Copyright Insanity: The Need To Get Licenses Just To Demonstrate A Legal Point

from the that-seems-problematic dept

Wed, Jul 1st 2009 2:34pm — Mike Masnick

Over at Against Monopoly, Alistair Kelman, points out yet another quirky problem with copyright law. He's discussing a book by Ron Rosen, who was the attorney for famed composer John Williams in fighting a copyright infringement claim saying that Williams copied a phrase in the score for the movie E.T.. The book is called Music and Copyright, and (according to Kelman) is quite a worthwhile read in thinking about some of the modern legal issues that will be faced thanks to mashups and other musical compositions that run up against copyright questions.

Kelman's one issue with the book, is that it would really be aided quite a bit by being able to hear the actual music in question, rather than just seeing the musical notation. So, the suggestion was, why did Rosen put up an online video lecture, playing the music samples so that people could better understand the issues at play. The answer, it turns out, is copyright law. Rosen wrote Kelman, noting:

"...about the need for aural examples, that is something we wanted to do for this edition, but as a new publication, the need for licenses and the budget foreclosed our doing so."

So even though this is a somewhat scholarly effort to look at these issues, apparently Rosen can't even demonstrate his points with music, because copyright forbids it, and requires hefty licensing fees. If ever there were a case where "fair use" should apply, this would seem to be it -- but I'm sure some would argue against that point since this book is a "for-profit" endeavor. Of course, whether something is commercial or not is only one of the four fair use factors, and it seems that if it's just a snippet of the music, a strong fair use case could be made (especially since it's hard to see how this could possibly harm the market for the music itself). However, as copyright system defenders love to point out on a regular basis, they see fair use as a "defense, rather than a right" and thus, the only way to prove that this is fair use would be to go to court -- something that is expensive and time consuming. What an unfortunate state of affairs.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, education, fair use, licensing, music, ron rosen

64 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2009 @ 2:53pm

Is he trying to publish he entire song, or just a very short extract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
suckerpunch-tm, 1 Jul 2009 @ 3:19pm

Is the concept of 'fair use' deemed to only include not-for-profit entities?
Aren't news channels 'for profit'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 9:28am
  
  Re:
  Is the concept of 'fair use' deemed to only include not-for-profit entities?
  Aren't news channels 'for profit'?
  
  yes, but they are owned by large media conglomerates. the rules are different for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geoffrey Kidd, 1 Jul 2009 @ 3:19pm

Unfortunate by design
Copyrights, patents, trademarks are all "unfortunate by design." Their entire purpose, as stated, are to provide a supposedly-limited monopoly in order to insure that creators of new and useful/entertaining things are compensated for the time and effort needed to create them.

However, once you have something that creates a barrier to competition with existing interests, those interests have a strong (very strong) incentive to pervert the system into removing the word "limited" in front of the word "monopoly."

As the Chinese might put it: "Everybody wants an iron rice bowl."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 1 Jul 2009 @ 3:24pm

Once again
...you have an obvious fair use situation, so long as you're willing to pay the "court tax" if called on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2009 @ 3:33pm

Sometimes you have to frame the question in another way.

What would happen if I wrote a book on "the great movie music of the 20th century", and decided to include a CD with every copy of the book? All the great songs in one place, say 20 chapters as I look at the 20 great songs from the movies.

I sell the book for, I dunno, $39.95. What part of that price is the CD?

Put another way, if a company was selling a CD of the "20 greatest movie themes of the 20th Century", how much would they sell it for retail? Probably $19.95 or so.

So my book is worth $20, and the music is worth $19.95

Sort of makes sense that the people who SELL music would be a little upset if I am upselling my own work by giving away a "free" CD, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gordon, 1 Jul 2009 @ 4:24pm
  
  Re:
  Hey Retard,
  You're the same RIAA employee that keeps trolling this site aren't you? Please do your self a favor and read the article again. NOT whole songs. just the snippets in question of songs. If ONE bar of a song is in question by say John Williams possibly copying then the notes in question would have been played, not the whole song.
  You really need to read the articles. You would think if they are employing you you might have a little more sense. Although every time I read one of your troll remarks it's always the same tired old shit rhetoric. "We own it, you use it for ANYTHING (even it seems a small pert of it to prove a point), We (the overbearing dark age retards who don't have enough money yet) will sue you to the stone age.
  
  Don't get me wrong I agree with copyright to a degree on music and other things. The artist/inventor/innovator should get paid for their time and effort. But for this guy to have to get heavy licensing for the purpose of displaying the points of his book using probably 5-10 snippets of music? The RIAA should be legislated out of existence.
  Just a thought.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gordon, 1 Jul 2009 @ 4:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He must have read it again.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2009 @ 5:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I guess I have to ask the obvious question:
    
    What part of "they own it" don't you get?
    
    Do you get "fair use" of your neighbor's car?
    
    Nobody has answered the question yet as to how long the music clips are, but I suspect they are much longer than 10 seconds.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jul 2009 @ 7:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What part of "they own it" don't you get?
      
      As the creator of something you own the original. You don't own the copies.
      
      Do you get "fair use" of your neighbor's car?
      
      No, because there's only one copy of it, and if you use it, they can't. That's not true with music.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - chris (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 9:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What part of "they own it" don't you get?
      
