NetCoalition/CCIA Reinforces Recent Comments To IP Czar Over Bogus Industry Studies On Copyright
from the keep-up-the-good-work dept
Earlier this year, the US's IP Czar (technically, IP "Enforcement Coordinator"), Victoria Espinel, asked for public comment on how her enforcement plan should work. While I had some trouble with the basis for many of the questions (which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing), I still submitted my own comments. Soon afterwards, I pointed to an absolute must read filing by NetCoalition/CCIA, which was 23 pages of brilliance, picking apart the claims of various pro-stronger-copyright groups one-by-one. Since then, a few key reports have been released, and, in response, Jonathan Band, who wrote much of the original report, alerts our attention to the fact that NetCoalition/CCIA have filed supplemental comments with Espinel (pdf) based on those reports:Second, this supplemental filing highlights that ridiculous Chamber of Commerce report that we highlighted recently as well. It was the one that couldn't pass the laugh test, because it lumped in pretty much every company in what it decided were "IP-intensive industries" and compared them to companies in what it considered to be "non-IP-intensive industries" and then assumed, with no proof whatsoever, that all of the benefits to those IP-intensive industries came from intellectual property laws. The report was so ridiculous that no one who actually read the details could take it seriously. But, that's the problem. Very few people actually do read the details. The whole point of the report is to just take the distorted headline and reuse it. Thankfully, Band and others in this filing are trying to make it clear to the White House that the Chamber of Commerce's report is not an accurate description of what's going on.
Finally, it highlights CCIA's own report -- using the very same methodology as those who claim the "copyright industries" contribute $1.52 trillion to the economy -- to show that exceptions to copyright (such as fair use) contribute much, much more to the economy. Who knows if Espinel, or others at the White House are paying attention to the details in these filings, but these two filings from NetCoalition/CCIA are incredibly detailed and well supported with evidence. Hopefully someone in the White House is paying attention.
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: comments, copyright, studies
Companies: ccia, netcoalition
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Me:
I know you are busy Mike , so let me correct this sentance for you :
It should read:
"....which all seemed to COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND that greater enforcement of copyright & patent law,, was, without ANY possible question, a good thing,,, and most certainly needed , to protect Artist Copyrights & Patent holder's rights in the current digital age, and the future nano-age."
If you need any more help ,,Mike ,, you know where to find me.
Have a Great day, ( But no illegal downloading , OR any circumventing anything. SO Play nice, or we will take away your toys.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Then you would be able to deploy facts and logical arguments rather than just assertyions and insults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Jefferson knew it was needed to built a vibrant economy, that would be strongg enough to last 250 years,, now mater how many Bush's try to run it into the ground.
Jefferson was cool..
Though I do disagree with him on on point.
I hold Copyright and Patent Law , is just an extension of Natural Law.
T.J. disagrees , with me on that point , from what Mike tells me.
---
I am dyslexic , sorry about the keyboard anarchy.
This is not formal , pay-for-word writing,, ,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,, yet .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Well you can have that as an opinion (just like my opinion that copyright laws should be abolished) - however in the founding judgement of copyright - predating your constitution - the House of Lords Judgement in the case of Donaldson against Beckett, that point was debated throroughly and resolved. The Natural Law of Ownership was held to exist only up to the point of first publication. After that point it is a matter for the give and take of statute law.
Lpord Camden's comment on the case is quite eloquent - in an 18th century type of way.
"The arguments attempted to be maintained on the side of the respondents, were founded on patents, privileges, Star Chamber decrees, and the bye (sic) laws of the Stationers' Company; all of them the effects of the grossest tyranny and usurpation; the very last places in which I should have dreamt of finding the least trace of the common law of this kingdom; and yet, by a variety of subtle reasoning and metaphysical refinements, have they endeavored to squeeze out the spirit of the common law from premises in which it could not possibly have existence."
The Wikipedia article is quite good - although I can point you at peer reviewed academic work with the same content if you like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donaldson_v_Beckett
(btw your copyright law was copied from the British one originally and British cases were initially used as precedents)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright laws should be abolished)
"copyright laws should be abolished".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright laws should be abolished)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: copyright laws should be abolished)
"copyright laws should be abolished".
Only point that matters in the real world !
=========================================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: copyright laws should be abolished)
So if the members of congress thought murder was OK then that's the only point that matters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: copyright laws should be abolished)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: copyright laws should be abolished)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Einstein used......
