Ovna (which is a really cool and charismatic tea shop) may end up going the way of other notables like Insomnia (the old 24hour opening one, not the restricted opening one we have now). According to an article buried in The List (Jul-Aug edition) Glasgow city council has granted planning permission for a block of flats, to be put up next to/in Tchai's garden (which used to be wasteland and not strictly part of Tchai Ovna).

Just what we need more luxury flats in Glasgow's West End, where you'll pay in excess of £100,000 for a nice 2 bed flat, and at the expense of one of the most charismatic places and venues in the whole of Glasgow.

Tchai Ovna (http://www.tchaiovna.com/) was started by Martin Fell and his brother 4 years ago, whilst they were students at Glasgow Uni and since then has become focal point of community, playing host to gigs and poetry readings. And no one would ever be derided for spending some time (or even foregoing a whole night on the piss) in this haven of non-alcoholic beverage.

My experience of Tchai was back when a friend of mine used to run an acoustic open mike night (well a little warning was appreciated), and comprised of about 8 of us trooping down to hear another friend play. We sat about and drank tea...lots of tea.

It was just a flat warming party for a friend of myself and Sammiches (d!SGIA contributors) which has resulted in a rather strange bit of text from Sammiches (posted for posterity on d!SGIA). The important bit for me isn't that, but the fact that I got a taxi home with 2 complete strangers who happened to live in the same part of Glasgow as I do.

It was one of those altruistic/friendly/selfless actions (on their part I hasten to add). A simple "where are you heading?". it is things like that, which help to restore my belief in the genuine humanity that we all share (or should share)...The willingness to reach out to another human being and help them, or at the very least try to connect to them. The end of the ride even included a friendly "we'll pay, no I'll pay, well take this, no, yes, well ok then" exchange over the fare!

Of course I would add that, like Sammiches, I'm rather blurred after the party.

The saga of Katie.com seems to have come to an end with this quotation from PenguinBooks:

"We are not working in association with author Katie Tarbox or any other individual inan attempt to assume ownership of the domain name address www.katie.com. Of course, the personal views of the author are hers and do not represent Plume in any way.

"Going forward, Plume and the author have decided to re-title this book A Girl's Life Online. This is an important book about predatory pedophiles on the Internet and how we can protect our children. We changed the title to keep focus on this issue. The newly titled book will be released next month. We have always taken this situation very seriously. And we hope that by making this title change, it will demonstrate just howdedicated Plume is to clarifying this matter."

Is this a direct result of pressure from Katie Jones, users online, or a genuine about face? Not that it matters, what's important is that the correct and legal owner of the website is still the correct and legal owner of the website.

But oooh there's some stuff on there concerning lawyers trying to strong arm people into doing things. It makes my blood boil, especially when they subsequently deny having any involvement in the debacle, and claim (Via /.)that Katie Jones has been using all of this for her own publicity. I really liked the bit that requires her (Parry Aftab's) advance permission before reproducing the email and the fact that Rob Miles published it without that, afterall sure it is in the public interest?

The various allusions to telephone conversations involving [airquote]threats[/airquote] is almost tempting to start recording all of the conversations I have with people, especially if they end up turning unpleasant. I wonder if anyone could get thei...err forget that I'd hate to be accused of inducing anyone to do something illegal, but I'd love to have heard that conversation, although I probably would have wanted to kill something by the end of it on the basis of what I've been following.

-Update-
As you can see this isn't the last post here, but the first one! I'm now happily using Movable Type. Ok the templates a bit...err blue but I'll dig up a differ one in a while.

This might be the last (well probably second last post) here as I'm
moving this site to my own webspace, and running my own Movable Type
server. I've got tired of waiting for Blogger to put in stuff like
track back and other bits and pieces. That and I've just upgraded the
space so I've got lots of room to play with.
Anyway I'll post up the link to it, if and when I get it up and running
but it'll probably be something like:
"http://www.phoenixproductions.org.uk/mysparebrain/" probably.
--------

According to El Reg the next generation of biometric passports will require your photograph of you to be not smiling. This is further backed up by the guidelines on the UK Passport Office website:

• Applicants must submit two identical photographs, which have been taken in the last six months.
  
• The photos should be printed on normal photographic paper and should be 45 mm x 35 mm in size.
• The photo should show a close up of the applicant’s head and shoulders so that their face covers 70-80% of the photograph.
  
• It should be taken against a white, cream or light grey plain
  background so that the applicant’s features are clearly distinguishable
  against the background.
  
• The photo must be of the applicant on their own, with no
  other people visible. It must show their full face, looking straight at
  the camera, with a neutral expression, with their mouth closed.
  
• Photographs must be printed at 1200 dots per inch resolution or better if they are digital or scanned photos.
  