      Do you get "fair use" of your neighbor's car?
      
      yeah yeah we've heard it all before: you wouldn't steal a car, piracy supports terrorism, think of the artists, the rights agencies collect money for song writers who can't tour, the pirate bay makes billions of dollars in offshore accounts, blah blah blah.
      
      you always say the same shit and we always refute it point by point and you keep coming back with the same shit. tell your handlers that you need more material.
      
      i guess i have to ask the obvious question:
      
      what part of "the conversation has moved on" don't you get?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glaze, 1 Jul 2009 @ 3:45pm

The 7 second rule
This would be a good example where the seven second rule could apply, find the most "note" worthy portion of the song, the ones that someone would remember, etc. and post only 7 seconds of it. Anything audio or video can be used up to 7 seconds before copyright law and the need for licensing fees come into affect. i don't know if I just wanted to hear a snippet of music, I think 7 seconds would be all that it would take for me to hear what they are trying accomplish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Fiercedeity (profile), 1 Jul 2009 @ 5:06pm
  
  Re: The 7 second rule
  What if the segment in question was longer than 7 seconds? I don't think there can be a hard and fast rule as to how much of a work you can use for it to still be fair use. It'd have to be flexible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 1 Jul 2009 @ 5:55pm

Oh my GOD!
"Do you get "fair use" of your neighbor's car?"

Holy fucking christ WILL YOU PEOPLE STOP WITH THE IMPROPER ANALOGIES ALREADY???

A car is a SINGULAR, PHYSICAL ITEM. You cant replicate it easily, you cant make a digital copy of it, you cant xerox it, you cant copy "snippets" of it. SHUT THE FUCK UP PLEASE.

Copyright is about limiting REPLICATION of something. Until we get star trek replicators that can duplicate anything for cheap or free, your dumb-as-shit car analogies DO NOT APPLY and are an incorrect comparison.

Also, they dont "own" it, they are granted LIMITED exclusive rights for a LIMITED time on copyrighted works.

FAIL

tard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2009 @ 6:29pm
  
  Re: Oh my GOD!
  RD, it's called valium, you should try some.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 3:38am
    
    Re: Re: Oh my GOD!
    It's called your ass, you should get your head out of it or you'll asphyxiate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2009 @ 6:38pm

Hefty licensing fees?
So even though this is a somewhat scholarly effort to look at these issues, apparently Rosen can't even demonstrate his points with music, because copyright forbids it, and requires hefty licensing fees.

I missed the part about the licensing fees being hefty in the portion you quoted. Was that in another part of the article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 11:49am
  
  Re: Hefty licensing fees?
  I missed the part about the licensing fees being hefty in the portion you quoted. Was that in another part of the article?
  
  Given the fact that it was clearly considered out of reach, while it would obviously benefit the overall book, it's quite reasonable to assume the licenses (or even the process of determining who needs to be paid and how much) would, in fact, be hefty. If it were not, it would have been done.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lonnie E. Holder, 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:31pm
    
    Re: Re: Hefty licensing fees?
    Perhaps it is reasonable to assume that the fees are "hefty," and perhaps not. In either case, your use of the word "hefty" throws bias into the story that was not previously there. You could have said that "the fees for licensing exceeded their budget," which would have been entirely accurate even though we do not know whether budget was exceeded by $1 or $100 or $1,000 or $100,000. The first two are not hefty unless you are five years old, poverty stricken or live in a third world country (so you could have said that a member of the third world would have considered the licensing fees "hefty"). The fourth is clearly hefty. The third may be hefty, and may not be, depending on factors not presented. We have no reference for "hefty."
    
    Books of this type often sell thousands of copies, not tens of thousands, so "hefty" in this case could easily be $500 (meaning that licensing fees might only have been that amount).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Hefty licensing fees?
    Apparently, a "hefty" restaurant bill is $980.
    
    http://apnews.excite.com/article/20090702/D9969O501.html
    
    I would consider $980 "hefty" for a restaurant bill. Now, how does that compare to licenses for bits of music for a book?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 1 Jul 2009 @ 7:11pm

RTFA
"I missed the part about the licensing fees being hefty in the portion you quoted. Was that in another part of the article?"

Then try to RTFA again.

The author didnt put that stuff in because of the expense of the licensing fees being too high. To wit:

"...about the need for aural examples, that is something we wanted to do for this edition, but as a new publication, the need for licenses and the budget foreclosed our doing so."

Might try reading comprehension, its not just for net trolls anymore!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 5:40am
  
  Re: RTFA
  RD:
  
  You quoted the following statement from the article:
  
  "...about the need for aural examples, that is something we wanted to do for this edition, but as a new publication, the need for licenses and the budget foreclosed our doing so."
  
  You then claimed that this statement justified the use of the word "hefty" by Mike.
  
  When a book is published, a budget is established for the book. If $5,000 was budgeted for the book, and the cost of paper, binding, advertising, etc., came to $4990, then $10 left over likely would not have permitted licensing of the music.
  
  So, if your comprehension of "hefty" includes $10, then I guess you are right. Otherwise, you are still assuming facts not presented by the original article.
  
  It is true that I am assuming that $10 was left over, but not really. I merely wondered how a statement about budgeting for the book leads to a presumption that fees for licensing are "hefty." For all we know the licensing fees were ten cents per book, but with an initial run of 5000 books the fees would have been $500 and the budget did not have $500 left. Now, ten cents on the price of a $20 or $30 book is hardly "hefty." The gross amount of $500 is closer to "hefty," but again that is a relative term. I merely ask for clarification as to how Mike was able to go from "insufficient money in the budget" to "hefty."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 9:47am
    
    Re: Re: RTFA
    It is true that I am assuming that $10 was left over, but not really. I merely wondered how a statement about budgeting for the book leads to a presumption that fees for licensing are "hefty." For all we know the licensing fees were ten cents per book, but with an initial run of 5000 books the fees would have been $500 and the budget did not have $500 left. Now, ten cents on the price of a $20 or $30 book is hardly "hefty." The gross amount of $500 is closer to "hefty," but again that is a relative term. I merely ask for clarification as to how Mike was able to go from "insufficient money in the budget" to "hefty."
    
    you are absolutely right. mike is a damn dirty liar for making assumptions.
    
    you on the otherhand, with your assumptions and hand waving, are a shining monument to integrity.
    hefty clearly doesn't translate to "doesn't fit our budget", it clearly translates to some numbers that some anonymous coward made up.
    
    thanks for clearing up this matter.
    
    mike: i expect to see your full apology on the front page of the website forthwith.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 11:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: RTFA
      Excuse me, Chris, but you will note that I neither "hand waved" or made "assumptions," but, as I clearly noted,I provided an alternative explanation for the language used in the article.
      