Einstein used though experiments , not to explain fantasy , but to inquire into the nature of things. It worked perfectly.
Political Theory (Pol-sci major is me ) is more academic and hyperbolic,, with many silly what ifs.
Abolishing Copyright and Patent Laws , embedded into the Us> constitution , is silly , unreasonable , unrealistic , futile , and a waste of time to discus here,
Lets talk real , actual Public Policy with real world consequences ,
, and maybe some congressional staffer will read it ,
, and tell his/her Congress-person boss,
and then we can do away with the evil income tax -
- which is not in the Constitution !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: copyright laws should be abolished)
Well I have a PhD and several published research papers in that area ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on the internet no knows you a dog , as the famous cartoon says.
( as the famous cartoon says.)
----------------------
You click on my profile here , from there , you can know pretty much all about ,
trust me nothing exciting.
---------------------
Your profile here is empty.
What EXACTLY was you PhD. thesis topic ?
Layman terms are not needed, I read a lot of journals on Cosmology .
-----------------
you raise some other good points on copyright ,
, but I hold till you reply here first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"on the internet no one knows your a dog" ,--- as the famous cartoon says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: copyright laws should be abolished)
Actually the constitution gives congress the right to institute such laws - not the obligation to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not the obligation to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not the obligation to do so.
Here
http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/showTranscription/%22us_1789_im_001 _0002.jpg%22
On your interpretation the congress would also be required to borrow money!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: not the obligation to do so.
You base you comment on your first read ---ever probably -- of the constitution, and lack historical context ,, and 250 years of history.
------
This thread is dead. Nothing new of substance for HOURS now.
Bye
See you in the next world --er thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright laws should be abolished)
Show me one that understands the implications of economics as applied to modern technology....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: copyright laws should be abolished)
Your move ,, who do you like ? who don't you like?
I am talking about mainstream public policy reality.
Not juvenile "copyright laws should be abolished" proposeals
Might as well divide by zero on your abacus .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: copyright laws should be abolished)
Secondly I don't see what the opinions of judges and congressmen have to do with my right to hold an opinion - or yours for that matter.
You hold an opinion (that copyright is somehow a "natural right") that goes against the authoritative interpretation of the law at the time copyright was established. I hold an opinion that copyright should be abolished. We are each entitled to these opinions that is all.
Thirdly you call my opinion juvenile. I don't see how that advances the argument - it is merely abuse which generally indicates a lack of real arguments in tose who employ it.
There was a time when slavery was mainstream public policy reality. That didn't make it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There was a time when slavery was mainstream public policy reality. That didn't make it right.
Go to my profile read my posts ,, i have raised that numerous times . Human Rights is Natural Law,
History and Law caught up with it in the USA in 1863.
Elsewhere in today world , it is still very much an issue everyday.
I hold copy Rights stem from Natural Law as well , Mike says Thomas Jefferson disagrees. , I am still not sure on that.
,, but we all agree that COPYRIGHT and PATENT LAW is in the ORIGINAL U.S. Constitution --- not the bill of Rights- as it is a fact.
Copy-Right & Patent Law came before free speech and press.
THINK ABOUT IT !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There was a time when slavery was mainstream public policy reality. That didn't make it right.
So did slavery.
Copyright and patent law are the continuation of medieval systems of Royal patronage and ripe for abolition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright and patent law are the continuation of medieval systems of Royal patronage
Real World .
Now Copyright is Law.
You view will never each a practical realization
till G-D ends time.
it ain't worth debating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright and patent law are the continuation of medieval systems of Royal patronage
I still hold on the good ones Dr.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First of all your congress and judges don't directly concern me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright laws should be abolished)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: copyright laws should be abolished)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
because these lame, made-up, frequently-debunked arguments really don't carry any weight around here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Fixed it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
BTW : Are you also an Anarchist like Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIKE : "Then consider me a lost cause. ***I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws.****"
I wrote
ME : "CopyRIGHT Laws - like any laws - are what define a civilized society. ( Do you accept that point? If not you are a lost cause. )"
MIKE : "Then consider me a lost cause. ***I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws.****"
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100514/0126329423#c3565
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MIKE : "Then consider me a lost cause. ***I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws.****"
For example, above. It is an enormous assumption--completely unsubstantiated by the evidence you've provided that Mike is an anarchist. He addresses what makes a civilized society, not whether or not laws are necessary. The two are independent of one another. It is possible for society and culture to drive civilization without formal laws and that does not make them civilized. Most would argue, for example, that politeness is a mark of civilized society, but codified into law.