--------

"Stealing Songs is Wrong lesson's head for UK Schools [-El Reg]
OK now this has gone too far...stop treating us like criminals, give us
an easy and cost effective to get what we want, and maybe then you
won't have to resort to these sorts of "education" programs....eesh. If
have to want to see a film I'll see it somehow, I'd probably wait till
it is formally released, but then being in the UK why do I have to wait
a month until it comes out over here? I'd happily pay my cinema ticket
price to have it available over the net to watch as soon as it's
released, but failing that if I really want to see it I'll half inch
it....I'll probably still goto see it in the cinema if I like it, so
how's Hollywood lost any money, except if it was crap, then they've
missed out on taking my money for something that was (for me)
worthless...hmm that's almost stealing isn't it? And it isn't like
they're missing out on the ticket price for me seeing the film for a
second time, because I don't generally go to see the same film twice in
the cinema (a few notable exceptions). Same principles apply to music,
but unfortunately I can't afford to go out and buy all the CD's of
artists I like because I can't afford to pay £16+ per album, especially
when I may only like 4 songs off it. Suffice to say that iTunes is
rapidly turning into my favourite music shop.
--------

Well it looks like SCO has dropped their litigation proceedings
against...erm well everyone, or at least decided to launch anymore
(this week at least) according to this article on The Register. Better now than later I guess, and they figure that this action is going to make them not
look like a money grabbing, litigatious, anti-open source company? Errr
I think it might be a case of closing that barn door after the horse,
cows and geese have all bolted.
--------

I had a couple of coole things, 1 that I was gonna blog about (on "Damnit! Someones Got It Already")
and 2 for a FireFox extension, except I went out to the pub with my
friend & my flatmate and can't remember what the hell they
were.....damni
--------

You know when things are starting to enter the general public consciousness when they appear in the Metro (for any one who doesn't know, The Metro is an free, ad supported newspaper that distributed on public transport in various cities around the UK). I digress slightly, I was pleased to see in todays(2004-08-04) "The THINK Tank" section that Tank 1:Words was "What is copyleft?", with the answer as "The opposite of Copyright, where an author grants widespread reproduction of his work (with some conditions) rather than monopolising it."

Some stupid things that Jack Valentihas said in the course of his 38
years as head of the MPAA((Motion Pictures Association of American)
courtesy of Tim Wu, who is looking after Lawrence Lessigs' blog while
he's off.
--------

Dan Gilmor is a journalist, who writes for SiliconValley.com and covers all sorts of tech news and copyright etc, and his new book "We The Media"
has been out for a while now, but has now been released by O'Reilly as
a "free" download.
--------

Excellent news...Loserz is on the way back to health, just a couple of
paid for jobs for Erik to do and then we may get them back!
--------

Top 10 things likely to be overheard from a Klingon Programmer

• Specifications are for the weak and timid!
• You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where you stand!
• Indentation?! - I will show you how to indent when I indent your skull!
• What
  is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'.
  Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality
  assurance people in its wake.
• Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.
• Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Our software does not coddle the weak.
• A TRUE Klingon Warrior does not comment on his code!
• Klingon
  software does NOT have BUGS. It has FEATURES, and those features are
  too sophisticated for a Romulan pig like you to understand.
• You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert unless you've read it in the original Klingon.
• Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!

--------

This is one of the suppliers from a Register article about voice recognition and system integration. INITION
--------

I was sure that I had linked to an article I read a couple of months
ago about a new system for increasing drivers' awareness by
(effectively) removing all the markings on the roads, and eliminating
separate pavements for pedestrians, but after trawling through all
250odd posts I can't find it. Anyway I digresss, this is an article on
the Scotsman.com about the same ideas and the start of a study in
Scotland to see if it could be implemented over here.
--------

Once again from BoingBoing but quite interesting so I'll reproduce this
rant from PVP about getting comics syndicated in newspapers.

Why it all began... As Michael Jantze was kind enough to explain, the newspaper comics feature was invented as a tool to sell more newspapers. At the time, there were huge newspaper wars in almost every city as more than one paper would compete for readers. If your paper had a cartoon feature that the other didn't, you could draw more readers to YOUR paper. It was big business and the syndicates made a LOT of money from cartoon features. It was shady and handled in back-rooms sometimes. Michael says the term Yellow journalism was coined because of the sneaky things people did to get a hold of the first cartoon: the Yellow Kid. Over the years, things calmed down some, but competition between papers in the same city was still strong. The syndicated played an important role. They were there to guarantee that cartoon features were edited, family friendly and always delivered on time. The syndicates OWN all the cartoon feature, not the creators themselves. Should a cartoonist crap out, they could just hire someone else to draw it. The papers could buy 10 features and only have to write one check. It was a good system. The syndicates got money for their features and in turn offered something that other newspapers didn't have. Some papers would buy a strip and never publish it, just so the other competing paper couldn't have it on their funny pages. Today things are very different. The days of two paper cities have long past. Now there's one city per paper and competition is dead. In fact, sometimes the papers of many neighboring cities are all owned by one large corporation. Simply put, newspaper competition is over. Newspapers no longer need comic strips to help them sell papers. The comics page has simply become another expense for them. Michael Jantze told the crowd at our panel that a 20 comic funny page could cost a newspaper 150,000 a year. Now think about this, because this is the key to my announcement: newspapers are PAYING the syndicates for the privilege of developing their cartoon brands. Think about this. If Coca-cola wants to use newspaper advertising to strengthen it's brand, it has to pay for that kind of exposure. The syndicates makes millions from their comic features via books, television, movies and merchandise. The only way they are able to sustain that kind of income is due to the exposure and advertising that the newspapers give them. But the syndicates offer nothing in return. The funny pages are full of retreaded old strips that have lived way past their prime. Entertainment wise, they provide nothing. The syndicates really got a sweet deal. But that's about to change.