      I repeat my earlier request. How do we go from "doesn't fit our budget" to "hefty" licensing fees?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - chris (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        you will note that I neither "hand waved" or made "assumptions,"
        
        my mistake, i must have misread "It is true that I am assuming" to mean that it was true that you were assuming something.
        
        I repeat my earlier request. How do we go from "doesn't fit our budget" to "hefty" licensing fees?
        
        heft·y (hěf'tē) adjective
        Of considerable size or amount
        
        an amount that does not fit into the budget is considerable, or at the very least deserves some consideration.
        
        this is especially true in the context of publications that criticize copyright because copyright critics are all cheap bastards who don't really care about innovation or enrichment and just want everything for free.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        So, if the fees exceeded the budget by $300 they are hefty?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        Quotes from earlier post:
        
        I merely wondered how a statement about budgeting for the book leads to a presumption that fees for licensing are "hefty."
        
        Looking for assumptions...nope, only wondering why someone else was presuming "hefty" from exceeding a budget by an unspecified amount.
        
        For all we know the licensing fees were ten cents per book...
        
        A bit of speculation, yes. Assumption? No.
        
        I merely ask for clarification as to how Mike was able to go from "insufficient money in the budget" to "hefty."
        
        Looking at your post, you are assuming that Mike's assumption that the budget was exceeded by a "considerable amount" is accurate, even though there is not one iota of evidence to back up that it was exceeded by a "considerable amount," or even what the definition of "considerable amount" is.
        
        If we investigate and find the budget was exceeded by amount X, then that amount is "hefty," by assumption (not MY assumption, but Mike's and apparently yours). Since we only know the budget was exceeded and not by how much, then the amount could be anywhere from one cent to an infinite amount of money. It is unlikely that they would have balked at a nominal amount, but we are uncertain what they would have defined as a "nominal" amount. Here I will make an assumption and assume that they would have proceeded with any amount up to $500. That means that $500 would be "hefty." As long as everyone is fine with that definition, wonderful. I just wanted to be sure that how "hefty" related to, say, the price of a car, the cost of a home, or the national debt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 5:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        A bit of speculation, yes. Assumption? No.
        
        ahh yes, the bill clinton defense. classy choice considering the gravity of this issue and what is at stake here.
        
        even though there is not one iota of evidence to back up that it was exceeded by a "considerable amount," or even what the definition of "considerable amount" is.
        
        woah, easy on the speculation, sir. perhaps we should first define what "is" is, then proceed to defining what "definition" is. if we can tackle those thorny issues, perhaps we can then approach what "if" means, and if we manage to get past that, then we can go into the difference between speculation and and assumption.
        
        Here I will make an assumption and assume that they would have proceeded with any amount up to $500.
        
        woah woah woah, you can't just go and assume. dirty bastards like mike assume. i hoped you wouldn't stoop so low as to assume, and assuming with made up numbers? made up numbers are what caused all this drama to begin with. i am very disappointed. i had such high hopes for us :-(
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 11:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: RTFA
      Aren't you mixing up posts? Mike was the one posting about "hefty" fees. The later posts were trying to figure out how "hefty" came about, given that the original article did not use the word "hefty."
      
      Since you seem to be the master of all knowledge, perhaps you might enlighten us as to what "hefty" means in terms of licensing fees?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - chris (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        Aren't you mixing up posts? Mike was the one posting about "hefty" fees. The later posts were trying to figure out how "hefty" came about, given that the original article did not use the word "hefty."
        
        i don't think so, mike said it was reasonable to assume that a licensing fee that was out of reach of a person's budget could be considered "hefty".
        
        then an anonymous coward stepped in with some made up numbers to show that mike's assumption was not reasonable based on AC's assumptions, thereby dispelling mike's previous assumption as unreasonable and asserting the AC's own assumption as reasonable. really, it's all very simple.
        
        Since you seem to be the master of all knowledge, perhaps you might enlighten us as to what "hefty" means in terms of licensing fees?
        
        oh no my friend, i don't know everything. i simply read people's posts in their entirety and don't get my feelings hurt when someone is sarcastic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 1:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        The so-called "made up numbers" were merely a suggestion as to what the numbers could have been. I certainly do not know what they were. However, neither does Mike. He is only assuming they are "hefty" because they exceeded budget. That sounds as "made up" as any of the numbers I gave earlier.
        
        Furthermore, if I sounded sarcastic, that was not my intent. My intent was to understand the context of "hefty." Seems I have longer to wait.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 5:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        The so-called "made up numbers" were merely a suggestion as to what the numbers could have been.
        
        of course they are, and i stand by my assertion that your assumption dispelled mikes assumption, thanks to your numbers that don't really exist. this is excellent work you are doing here, making the world safe from assumptions other than your own.
        
        Furthermore, if I sounded sarcastic, that was not my intent.
        
        i have doubt at that you are completely sincere, that's why this is so entertaining.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 8:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        I believe you miss the point, completely. The original question has never been answered, regardless of assumption, counter-assumption, gumption, and bumption. It appears that "hefty" has been used in an extension of the original article even though "hefty" was never justified by that article, and there has been no explanation as to what hefty means.
        
        Mike notes in a response that the amount was "out of reach," but again, that tells us...NOTHING, because we do not know whether "out of reach" was defined by the budget (which is a common occurrence in projects), or whether it was defined by the ability (or even willingness) of participants in the project to pay.
        