I'm beginning to wonder if the fact that english is not your first language is a massive barrier to your understanding and comprehension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MIKE : "Then consider me a lost cause. ***I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws.****"
* formal laws, which do not make them civilized.
* not codified into law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MIKE : "Then consider me a lost cause. ***I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws.****"
He knows that, he's just being dishonest. Most IP maximists are dishonest you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: MIKE : "Then consider me a lost cause. ***I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws.****"
Whatta say ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: MIKE : "Then consider me a lost cause. ***I believe that civilized society comes from the society itself, not its laws.****"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Then you would be able to deploy facts and logical arguments rather than just assertyions and insults.
That's just not how he rolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Have you actually read any of the studies that debunk your statement or do you prefer to keep your hands over your ears while shouting "lalalalalala?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
to the subject
in nature of fact and/or opinion
that I have not posted
here
already.
READ,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Psaw!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Tooo Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
capitalisation, pounctuation, spelling or sentence structure.
shows your ilk,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Hello, is that your mom under that bridge?
Does anyone mind if I feed this guy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
our customary Troll Welcome yet?
check my blog , as listed in my profile.
Post ,,I rarely do , unless Mike ticks me off ( copy rights) ,, or Mike hits a point I really agree with him on . ( usually on electronic voting. )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am dyslexic
Mike,, Please put grammar and spell check into the post reply window.
I is not worth if got me to open MS Word ,, or another Google doc -- to answer every nut here who want to ban copyright .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am dyslexic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am dyslexic / Firefox can check your spelling. It would help anyway.
it does ,, but with from /form ,, it /is .,, on /in ,, and ,, etc ,, its hard for me ,, so be,, fare -- er,,, fair.
Grammar . I AM an Anarchist !! And i will fight to the death there !! Use to drive the proffs nuts., (but does the period go inside or side the parentheses.). ???
When i was a kid , it did , and now it don;t , except on a Tuesday in May in a Leap year
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Yes.
That's why I worked in politics.
I though that was clear
=================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
If there was greater enforcement of copyright law, you would be in a lawsuit right now. Remember?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there was greater enforcement of copyright law, you would be in a lawsuit right now. Remember?
( Paul , also please bring Ringo , when we meet , for coffee ,, I am having trouble with my vocal to "Don't Pass Me By", and mayber Ringo could vocal coach me on his brilliant octave change in the chorus.
Love u Richie , you are the greatest Drummer ever , as I know Paul has told you during the Let It Be sessions)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If there was greater enforcement of copyright law, you would be in a lawsuit right now. Remember?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
It is ALL about Paul and John , and Ringo , and George ,
, and Clapton and Dylan , and Jackson ( Browne & 5 ) .
And every other Artist of there rich or poor ,, famous or unknown to most ------ and their families , who eat food , form the Artists income
Artists whose work you want soooooo bad , but you still ,, you want for nothing ,, and are willing to break the law to get it !!!
CLEAR undisputed LAW,, that says payment or royalties are due .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
Yes. By you, to the copyright holders, because you "stole" their song.
In case you want to stop being a "thief:" A quick browse through the Harry Fox Agency's Songfile shows that the publishers (copyright owners) of "Revolution 1" are EMI (for Lennon) and Sony (for McCartney). These corporations are the only ones who can give you permission to cover the song, and the only ones who are allowed to collect royalties from you. Neither Lennon's estate, nor McCartney, are allowed to do so, nor can they stop EMI/Sony if these companies decide to sue you.
So: Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
Karl , get off of this ,, i said , already ,, its a musician culture thing ,, Please Paul sure me !! H e won't. I will try a George song next , but Olivia Harrison won't sue me either then,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
You keep saying "it's a musician culture thing," as if this allows you to break the law. Sure, musicians do cover songs; but whenever they release recordings of them (even for free), they always have to pay royalties to the copyright holders (the publishers).
I will "get off of this" at the exact moment that you stop calling file sharing "stealing." The only thing downloaders are stealing is exactly the same thing YOU are stealing.