--------

Piracy is now also a threat to National Security, in addition to funding terrorism.

Our economy is so based on intellectual property ideas
that, unless we can protect them, we're really looking at a situation
where it's going to hurt our ability to survive as a country
-David Israelite, Chairman of Anti-Intellectual Property TaskForce, US
Dept Of Justice

err right ok....
--------

Ever fancied a Sniper rifle? Well here's one for every geek out
there....
--------

Is it possible that there is a regime that is even stupider than the
Americans on copyright? It might just be possible that Australia is,
although it may come on the back of the Americans.
At present it is illegal to copy music you own onto your PC, a measure
that might be draconian but in reality is not strictly enforced, but is
monitored.
A Free Trade Agreement with the USA included adopting tougher laws
based on those in the States. This agreement will, by 2006, mean that
Australians will be subject to the same anti-circumvention laws that
are in effect in the US (under the DMCA). Basically, you can't
design/build/contemplate building/use a tangible or intangible
device/system to circumvent a device or measure designed to protect
content.
The copyright term will also be increased to 70 years after the
creators death [US Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill 2004
Part 6].
Anyway the net effect is that the IPod is in itself not illegal, but
any useful use of it is....except maybe playing recordings of music
that you've written & recorded yourself. And of course if the
INDUCE Act actually makes it onto the books in the States, I'm sure
that there will be a push for everyother one of America's "friends" to
institute a similar statute.
--------

Its Tony Bennett's 78^th birthday today

--------

I've put this up here mainly as a reminder to myself to go and have a read about copyright in the States...Patent Law Primer
--------

This is quite an interesting article about building a supersonic plane,
but without the associated sonic boom. Stuff like this may sort out
that whole noise problem at Heathrow (but then who decides to build a
whole load of houses around the airport???) Popular Science | Whooshhh!
--------

FeedSter Registration!
--------

I was talking to a friend today about a songwriter we know, who's not
letting us hear much of his stuff because he's not "got the copyright"
to them yet, and I was saying that copyright is an automatic right, its
not a thing to have to register (any more). Anyway I've been off at the Copyright Office's web site
and ordered the materials to be sent out, and then was having a quick
look on the net. So here's the quick and dirty guide to proving your
copyright to something (you don't need to get it cos you already have
it!):
There are a number of ways to copyright a song:

• Make sure that you write "© Date, Name" on all of the material that you produce.


• Send a copy (not original) of the material to yourself by registered post. Keep it in a safe place unopened


• Place a copy in a safety deposit box with a
  bank/Solicitor/accountant (or similar professional) in a sealed
  envelope signed & dated by both yourself and the witness. Get a
  recipt on headed paper with all the song title listed.

And
that's pretty much it. I guess the difficult part is proving that it is
yours in the first place, hence why everything is sealed! (note: write
what is in the envelope on it! otherwise you may end up unsealing it
when you get it in the mail! Even better mail the sealed envelope
within another!)
This fragment was adapted from a much longer article on Vocalist.org.uk
--------

hmm that's a little annoying, I thought I'd added a paragraph about
Rosalind Franklin in the obituary for James Crick, but evidentally I
didn't. So just a quick mention that Franklin was a female researcher
working on crystalography and it was some of her data that lead Watson
& Crick to their discovery. Lots of people forget her because she didn't
win the Nobel prize. Unfortunately she died of cancer in 1958, 4 years
before the prize was awarded, and Nobel prizes are not awarded
post-humously.
There are various stories about her being bitter over it or not being
bitter over it etc, so I'll just sit back and admire the contribution
she did make to it, whether anyone at the time asked her permission or
not.
oh and the thing that annoyed me about not having put this on the
earlier post, is that I knew this already, but BoingBoing.net had to remind me...
--------

In the case of a terrorist attack you should check out this web site or is it this one?...I
can't tell the difference (honest gov(ernment)!), coz I iz stoopid!
That said a "Department Of Vague Paranoia" is entire in keeping with
the Government at the moment (that and the Big Brother Life Achievement
award being renamed in honor of one "The Right Honourable Home
Secretary, David Blunkett MP" (MP in this case meaning Massively
Paraonoid)
--------