        If we go any further than this, we risk making an assumption.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 3 Jul 2009 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        I believe you miss the point, completely.
        
        no, i understand the point completely. you want to bash mike, this blog, and the people who post here.
        
        you can't accept that licensing fees prevented the author from making his point about how absurd copyright has become and complain about the use of a word in order to derail the conversation with unknown/made up numbers.
        
        the copyright argument is always about getting free music, right? it's always about cheap bastards who want to steal your back catalog. it's never about creativity, innovation, or free speech. it's never about advancing the useful arts and sciences. that's your point, right? that against monopoly, techdirt, and people who don't agree with copyright in it's current implementation are just cheap, lazy, and ungrateful, right?
        
        people want to create things and the copyright system, a system supposedly developed to protect peoples creations, prevents that at a number of turns. one such example is the fact that making fair use of a small portion of a copyrighted work in a scholarly discussion is not protected by the copyright system and one must either pay to obtain clearance for using that work, or pay to prove fair use in a court of law. either way, the author must pay up or not include the material. the author chose to not include the material. you copyright types should be happy about that.
        
        so you can go to the mat over mike's use of the word hefty, because the article doesn't include any numbers, but it doesn't change the fact that a work that is critical of the copyright system couldn't make it's point thanks to the machinations of the copyright system.
        
        It appears that "hefty" has been used in an extension of the original article even though "hefty" was never justified by that article, and there has been no explanation as to what hefty means.
        
        i went with the webster's definition. if you don't accept the webster's definition, i'm not sure you will accept any definition.
        
        we do not know whether "out of reach" was defined by the budget (which is a common occurrence in projects), or whether it was defined by the ability (or even willingness) of participants in the project to pay.
        
        and why does that matter? if i want to create something, and copyright prevents it, and the point of copyright is to protect creative works, then either there is something wrong with the copyright system or the point of the copyright system is not to protect creative works but to some other end, perhaps preventing creativity by small independent creators or perhaps generating revenue from licensing fees.
        
        out of reach means out of reach. hefty means of a considerable amount. the licensing fees were considered (the webster's definition that you will not accept) to be too great. the fees got in the way. that a problem. that's THE problem.
        
        the author thought the fees were too great. you don't think they were. i understand that. i get that you dislike what mike says, and you dislike the conversations had here. we are all very aware.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2009 @ 10:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        How far could you miss my point? Any farther and you would be another planet. Essentially, I disagree with nearly all of your characterization.
        
        (1) I accept that the publisher for the book thought the licensing fees were outside the budget for the project (whether the author thought so may be irrelevant).
        
        (2) Your definition from a dictionary, copied from above:
        
        heft·y (hěf'tē) adjective
        Of considerable size or amount
        
        Lovely definition, which I find perfectly acceptable.
        
        (3) What you have failed to establish is that (1) = (2). The fees were "outside the budget." Does that mean the fees were "considerable" or doest that they were not going to go outside their budget?
        
        (4) I neither liked nor disliked what Mike said. In fact, his post in general was accurate and bemoaned a system that causes people wishing to use references for purposes of enlightment. I was fine with that part of the post. Had he stated the case and stopped, I would not have said a single word.
        
        (5) Mike deliberately and with specific intent used the word "hefty" because he was intentionally biasing the original report to further enhance how he perceives of copyright; considering that Mike operates to some extent as a journalist, you could say that his statement had characteristics of yellow journalism.
        
        (6) Did copyright "prevent" the use of the music? No, the publisher's unwillingness to go outside their budget prevented seeking the licenses, not copyright.
        
        (7) I do not want to "bash" Mike or anyone who posts here, unless they make claims they cannot support. Even then, was I bashing or asking for clarification or support for the use of a word that in context became pejorative? Hefty has no support, except as an opinion (incidentally, had Mike said that any fees that were outside the budget, even if only by a dollar, he would consider hefty, I would not have commented on - I do not agree that $1 is hefty, but if that is his opinion, so be it).
        
        (8) You want to "create" something and copyright "prevents" that? Well, I guess if you want to use enough of someone else's creativity because you are insufficiently creative to stand on your own, then I find it difficult to be very sympathetic.
        
        As for the matter at hand, it still seems like fair use should have permitted the use of the music, though the article also never mentioned how much of the music would need copied to make the point. Is it seconds, minutes, or the entire work? The article never really says.
        
        (9) You mischaracterized me, again, with your statement regarding the fees. You said that the author thought the fees were too great, you said I did not think they were. Wrong. I never said that. What I said, or asked, rather, is how someone was able to determine that unspecified fees were so "considerable" as to be hefty. The question seemed simple enough, and instead the little anti-copyright ants came swarming out of their nest inferring things from my comments that were never there. I guess anti-copyright people think that every little question for clarification is an attack of their beliefs (or bashing). At least, the hefty defensive reaction I got in response to my simple little question seemed to indicate so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 3 Jul 2009 @ 9:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        heft·y (hěf'tē) adjective
        Of considerable size or amount
        
        Lovely definition, which I find perfectly acceptable
        
        excellent, if you will accept dictionary definitions, have a look at these:
        
        con⋅sid⋅er⋅a⋅tion (kən-sĭd'ə-rā'shən) noun
        1)the act of considering; careful thought; meditation; deliberation
        2)something that is or is to be kept in mind in making a decision, evaluating facts, etc.
        
        con⋅sid⋅er⋅a⋅ble (kən-sĭd'ər-ə-bəl) adjective
        1) Large in amount, extent, or degree
        2) Worthy of consideration; significant
        
        (3) What you have failed to establish is that (1) = (2). The fees were "outside the budget." Does that mean the fees were "considerable" or doest that they were not going to go outside their budget?
        
        if you have to decide whether you can afford a fee, you are considering it. that fee then becomes a factor to be considered; it becomes a consideration when making a decision and is therefore "considerable" according to definitnon #2 for the word considerable. if it is decided that the fee is too large, based on your consideration, then the fee is considerable according to definition #1 for the word considerable.
        
        therefore, according to the definitions above, the amount of the fee is considerable and therefore is "hefty".
        