I am not actually against your cover song, just as I am not actually against file sharing. The fact that your cover is unlawful is a reason to abolish copyright. What I am against is hypocrisy and willful ignorance.
I guess I'm never going to get through to you, but one more time: Paul cannot sue you. He can bring a suit on behalf of Sony, but not on his own behalf. Paul has no rights to his music whatsoever - other than the right to get paid, by Sony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
again dingle-brain,, if BMI or My Space says take it down ,, i will .
I am not getting anything for nothing .
Files-harers ARE stealing,, getting a product for nothing that they would pay for.
It apples and kiwis,, no comparison.
And ,, i may be 100% legal at MySpace , if MySpace is paying royalties of their Adv $$ ,, as I certainly and getting any sheckels from that.
You know Karl , the more you sqirm ,, the diiger hole you dig for yourself.
You are not writing in good faith anymore as a truthseeker,, but someone , who is trying to find any micro reason to attack me.
the point of out diicussion is :
PIRACY is illegal-- mirco or marco. IT is , will be, should always be ,, and always will be,, unless Mike M., leads an armed revolt to overthrow the USA gov't , just based on that issue of Copyright,, which he too , is nuts on.
----------------------
Man these late nit /early morning posts are wierd. It is like the old days in radio , when the D.J. knew only 3 folks are listening ,, so he does wierd stuff ,, like actually play the White Album backwards,,,,,,,,, Paul is Dead ,, Karl -- at least for this thread.
Love you Paulie,, just using you as a metaphoric example -- please sue me,, and bring your uke. Kiss Ringo for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
They are not "getting a product for nothing," they are making a copy without authorization. Just as you are making a copy without authorization, when you record a cover version.
The only law that file sharers are breaking, is the same law that you are breaking. It's not "apples and kiwis," it's red delicious and granny smith. Until you understand that, you will never know what they hell you are talking about.
Would they pay for it? I dunno: did you pay for making your copy?
I doubt it, since they don't need to. From MySpace's Terms and Conditions:
So, since you're violating copyright, you're also violating their terms of use. If I really wanted to be a dick, I'd just write them, point them to your song, and tell them that you don't have the rights to it.
But I don't want to be a dick. I just want to show you why your beliefs are damaging to music, and damaging to society at large.
I guess I'll never do that. So, good luck to you in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are not "getting a product for nothing," they are making a copy without authorization. Just as you are making a copy without authorization, when you record a cover version.
True?
Even you admit that.
---------
I am w/ my cover version of the Beatles Revolution #1 ,---- which is a result of THOUSANDS of hours of practise ,, and intense home & studio work,, for years in the making,,----- for me the song is the pinnacle*** of my guitar skills.
(30 years of hard work ,, for almost no real $$$$,)
-----------------------------
That opinion is endorsed by my musical mentors. who tell the track IS the ***pinnacle of my guitar skills.
--------------
-------
I am creating my ART to GIVE-- for Free..
File sharers take,
See the difference ?
=================
===========
======
====
=
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
My next project , is actually "While my Guitar Gently Weeps".
So let us go ahead in time , to drill home my point.
I record WMGGW ,, post it on My SPACE.
Mrs. George Harrison, Olivia -- who is a truly GREAT HUMAN being all around --- Well Mrs. Harrison ,,please sue me !!
Trust me , she won't.
it is a musician culture thing.
But is you download w/o paying a penny the recently released re-mastered WMGGW of the White Album,,, no one will sue you ,, but the orginized crime site where you got it ,, will get noticed by the Law enforcement folks.
CLEAR Karl.
Karl Clear,
Clear Karl Clear.
See spot run
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
The downloaders are exactly the ones that got sued by the RIAA. The downloaders are exactly the ten thousand people who are going to be sued by the producers of the Hurt Locker.
"Law enforcement folks" are not involved in copyright infringment, unless it is criminal, and file sharing is not criminal. You get sued (by civilians), not arrested. And I still have never seen even one "orginized crime site." As I said, most either do not host files at all, or only host users' files (without knowing what is in them). If any make money, it is through legit channels, and they'll take down infringing content if you let them know it's there.
False. File sharers are not taking anything; they're copying it. To take something, you have to deprive someone else of that thing. Copyright infringement is not legally theft, for this very reason.
