Damn, you really need to make that patent available for use under a Creative Commons license or some such. The world could use a whole lot more "getting it".

Delve Deeper:
Part one of the series: vimeo.com/84022735
The series was part inspired by Mastery by Robert Greene
amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B009U1U2IU/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B009U1U2IU&linkCode=as2&tag=adammeetsworl-21
You can read more about Leonardo daVinci's difficult years in: "Da Vinci's Ghost: Genius, Obsession and how Leonard Created the World in his Own Image" by Toby Lester amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1439189242/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=1439189242&linkCode=as2&tag=adammeetsworl-21
This series began life as a couple of essays on Medium
Difficult medium.com/i-m-h-o/a7f8bdabd67b
47 years to success medium.com/the-dept-for-dangerous-ideas/8654ee14e4b2
====
Released under a Creative Commons Licence 3.0 - Remix & share with non-commercial attribution
Credits:
All paintings and archive in the Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons & Prelinger Archives
The Craig Ferguson Show © CBS
Music released under a Creative Commons Licence
"Lullaby" by _ghost (soundcloud.com/ghost-14)
"Hungaria" by Latché Swing (jamendo.com/en/artist/latche_swing_(3)
"July" by Marcel Pequel (last.fm/music/Marcel+Pequel)
"One" by Marcel Pequel (last.fm/music/Marcel+Pequel)
"Todo se precipita a tu alrededor deprisa" by Ruido Blanco
John Coltrane By Gelderen, Hugo van / Anefo [CC-BY-SA-3.0-nl (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/nl/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons
John Lennon By Roy Kerwood [CC-BY-2.5 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons
Sir Alec Guinness By Allan warren → allanwarren.com [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons
Tim Berners Lee By John S. and James L. Knight Foundation [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Rafael Nadal By Steven Byles from Singapore, Singapore (Rafael Nadal Uploaded by russavia) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Steve Jobs By Matthew YoheAido2002 at en.wikipedia [CC-BY-3.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], from Wikimedia Commons
Bill Gates By Kees de Vos from The Hague, The Netherlands [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Richard Branson By David Shankbone [CC-BY-3.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Bob Dylan by Chris Hakkens
Horse statue By Jenny Poole from London, UK (Skopje horse statue Uploaded by raso_mk) [CC-BY-2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Mark Zuckerberg :Credit line on the web (with hyperlink): Guillaume Paumier, CC-BY.
One Direction: Fiona McKinlay
Miley Cyrus: Mike Schmid
Taylor Swift: By Eva Rinaldi from Sydney Australia (Taylor Swift Uploaded by russavia) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Subtitles:
Spanish by Ana Ribera Molinos about.me/anaribera
Portuguese by Gustavo Silveira
Story Design and Production by Adam Westbrook
adamwestbrook.co.uk
Published by
delve.tv

DELVE DEEPER
For more on Leonardo DaVinci's little known early years take a look at:
"Da Vinci's Ghost: Genius, Obsession and how Leonard Created the World in his Own Image" by Toby Lester amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1439189242/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=1439189242&linkCode=as2&tag=adammeetsworl-21
"Leonardo and the age of the eye" by Ritchie Calder
"Mastery" by Robert Greene amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B009U1U2IU/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B009U1U2IU&linkCode=as2&tag=adammeetsworl-21
This series began life as a couple of essays on Medium
Difficult medium.com/i-m-h-o/a7f8bdabd67b
47 years to success medium.com/the-dept-for-dangerous-ideas/8654ee14e4b2
Sources:
All paintings and archive in the Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons & Prelinger Archives
Ultimate Fails Compilation: youtube.com/watch?v=Ujwod-vqyqA
The Craig Ferguson Show © CBS
Music released under a Creative Commons Licence
"Nola" by Broke for Free soundcloud.com/broke-for-free
"Lullaby" by _ghost soundcloud.com/ghost-14
With extracts from:
"Frozen Star" by Kevin Macleod incompetech.com
"William Tell Overture" by Giachino Rossini
Translations:
Spanish by: Elena Sanchez
Portuguese: Gustavo Silveira
Story Design and Production by Adam Westbrook
adamwestbrook.co.uk
Published by
delve.tv