        (5) Mike deliberately and with specific intent used the word "hefty" because he was intentionally biasing the original report to further enhance how he perceives of copyright;
        
        of course he did. he's a dirty bastard that keeps all his pirate bay money that supports terrorism in offshore accounts. i thought we established that already.
        
        (6) Did copyright "prevent" the use of the music? No, the publisher's unwillingness to go outside their budget prevented seeking the licenses, not copyright.
        
        and the licenses would be required even if copyright had fair use as a right instead of a legal defense? i think not.
        
        it still seems like fair use should have permitted the use of the music
        
        thanks to the copyright system, you can either pay up front (if you can even locate someone to pay) or you can roll the dice and run the risk of paying to prove fair use in court.
        
        both of those options seem like budgetary obstacles that prevent small independent creative works and are a direct result of copyright.
        
        was I bashing or asking for clarification or support for the use of a word that in context became pejorative?
        
        the dude explained why he used the word hefty like a dozen posts ago and you're still on his dick.
        
        At least, the hefty defensive reaction I got in response to my simple little question seemed to indicate so.
        
        ZOMFG U CANT SAY HEFTY!!! OMFGWTFEMOEMOEMOEMO
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jul 2009 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        So, if someone goes to the grocery store to purchase a case of Coke, and Coke, which is often on sale for $6, is actually $6.50, because you considered whether you wished to purchase the Coke for $.50 more, and then decided to wait, by definition $.50 is "hefty."
        
        Works for me. Now we have a basis for "hefty."
        
        of course he did. he's a dirty bastard that keeps all his pirate bay money that supports terrorism in offshore accounts. i thought we established that already.
        
        lol...Hyperbole, thy name is Chris.
        
        the dude explained why he used the word hefty like a dozen posts ago and you're still on his dick.
        
        Yes, his explanation was that he made a HUGE ASSUMPTION. So, fundamentally he had no explanation. Then he should have kept with the words in the original article rather than making stuff up. Again, as long as I knew he was inventing scenarios that did not actually exist, I am fine with that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 4 Jul 2009 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        So, if someone goes to the grocery store to purchase a case of Coke, and Coke, which is often on sale for $6, is actually $6.50, because you considered whether you wished to purchase the Coke for $.50 more, and then decided to wait, by definition $.50 is "hefty."
        
        ok, you want to play with numbers, let's play with numbers:
        
        you go to the store with a dollar. the lowest price in the store is two dollars. you can't afford it. ergo, the price are too "hefty".
        
        and anonymous coward stops you on the street and says "what's wrong with you you cheap bastard? you won't pay a dollar to get something from the store? what are you some sort of no money paying retard?"
        
        so you become determined to pay money for something in order to prove to the world that you are worthy. so you do some odd jobs, sells some things and now have $10,000 dollars. you decide to buy a car. that car is $20,000, you can't afford it. ergo the price was too hefty.
        
        again the anonymous coward stops you on the street and say, yeah, that car is expensive, the prices are hefty. you are justified in not buying anything and have my permission to go on with your life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 4 Jul 2009 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        So, if someone goes to the grocery store to purchase a case of Coke, and Coke, which is often on sale for $6, is actually $6.50, because you considered whether you wished to purchase the Coke for $.50 more, and then decided to wait, by definition $.50 is "hefty."
        
        Yes, his explanation was that he made a HUGE ASSUMPTION. So, fundamentally he had no explanation. Then he should have kept with the words in the original article rather than making stuff up. Again, as long as I knew he was inventing scenarios that did not actually exist, I am fine with that.
        
        do you get that if you accuse someone of assuming, then make up these scenarios with made up numbers, you too are assuming? the problem here is that not having the budget for a fee makes the fee hefty. the fee is hefty because you can't pay it. you have to choose whether or not you can afford it. that consideration is what makes the fee hefty, not the made up numbers involved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jul 2009 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        You will note that the posts CLEARLY STATED that they were "what if scenarios" or assumptions? So, yes, I said I was going to assume, and I did. Too bad Mike did not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 5 Jul 2009 @ 10:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        You will note that the posts CLEARLY STATED that they were "what if scenarios" or assumptions? So, yes, I said I was going to assume, and I did. Too bad Mike did not.
        
        and using assumptions to disprove someone else's assumptions is entertaining to watch:
        
        you are saying that mike's a bastard for assuming the author of the article is telling the truth. you then assume the author is lying as proof of that.
        
        you are doing exactly what you are bashing mike for doing. that's funny.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2009 @ 8:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        Sincerity: How can we use a relative word, "hefty," when the relativity was arbitrarily established as "considered out of reach"? What does "clearly considered out of reach" mean? Can we establish a dollar figure for "out of reach" so that we know what "hefty" means? And, can we do so in a way that does not use assumptions?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 3 Jul 2009 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        How can we use a relative word, "hefty," when the relativity was arbitrarily established as "considered out of reach"? What does "clearly considered out of reach" mean? Can we establish a dollar figure for "out of reach" so that we know what "hefty" means? And, can we do so in a way that does not use assumptions?
        
        there you go again with the numbers. the problem is that the fees got in the way of an author making his point. that's not a problem that you can solve with a spreadsheet.
        
        the copyright system has been sold to us as a method for protecting creative works, but for a lot of creators, it is an obstacle. that is the point. that is the problem.
        
        i know that you want to plug in numbers and you think that will prove your point, but the point isn't a numeric value. the point is that the system that protects creative works prevents the creation of creative works via legal fees and licensing fees. that's a problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2009 @ 11:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        Are you being deliberately obtuse? "there [sic] you go again with the numbers." Really? What number? I intentionally did NOT use numbers. I returned to the basic issue, which is "how" do you define hefty? Such a simple little question.
        