Another poster on here quoted Stephen King. When asked how he felt about Hollywood ruining his books, he said, "My books are not ruined. They're right there on the shelf, the same as they always were." File sharing is the same way: the music is still there, same as it always was.
This pays Sony and EMI how, again? Unless you're saying that "I worked for it, so I have a right to it," which is called a "sweat of the brow" argument. That argument has been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court. If you're not saying either of those things, then I don't know why you would even bring it up.
Legally, it's not "your" art, so you believe that distributing unlawful material is better than simply getting it? I'm glad you feel that way. Unfortunately, the law does not - it views distribution as much worse than posession. (Also, this would seem to counter your "downloader/website" dichotomy.)
But you're absolutely wrong when you say "file sharers take." It's called file sharing for a reason. File sharing means music blogs, that write a review of the music (or how it affects them), with a link to download it. It means chat rooms on peer-to-peer applications, where users recommend music to other users, and offer up each others' music collections. It means fan sites that link to everything they can find, authorized or not. It means musicians who bought an indie CD of the band they played with, and want their friends to hear it. It means a culture of art and music. (That's probably why people who share files buy far more content, legitimately, than people who don't.)
This is what you believe should be shut down, sued into oblivion, or locked away. This is what Hollywood and the major labels want to destroy, merely because they don't know how to make money off of it.
Do you now see why, as a musician, I'm so pissed off about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
He can say, "Sod off, you wanker, I don't want you playing my song." You would show your royalty receipt, and say "Tough titties, Limey." And Paul would have to run home with his tail between his legs, because he has no right to do anything else.
Ain't copyright a bitch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ain't copyright a bitch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
I have said many times here :
If Paul ( or whoever owns the song now ) ,, asks me to take down the my cover of revolution # 1 ,
@ http://www.myspace.com/radamhalperin,
I will.
They have not.
SO , Please Karl , turn me in to them , if you feel so strong.
If not . give it up man ,, get a life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
An ARTIST (or copyright holder of the Art)
can CHOOSE , when , or when NOT to,, enforce their control rights.
Paulie ( or whoever in control of the Beatles song PUBLISHING rights there days) ,,
CHOOSES to ignore my posting of my all guitar cover version of Revolution #1 @ MySpace.
That is the ARTISTS right of control. Paul won't sue me.
IT is a Musician Culture Thing.
Even if it is technically illegal my post, the Copyright holder can choose not to ENFORCE,-- or to enforce --- on a case-by-case basis
But please PAUL,,, sue me ,, as i want to meet you , to get your autograph , and play some uke w/ you, (Please bring Ringo too.)
That is why I posted the song @ MySpace,
=====================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leave Paul alone. He has nothing to do with this.
CHOOSES to ignore my posting of my all guitar cover version of Revolution #1 @ MySpace.
I doubt that very much - its probably the result of the huge problem copyright holders have in policing the internet ( which their representatives frequently complain about here).
I would be very surprised if the rightsholders for the song in question are even aware of your infringement.
However as you said "greater enforcement of copyright & patent law,, was, without ANY possible question, a good thing,,," at the very start of this discussion I suggest you enforce the law against yourself (by taking down your infringing content) -surely that would be unquestionably a "good thing". Surely you don't want to force Paul (or whoever) to waste their time searching through myspace for it, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I always chuckle when I see posts from douchebags "correcting" someone with numerous spelling errors, punctuation fails, and made up words.
I never make up words.
READ more. Write less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We can do without decent roads for a while. Our 1s and 0s are being held hostage!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
busting basement-dwellers for downloading Transformers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: busting basement-dwellers for downloading Transformers.
That doesn't even apply to most counterfeiters, much less people who share music without profiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You honestly believe that most people who download music have "organized crime bosses"?
Yes . Conspiracy does not have to be conscience by all parties,, -- according to the John Birch Society -- ( I had a lecture in college from a rep , of theirs ,, the proff , thought it was a good thing to hear.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You honestly believe that most people who download music have "organized crime bosses"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You honestly believe that most people who download music have "organized crime bosses"?
Lou Reed
http://www.loureed.com/
Love ya , Lou,, ,, I will be in mid-town NYC later ,, i hope we cross paths at the guitar store again. Always a pleasure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You honestly believe that most people who download music have "organized crime bosses"?
http://www.spin.com/articles/lou-reed-advanced
So, I guess maybe he is your "crime boss," and should be thrown in jail or sued into oblivion. Good to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cell-phone radio and added, "It's fine by me.
