Shuttle launched today. This is the mission that was originally due to lift off in July, but those damn little leaks stopped things for a while. I'm looking at the Yahoo news fotos slideshow. Here are a couple of thumbs:
One of the advantages of having seen a launch and posted launch photos, is that, thanks to Google, people find them then email me with questions. I've been correpsonding with someone who attended today's launch from the Banana Creek viewing site.
What photo tips could I offer, or information about the lenses that I used? My advice: Don't shoot. Get a pair of binoculars and watch. That bird flies far too fast to waste your time shooting. (Especially if there's any cloud cover, else the shuttle will fly behind it at the best times). Other people shoot the liftoff. Get pictures from them. Silly silly silly. I heard several people say that in the few days before the launch. Did I pay attention? Sort of. I gave myself permission to stop shooting and watch. By that time, though, that cloud had shown up. I am curious to hear how it went for my correspondent.
And the band played on.... silently
Breathe deep the gathering gloom.
Lots of follow up on the Supremes and the Sonny Bono act. Don't know if I can get it all.
(oh, how I wanted to make up a joke about Sonny Bono suffering mightily in purgatory, and the tortures will last as long as copyright extension remains in effect. But my attempts were lousy and maudlin. You get the idea. Repentance beyond the grave. They extended copyright again? aiyeeeeee! oucccch! oh noooooooo.)
- Good background reading: Lessig's blog in the eldred.cc category
- Glenn Reynolds, law professor and Instapundit, discusses it in his new MSNBC space
- Wired News: Court Deaf to Public Domain Pleas
- Washington Post Jonathan Zittraine online chat transcript Zittrain was co-counsel with Larry Lessig for Eldred.
- Others have noted the NY Times editorial The coming of copyright perpetuity "the beginning of the end of the public domain"
- LATimes covers it as a Hollywood ending.
The first two-thirds are devoted to how this is a win for the industry and what a financial blow it would be, etc. if the other guys won. Not till the last third do we even get a treatment of what the other side thinks. A spokesperson says that all these outfits are pleased as punch: Writers Guild of America, the Directors Guild of America, Screen Actors Guild, the American Federation of Musicians and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.
- Salon Technology: After the Copyright Meltdown, What Next?
- Backgrounder (11/22/02): John Bloom on Copyright Infringement Analysis written after oral arguments but before the decision came down. A "What's it all about?" piece.
- Great comments in Lessig's blog. Of many thought-provoking posts, this one by Alexy Mertz in particular stuck out (I'd've linked to it, but Lessig's comments do not have individual permalinks and there are close to 150 comments as of now:
Well, you did the right things, Larry, but seven of nine did not. What a ghastly ruling.
As an early-career scientist I have been watching Eldredge v. A. closely. Each time I publish a paper I must sign a form that turns my copyright interest over to the publisher. When the publisher is a professional society - particularly one of which I am a member - this is not a severe problem because I have a reasonable expectation that my work will be handled responsibly over the long run, even if the work does not pass into the public domain. More often I must donate (or spend grant money to transfer) the copyright to Blackwell (Molecular Microbiology) or Elsevier (Current Biology, Cell) or Macmillan (Nature). Given the nature of consolidation in the publishing industry over the last few years I do not have any assurance that my work will be well-treated by its new, for-profit, beholden-solely-to-shareholders owners.
Until today I had as consolation some reasonable expectation that my work would ulitmately pass into the public domain, even if it is mishandled in intervening years. This is no loger true: as of today I have no assurance that my or my colleagues’ scientific work will EVER pass into the public domain where it belongs and where the public has every right to expect it to reside. (Added irony is provided by the fact that a huge proportion of said science is paid for by tax dollars.) The SCOTUS decision has violated the founders’ explicit mandate that copyright exists to promote science (and the useful arts).
Now as scientists we MUST build alternative structures (e.g., the Public Library of Science) which will allow us to communicate our work AND ensure that it will pass into the commons.
Someone's suing, lord, kumbaya.... It's old news, but telling: 8-23-96: Wall Street Journal: ASCAP extorts money (well, okay, it's technically legal) from Girl Scouts so they can sing around the campfire.
"They buy paper, twine and glue for their crafts -- they can pay for the music, too," says John Lo Frumento, Ascap's chief operating officer. If offenders keep singing without paying, he says, "we will sue them if necessary." No more "Edelweiss" free of charge. No more "This Land Is Your Land." An Ascap spokesman says "Kumbaya" isn't on its list, but "God Bless America" is.8/26/96: ASCAP backpeddles.
ASCAP has never sought, nor was it ever its intention, to license Girl Scouts singing around a campfire. ASCAP has never brought nor threatened to bring suit against the Girl Scouts. Any reports to the contrary are absolutely false. Yes, but wasn't that quote above from ASCAP's COO?8/28/96 Wall Street Story about ASCAP's reversal:
In a contrite statement Monday, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers said it has "never sought, nor was it ever its intention, to license Girl Scouts singing around the campfire." The society also said it will reimburse 16 girl scout councils that did pay fees this summer ranging from $77 to $257 for the right to sing songs.