        As for your comment "that the fees got in the way of an author making his point," that is really the question, is it not? Let us understand whether the author was more upset about the budget set for the project, or whether there was an actual problem here. If the budget would not have permitted the book to have a slip cover, would the author complain about that as well? If the author needed $30 for licensing fees, then I will call him up and pay the fees for him just so he can have a better book. Note that the author never asked for help with the copyright issues, instead just back and said "Oh well. I guess copyright has just halted all the progress I wanted to make with my book." Sounds like whining to me.
        
        I will ignore your comment regarding the copyright system because it was never "sold" to us per se, it was something put into the constitution of our country. As with other things, it is amenable to the will of the people. However, copyright was never about "protecting" creative works.
        
        As for copyright being an obstacle for "creators," to some extent I agree that it can be, particularly when a creator has done something unique and they are accused of "stealing." I have a problem with that. As for "creators" who need to use someone else's work to "create," I have yet to figure out what I think about that.
        
        I disagree vehemently with your statement "...that [I] want to plug in numbers and think [I] will prove my point..." Wrong. I never had a point, I had a question. I have yet to waver from the question. In case your failed to recall the question, let me restate it for you:
        
        How does the article justify the use of the word hefty with respect to the licensing fees?
        
        See how easy that question is?
        
        Now, as far as your last sentence goes, the author had the opportunity to take a license to the work. Ergo, copyright did not prevent the author from "creating" anything. It did put an additional hurdle over making copies of someone else's works to support the creative portion of his work. That is sad. However, the author, or rather, apparently the author's publisher, decided that overcoming the hurdle was "outside the budget." Essentially, they allowed obtaining permission for using the work of someone else to stop them from making the actual creative portion of their work potentially better. I cannot help it if people are lazy.
        
        Incidentally, people use other people's work to enhance their creative work all the time. Stephen King frequently includes quotes from songs in his books. He often has pages of "used by permission." I guess he could have thrown in the towel and whined about copyright "stopping" him from being creative, or he could just ask to use the lines (which he does). Sure, it takes a phone call or a letter, but most people are thrilled when their work is quoted. It generates interest and drives sales. Most people just want their work acknowledged. People who wish to take that work with asking do the actual creator a disservice. That's a problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 3 Jul 2009 @ 8:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        Are you being deliberately obtuse? "there [sic] you go again with the numbers." Really? What number?
        
        you said, Can we establish a dollar figure for "out of reach" so that we know what "hefty" means?. that sounds like you want to establish a dollar figure for "hefty". i am not sure how to express a dollar figure without using numbers. if it is possible to do so then please forgive me, i went to public school. if you were being rhetorical, then perhaps you should have stated so.
        
        I returned to the basic issue, which is "how" do you define hefty?
        
        i define "hefty" as a "considerable amount", just like webster's. if you have to take into consideration the amount necessary to acquire a license, then that amount is considerable. i would call deciding whether or not you can afford something to be consideration. maybe you don't and that is where we will have to agree to disagree. but to my understanding of the word consideration (something that is or is to be kept in mind in making a decision, according to webster), an amount that is determined to be too large for a budget is considerable (rather large or great in size, distance, extent, etc. again, according to webster's) and therefore conforms to the definition of "hefty".
        
        that is how i define "hefty". i can try to put it in simpler terms if you would like.
        
        If the author needed $30 for licensing fees, then I will call him up and pay the fees for him just so he can have a better book.
        
        see, $30 looks like a number, a "dollar figure" if you will. again, maybe you mean something other than "thirty dollars", but it sure looks like the number thirty representing a number of dollars. again, this all looks to me to be you asking for numbers as an answer when i have stated that you can't use numbers to answer the question. again, i went to a public school, so maybe there are special meanings for this stuff that i am just not aware of.
        
        How does the article justify the use of the word hefty with respect to the licensing fees?
        
        the article stated that "the need for licenses and the budget foreclosed our doing so." i interpret that as meaning that the fees didn't fit the budget because they were too large, or "hefty".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jul 2009 @ 7:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        the article stated that "the need for licenses and the budget foreclosed our doing so." i interpret that as meaning that the fees didn't fit the budget because they were too large, or "hefty".
        
        So, what you mean is that any amount over budget is "too large" or "hefty," right? I can live with that. I just wanted to know whether any amount qualified as "hefty," and you have now clearly stated that it does.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 4 Jul 2009 @ 8:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        So, what you mean is that any amount over budget is "too large" or "hefty," right?
        
        no, i mean that any amount that you have determined you cannot pay is hefty.
        
        then let's pretend that the fees are a dollar, and then point out that that pretend number is not made up, is not assumption or speculation, isn't even a number, and then infer that being unwilling to pay a dollar means that opposing copyright really is about being cheap.
        
        or we can go with the understanding that if the amount is so great that you have to take it into consideration when budgeting your project, then that fee is hefty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Jul 2009 @ 1:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        When I budget for a project, I consider, as I must, even the fasteners. It might well be that the budget for a project is $500,000, but even if the fasteners are only $50, I still have to consider them. Otherwise, it is possible I might go over budget, and then I would have to request a waiver to be allowed to go over budget. Now, that was not an assumption, but an actual fact (that I have to budget for fasteners and that I am not permitted to go over an approved budget without permission). Since I have "to take it [the fasteners] into consideration when budgeting my project," then $50 is hefty.
        