Lawrence "Larry" Lessig
is an American academic and political activist. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark, and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications, and he has called for state-based activism to promote substantive reform of government with a Second Constitutional Convention.
He is a director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University and a professor of law at Harvard Law School. Prior to rejoining Harvard, he was a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. Lessig is a founding board member of Creative Commons, a board member of the Software Freedom Law Center, an advisory board member of the Sunlight Foundation and a former board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig


Chris Hedges
is an American journalist, author, and war correspondent, specializing in American and Middle Eastern politics and societies.
Chris Hedges is currently a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City. He spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, and The New York Times, where he was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges

Okay, I downloaded it. Can you point to the specific passage you are referring to that suggests that there is an inverse correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profitability? (I assume that to be your assertion). Or even the passage you are citing as quantitative evidence that there is in fact a financial benefit to copyright holders from piracy?

Everything I've read so far agrees with most everything I've said.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^bmacs27:
@dgandhi
I can almost guarantee you that the copyrights that have had more spent on enforcement have been more profitable. Just as I can guarantee you that the ones that have been more profitable have probably also been more pirated. You only asked for a correlation man.
The fact is, no convincing evidence has been presented either way.

While nobody here has presented such evidence in this thread, I have claimed that I have seen it, and nobody has made a counter claim of facts , if you want the details of these facts, you can read/listen_to/search ( legally & for free ) Prof Lessig's creative commons licensed book on the issue : http://www.manybooks.net/titles/lessiglother04free_culture.html
I would like to see you debunk his work, or even back up your "almost guarantee" of correlation with facts instead of conjecture.

>> ^bmacs27:

@dgandhi
I can almost guarantee you that the copyrights that have had more spent on enforcement have been more profitable. Just as I can guarantee you that the ones that have been more profitable have probably also been more pirated. You only asked for a correlation man.
The fact is, no convincing evidence has been presented either way.


While nobody here has presented such evidence in this thread, I have claimed that I have seen it, and nobody has made a counter claim of facts , if you want the details of these facts, you can read/listen_to/search ( legally & for free ) Prof Lessig's creative commons licensed book on the issue : http://www.manybooks.net/titles/lessiglother04free_culture.html

I would like to see you debunk his work, or even back up your "almost guarantee" of correlation with facts instead of conjecture.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
First up, read my original post. I do not, in any way shape or form support SOPA or PIPA. In fact, I abhor them. So you can leave the childish "government thugs" line out of it.
As to the rest of your arguments, I'm not going to pay you to take a dump, because I don't want your dump. If I did want your "output", I would expect to pay you for it.
As for "extracting the tribute I'm owed", I don't believe I'm owed a damn thing, until you use what I've created, in which case, pay me. If you don't want to use it, fine. But it's still my ip that I worked hard on. It's not "imaginary" property, it is intellectual property and the principal has been around for longer than you would believe (look up the story of Colm Cille copying art works in medieval Ireland).
The quality of the work is irrelevant. If Transformers or CoD or whatever is so shit, don't watch/play it.
As for these posts, I'm pretty sure that when you signed up to this site, we agreed that posts were made under creative commons, or are the property of siftbot or whatever. The point is that there is no expectation of remuneration here. I have no problem with people sharing their content or whatever, but it's still their decision to make.

Do we really have to go over the differences between physical property and indefinitely replicable information?
If you create something, create it for yourself and be satisfied. If I like it, I'm going to use it. That's how our culture advances.
Do you realise how devastating it would have been to human progress if IP had always been around stifling the propagation of new ideas and technologies? I wonder if we'd have made it to the bronze age yet.


Bollocks, ip doesn't stifle innovation, it encourages it. Take pharmaceuticals for instance, without patent protection companies simply couldn't afford the millions required to research new drugs (yes, drug companies are evil, etc, but theyre still kinda important).

As for the difference between physical property and intellectual property, are you really saying that a sculptor deserves compensation for their work, but a writer/musician/programmer doesn't?