Pretty obvious, point actually.
THINK ,, guysmm think , before you post !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cell-phone radio and added, "It's fine by me.
I have no idea what those mm's are doing there ,,must have hit :M: not spacebar. ( I need to change to my reading glasses)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: busting basement-dwellers for downloading Transformers.
no, piracy supports terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no, piracy supports terrorism.
In some country-s : YES !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no, piracy supports terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: no, piracy supports terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know. And the answer is no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the PPL..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems to be the purpose of this blog run by an Ivy League graduate.
Hey, I just found a great story for you:
"Graduating From An Ivy League College: Smart. Starting A Blog After Graduating From An Ivy League College: Not So Smart"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the "copyright industries" contribute $1.52 trillion to the economy
SO not only can we add extortion lawsuits
BUT tax evasion to the list
perhaps that term MAFIAA isn't so far off.
33% taxes on that over 5 years = 2.5 trillion bucks
take the recent bush obama madness and.....yea
now you know why the USA economy is tanking.
AND great news more and more of Canada is waking up to doing business with the Chinese. WE will be rid of the racist harper soon enough and then we will move forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charge me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Charge me
Some do already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Charge me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Charge me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Charge me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Charge me// " radio pays for the content that they make their money from, websites should be no different. music (or talk show hosts) is their raw materials, without which nobody would be listening to empty air."
You hit the core of this thread in just a few words. A+
Good Job you Anonymous Coward you !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Charge me
Generally speaking, websites don't provide infringing content themselves. Usually, they either provide "online storage lockers" for users, or they provide a mechanism for users to swap each others' files. In either case, it's their users who make the content available.
For example: by hosting your illegal version of Revolution 1, MySpace is hosting infringing content. But they're not the ones who should be paying royalties - you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example: by hosting your illegal version of Revolution 1, MySpace is hosting infringing content. But they're not the ones who should be paying royalties - you are.
wrong.
My space is a broadcaster w/ads,, just like radio.
To radio I sent them my work -- by mail or person on CD.
If they play it -- one day -- they are responsible for the $$ end,, not me. The radio pays royalties.
My Space is no different. I simply uploaded , instead of mailing in. I get zero $$ from page traffic.
My Space gets ad $$ from page traffic.
Very quantifiable #s. If royalties are legally due, some lawyer is there doing it.
----
this really torpedoes your claim : " But they're not the ones who should be paying royalties - you are."
Think man . You are smarter than you are writing here.
Think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For example: by hosting your illegal version of Revolution 1, MySpace is hosting infringing content. But they're not the ones who should be paying royalties - you are.
Think.
Just a quick tip - don't talk to people in real life the way you write here. Sooner or later you are going to get punched in the face if you do. I'm not even kidding.
And if you think that ad hominem arguments are effective - well, they're not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think man . You are smarter than you are writing here. Think.
Diplomacy is an art.
By telling him to think , I am saying he can do better,
I am MUCH older than karl for sure.
age earns respect, even when not granted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By telling him to think , I am saying he can do better,Re: Think man . You are smarter than you are writing here. Think.
and I want him to .
I seek truth.
the path is never easy.
And the truth is often scary.
that is life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think man . You are smarter than you are writing here. Think.
And no, age doesn't earn respect. Many things earn respect, such as presenting well reasoned and well written arguments, but being old is not one of those things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Think man . You are smarter than you are writing here. Think.
Very True. He completely is lacking "Common Sense"** in is harping on my posting at MYSpace.
But any Proff , teacher , Parent , or girlfriend , or drinking buddy,, probably tells him the same thing daily -- think man ,, you common sense.
I am try to help him grow , into a more worthy "opponent" in his debate with me,, because right now , he is more annoying than challenging. That trait can torpedo any persons career.
( **I am sure Thomas Paine will also come up eventually in oe copyright/patent talks. He did not believe in Natural Law as an atheist"")
===================
"It's really quite insulting. "
Tough. It is not violent . Political discourse is veiled insult . You are always saying you opponent is wrong and full of it.
================
"And no, age doesn't earn respect."
The problem here .
Age does earn respect. In any civilized Society .
When I was young , I was stupid too.
========
And where is s the gut who claimed the PhD in Einstein stuff??