        I already understood your definition of hefty when you said it was any amount over budget. Redefining to "anything you have to consider when budgeting" merely changes the definition of "hefty" to a smaller amount. Regardless, we now know that hefty does NOT equate with "large."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 5 Jul 2009 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        Redefining to "anything you have to consider when budgeting" merely changes the definition of "hefty" to a smaller amount. Regardless, we now know that hefty does NOT equate with "large."
        
        no, the combined acts of considering IF you can afford it and THEN considering it to be too great, makes the fee hefty. "hefty" is a result of your consideration. there are two parts, 1)the fee in question being big enough that you have consider whether or not you can afford it and 2) deeming said fee to be large enough that you cannot afford it. there are two definitions of considerable, so in my mind that means there are two criteria for qualifying as hefty.
        
        you have to answer to questions: 1) is this big enough to merit consideration? 2) now that we have considered it, do we consider it to large to fit with our budget?
        
        you can use numbers to answer those questions for yourself, but since we do not know the numbers the author/publisher used, we have to go with the result of their consideration, which was, YES. yes the fees were big enough to consider, and yes they were too big to include. yes the fees were hefty.
        
        this is where you keep going off track. you keep talking about what amount equates to large. that is a quantitative statement. quantitative statements are great for proving things with numerical data. we do not know the numbers involved and therefore cannot quantify. we have to qualify instead. we have to take the author's statement about not affording the fee as qualification. we take the result of the author/publisher's qualification process to justify the amount as hefty.
        
        something is large because you consider it to be large based on your qualification process. mike used the word hefty because the author said it couldn't be included due to budgetary reasons.
        
        you want to call mike out because he doesn't know the numeric value for the project's budget, nor does he know the cost of the licenses and therefore cannot use the word hefty. that is cool.
        
        you then want to make up scenarios with your own assumptions to prove your assumptions are better. that too is cool, but since you don't know the numbers either, you are doing exactly what you are criticizing mike for doing.
        
        my assertion is that because those numeric values are unknown, you cannot use numbers to define hefty. you have to use other information, like the author's statement to justify the use of the word hefty. if you cannot use numbers to define hefty, then you cannot define hefty as "any number outside the budget" because the definition is not quantitative but qualitative.
        
        you (or the anonymous cowards like you) keep saying that mike assumed the fees were large relative to the budget so he can infer his commie pirate bullshit. you then assume small fees relative to the budget to infer he and the people who agree with him are all cheap assholes that want other people's shit for free.
        
        if mike is wrong for doing what he is doing, then by that logic, so too are you. this is why i call this making the world safe from assumptions other than your own. that's why this is so entertaining.
        
        my assertion has always been that since the numbers are unknown, the justification of the word hefty is based on the author's qualitative statement that the fees didn't fit the budget, so since there are no actual numbers involved, the word hefty is justified based on the author saying they couldn't afford it.
        
        this is not redefining anything. it is simply accepting the aggregate result of the author/publisher's qualification process as justification for the word hefty being used in the blog post since there is no numerical data that we can use to perform our own qualification process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2009 @ 4:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        Yet - you have proven no position. You claim that hefty is a qualitative statement, but you also claim it means "considerable." Okay, but you never gave any kind of reference to "hefty" other than what the author stated. After, that EVERYTHING you said (and that Mike said) was an assumption.
        
        Okay, I assume that hefty means EXACTLY what the author said - the fees were outside his budget. Period. It does not mean the fees were large, or small, or anything. It just means they were outside his budget. Mike equated that with "hefty," and there you have it.
        
        Incidentally, there is nothing to reply to in this message, so you can stop now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris (profile), 6 Jul 2009 @ 8:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RTFA
        Okay, but you never gave any kind of reference to "hefty" other than what the author stated.
        
        of course not, there is nothing else to go on. "hefty" is based entirely on the author's statement.
        
        the original question was how can the word hefty be justified based on the article? i have clearly stated that you can justify the word because the fees were considerable, i.e. they were worthy of consideration, and based on that consideration, they were determined to be large enough to be out of reach.
        
        in the absence of real data (numbers) mike took the author's statement to be true and that justifies the use of the word.
        
        the whole blog post is predicated on the author's statement being true, that the fees are too large. your counter argument is based on the assumption that the author's statement is not true, that the fees were not in fact large.
        
        After, that EVERYTHING you said (and that Mike said) was an assumption.
        
        of course. the issue here isn't that mike's good faith in the author is an assumption. the issue is that his assumptions were countered with yet more assumptions. i have stated from the beginning that i stand by my assertion that your assumption dispelled mikes assumption, thanks to your numbers that don't really exist.
        
        all of this drama is about someone accusing mike of spinning the author's statement to support his anti-copyright agenda and then using more assumptions and spin in an attempt to prove this "fact". that is why this is so entertaining.
        
        Incidentally, there is nothing to reply to in this message, so you can stop now.
        
        and now we take the "this is pointless" defense. in public school i didn't learn the latin name for it, but on slashdot it's called winning with the last word.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Felix Pleșoianu, 1 Jul 2009 @ 10:11pm

"The artist/inventor/innovator should get paid for their time and effort."

No offense, but you're a victim of the entitlement fallacy. Why is it that they should get paid? If I take a dump in the middle of the street, should I get paid for my time and effort? What if I do something that is genuinely artistic or innovative, but nobody wants?

Value is not absolute. You need to keep this in mind. Nothing is valuable in itself. It has to be valuable for somebody or else it's worth as much as a random stone on the ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ross Nicholson (profile), 1 Jul 2009 @ 11:38pm

Sorry Mr. Williams, my fault
The quotation of "when you wish upon a star" was necessary because of my early association with Steven Spielberg back in the McGovern presidential campaign. Google my book with a booksearch on google.com: Hillary's Angel and read about it. Jiminy Cricket's incessant encouragement and challenges to excel forced Spielberg to place an order for the use of the phrase in the movie's score and was a personal reference to me. Spielberg and I developed the film's story together while we were working for Hillary Clinton in Dallas back in 1972. There were visual artifacts from the earlier Disney production as well. How odd it is to see all this silly fuss over something so miniscule, when the whole movie relied entirely upon our joint effort. I never got a nickel. Y'all worry about the little ditty, though. Corporate America is insatiable for money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LostSailor (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 7:58am

Fair Use.
So even though this is a somewhat scholarly effort to look at these issues, apparently Rosen can't even demonstrate his points with music, because copyright forbids it, and requires hefty licensing fees. If ever there were a case where "fair use" should apply, this would seem to be it -- but I'm sure some would argue against that point since this book is a "for-profit" endeavor. Of course, whether something is commercial or not is only one of the four fair use factors, and it seems that if it's just a snippet of the music, a strong fair use case could be made (especially since it's hard to see how this could possibly harm the market for the music itself).