That kind of attitude is why idiotic laws like this get written in the first place.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
First up, read my original post. I do not, in any way shape or form support SOPA or PIPA. In fact, I abhor them. So you can leave the childish "government thugs" line out of it.
As to the rest of your arguments, I'm not going to pay you to take a dump, because I don't want your dump. If I did want your "output", I would expect to pay you for it.
As for "extracting the tribute I'm owed", I don't believe I'm owed a damn thing, until you use what I've created, in which case, pay me. If you don't want to use it, fine. But it's still my ip that I worked hard on. It's not "imaginary" property, it is intellectual property and the principal has been around for longer than you would believe (look up the story of Colm Cille copying art works in medieval Ireland).
The quality of the work is irrelevant. If Transformers or CoD or whatever is so shit, don't watch/play it.
As for these posts, I'm pretty sure that when you signed up to this site, we agreed that posts were made under creative commons, or are the property of siftbot or whatever. The point is that there is no expectation of remuneration here. I have no problem with people sharing their content or whatever, but it's still their decision to make.


Do we really have to go over the differences between physical property and indefinitely replicable information?

If you create something, create it for yourself and be satisfied. If I like it, I'm going to use it. That's how our culture advances.

Do you realise how devastating it would have been to human progress if IP had always been around stifling the propagation of new ideas and technologies? I wonder if we'd have made it to the bronze age yet.

>> ^gorillaman:

I spend time and effort taking a dump. I don't expect you to pay me for it.
If you can monetize your creativity, great. Do it without calling in government thugs to extract the tribute you imagine you're owed from anyone who presumes to interact with your imaginary property.
The guy who gets coffee for the director is paid for his work. You're suggesting I owe him, what, his future job security? Come on. Tell him to go home, get a webcam and produce his own content for literally a millionth of the cost of the primitive, bloated, dying industry he leaves behind.
How much are we getting paid to make these posts? Love of the craft, man.


First up, read my original post. I do not, in any way shape or form support SOPA or PIPA. In fact, I abhor them. So you can leave the childish "government thugs" line out of it.

As to the rest of your arguments, I'm not going to pay you to take a dump, because I don't want your dump. If I did want your "output", I would expect to pay you for it.

As for "extracting the tribute I'm owed", I don't believe I'm owed a damn thing, until you use what I've created, in which case, pay me. If you don't want to use it, fine. But it's still my ip that I worked hard on. It's not "imaginary" property, it is intellectual property and the principal has been around for longer than you would believe (look up the story of Colm Cille copying art works in medieval Ireland).

The quality of the work is irrelevant. If Transformers or CoD or whatever is so shit, don't watch/play it.

As for these posts, I'm pretty sure that when you signed up to this site, we agreed that posts were made under creative commons, or are the property of siftbot or whatever. The point is that there is no expectation of remuneration here. I have no problem with people sharing their content or whatever, but it's still their decision to make.

If I get thrown in the can for posting to the Sift...will I qualify for a badge to add to my profile???

On a seperate..yet somehow similar note...YouTube has rolled out the ability to post and use vids that are licensed via Creative Commons.

Interesting.

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2011/06/youtube-and-creative-commons-raising.html

If anybody is interested you can download their first album for free from Jamendo.com http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/49216
I'ts creative commons licensed so it's perfectly legal.

This song however is from their second album which is not CC licensed so if you want it you'll have to buy it.

http://www.creativepro.com/article/build-a-tilt-shift-camera-lens-peanuts

DIY Tilt Shift Lens.

Sure you can buy one. But their expensive, no not expensive, fucking expensive. You can also use photoslop to do it.

Tutorial here for photoslop.
http://blog.georgegumpert.com/2007/03/27/photoshop-tilt-shift/

For those of us who like Opensource Creative Commons software GIMP can also do tilt shift.

http://gimparoo.blogspot.com/2007/02/fake-tilt-shift.html

^The rest of it is in a whooping 21GB 7 hour HD movie in a bittorrent at nrkbeta.no

It's released under a Creative Commons license.

I'm reading Accelerando by Charles Stross, because it was one of very few books available as free (Creative Commons) ebooks on my ipod touch.

It didn't start out super well-written, but it takes place during Kurzweil's singularity, so now I can't put it down due to the sheer amount of posthuman wish-fulfillment.

Update: It seems the amazon voting buttons don't lock if I refresh the page after I've voted?? I may have snuck in an illicit extra vote for Diamond Age...

Luckily for you I licensed that image under the Creative Commons. Otherwise I'd have already mounted your ass above my fireplace.

In reply to this comment by EDD:
http://blankfist.videosift.com/#comment-694924