Mike is quite correct here. I'd go further and say that there is a very strong case for fair use. If the author is only using a small part of a song and is directly juxtaposing it with another piece of music for critical analysis, then the commercial nature of the over all book is a minor point.

There is nothing in copyright law that says the author must obtain licenses; copyright law doesn't preclude him from using samples of the music.

Since Rosen is a copyright lawyer, I'd want to ask him why this wouldn't be considered fair use. The linked article doesn't explore that, just presents Rosen's statements that he'd have to get licenses. He also includes a rather puzzling statement:

"If, however, the current edition is highly successful, we may be able to get licenses for the second edition in exchange for crediting the record companies for the use of these extracts, if the composition is in the public domain."

A rather curious position for a copyright attorney to take (and I suspect there is more to the story). If the composition is in the public domain, there is no need to get a license, or even to credit the record companies (though that would be the professional thing to do).

Too bad Kelman didn't follow up on this part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Jul 2009 @ 11:46am
  
  Re: Fair Use.
  
  A rather curious position for a copyright attorney to take (and I suspect there is more to the story). If the composition is in the public domain, there is no need to get a license, or even to credit the record companies (though that would be the professional thing to do).
  
  I think he's saying that the composition may be in the public domain, but the *recording* wouldn't be. But I agree, it is worded oddly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2009 @ 6:23am

Just what are you talking about?
Chicken Little: The fees are HEFTY, the fees are HEFTY!

Goosey Loosey: Ahem. Are they the size of an acorn or the size of a substantial meteorite?

Chicken Little: Absurdity! Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!

Goosey Loosey: Pardon me, but it sounds like you suggested that faulty logic should overcome my position. How does that relate to whether the fees are the size of an acorn or a substantial meteorite?

Chicken Little: You assume! You assume!

Goosey Loosey: I give up (walks away).

Chicken Little: I win! I win! The fees ARE hefty. The fees ARE hefty. Credo quia absurdum est.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gordon, 3 Jul 2009 @ 11:16am

This whole "hefty" this has to go.
It's unimportant to the story. AC is loving the fact that ppl are arguing it because it takes away from the real question.
As AC stated
-Sometimes you have to frame the question in another way.

What would happen if I wrote a book on "the great movie music of the 20th century", and decided to include a CD with every copy of the book? All the great songs in one place, say 20 chapters as I look at the 20 great songs from the movies.

I sell the book for, I dunno, $39.95. What part of that price is the CD?

Put another way, if a company was selling a CD of the "20 greatest movie themes of the 20th Century", how much would they sell it for retail? Probably $19.95 or so.

So my book is worth $20, and the music is worth $19.95

Sort of makes sense that the people who SELL music would be a little upset if I am upselling my own work by giving away a "free" CD, no?-

Now I don't know the facts about the music in question(as nobody replying on this blog does) but I would assume that he wouldn't need to use whole songs, so this post is thrown right out.

The important question is still.....Why would he have to get licensing for 5-10 second snippets of songs just to show how the section of music in question is different or maybe even similar?

Discuss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2009 @ 12:13pm
  
  Re: This whole "hefty" this has to go.
  I absolutely agree that this should have been the original question. Then a wholly inappropriate word was "thrown under the bus" and the whole thing came to a crashing halt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2009 @ 12:14pm
  
  Re: This whole "hefty" this has to go.
  Was it 5-10 second snippets?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jul 2009 @ 12:20pm
  
  Re: This whole "hefty" this has to go.
  Very good question about "snippets," assuming that is what they were. You are permitted to quote others in books as long as you give appropriate attribution. So, if you were comparing something one author still under copyright wrote in comparison to another, you would be permitted to quote portions of the works. Why would music be any different?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 4 Jul 2009 @ 7:51am
  
  Re: This whole "hefty" this has to go.
  Now I don't know the facts about the music in question(as nobody replying on this blog does) but I would assume that he wouldn't need to use whole songs, so this post is thrown right out.
  
  The important question is still.....Why would he have to get licensing for 5-10 second snippets of songs just to show how the section of music in question is different or maybe even similar?
  
  in the original article:
  You really find yourself in a "Catch 22" - since, as a copyright attorney (who will be presumed will be fully aware of the law in this area) you need the permission of the copyright owners to illustrate, in an intelligible manner, the fact that their copyrights are likely to be worthless.
  
  i take that to mean that the point of the book was to prove that the copyright is invalid on some music that was involved in a messy copyright dispute.
  
  if you are writing a book about how a particular copyright is worthless, does that affect your chances of (1) obtaining permission to use the samples for a fee that fits the book's budget, (2) your chances of being taken to court and having to prove fair use if you were to use the samples without permission?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jul 2009 @ 1:19pm
    
    Re: Re: This whole "hefty" this has to go.
    I would love to know the answer to Chris's questions myself. Someone please answer. Incidentally, try to use the word "hefty" at least once in your answer.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - chris (profile), 5 Jul 2009 @ 10:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: This whole "hefty" this has to go.
      I would love to know the answer to Chris's questions myself. Someone please answer. Incidentally, try to use the word "hefty" at least once in your answer.
      
      i would too, but please don't detract from my hefty thread. i almost have the threaded view of the posts to a single character in width. this is important work, so please be respectful :-)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jul 2009 @ 4:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This whole "hefty" this has to go.
        Are we talking about garbage bags?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]