Must be busy
====
====
====
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ad hominem arguments
i have "ad hominem -ed " more than anyone here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Charge me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
everything else is smoke and dust in your eyes as the pro-piracy people attempt to prove that 1+1 = 0.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
what is it worth retail? not that much, which is one of the reasons why people infringe. The other are lack of other options, overpriced, etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not a crime, it's a tort, and the justification is that you have no (natural) right to prevent others from copying you and that our legal system is broken beyond all respectability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who cares what you would say, it's not like you ever say anything substantial or substantially supported with logic or evidence anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ours is a society based upon the rule of law. If there is a law with which you disagree, then use the rule of law to advocate change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and yes, people have a natural right to commit a legal tort to the extent that the law infringes on our natural rights. Now, I'm not advocating that we break the law, I think we should try and change the law instead, which is the whole point of this discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, free speech is not an absolute. Use this forum to commit defamation or other actions long recognized as exceptions to the First Amendment and you can well expect that "I have a natural right to commit a tort" will fall on deaf ears.
The same can be said for many other tortious activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And believe it or not we agree that if it was worth infringing or downloading, it is worth buying. Where we disagree is in how much the people will pay. Whether you like it or not, the price is far lower than you would like. If you don't like it, tough. People will pay money if they believe the price justifies the value--if they don't they meet their need in other ways. Sometimes doing without, sometimes accepting alternatives, sometimes infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Cowards
Shame!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Cowards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I may, or may not, download music, television shows, and movies via BitTorrent for free, but I also go to the movie theater fairly often, and pay to see the bands that I've "ripped off" when they play in my city. Which I might not have the discretionary income for if I had to pay for all the content I may or may not have downloaded for free. But you never take that into account, do you?
I, and a lot of other people, set aside "$X" for entertainment. If I don't have to spend it on content that can be reproduced and distributed for free, then I'm free to spend that money on other things that aren't freely availiable. But I don't suppose that makes any sense to you, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
as always, there is no indication that (a) the money wouldnt be spent anyway, and (b) that these same people would not in fact spend more to obtain what they wanted, if they were not getting it for free. if you can point me to an empirical study that can cover these very basic concepts, you might score a point. otherwise, your entire concept is meaningless and built on junk science. a red herring in the copyright debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if you can point me to an empirical study that shows that infringement equals lost sales you might have a point. But there's not any, so your point of view is absurd and build on bad business models proped up by government monopolies granted due to influence peddling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's always easy to win with conditions of "heads I win, tails you lose".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If by red herring"
Senator Foghorn Leghorn:
"I say SIR !!
If the chair does so recognize.!
I would like to propose a rule.
No metaphors ,
Unless you know their root meaning."
((( ( You chicken plucking varmint you! $%%$## !! )))))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
not that much, which is one of the reasons why people infringe."
- you always have the option not to take something for free.
using price as an excuse to infringe is a very slick way of justifying the crime,
no?
if you dont value it enough to pay for it,
dont take it and enjoy it anyway.
trust me, when you stop enjoying it for free,
you will discover
that some of it
is actually worth
the retail
price
to
you."
ME : Worth repeating ,
Why be an " Anonymous Coward",,
unless you are a techdirt staffer ,,
then i could see why .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The way the laws are getting it is almost impossible to do anything without infringing on some law or patent. And if that wasn't enough, they are preparing to borrow a few ideas from the inquisition, where you don't need proof to convict/punish someone, just an accusation...
Oh, and by the way, 1+1 equals 0 without bending any rules. Just impose one condition, and you're good (math homework: figure out what :p).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or if you don't enjoy hardware restrictions, try doing 1+1 in the Z_2 ring (instead of Z). + and * operations are made modulo 2, so 1+1 (mod 2) = 0.
You don't need to bend rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, they only pay attention to their campaign contributors. Nice try though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
apples and oranges
By MIGUEL HELFT and ASHLEE VANCE
Published: May 26, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/technology/27apple.html?hp
==========
WOW !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You keep saying "it's a musician culture thing," as if this allows you to break the law.
yes is does ,, on a mirco level .
The Beatles started as a cover band.
Also ,, I will check ,, but MYSpace , might, could , maybe be ,,paying BMI/ M.J.s kid,, a micro-fee, anytime someone plays the song in question at MySpace.
If you try to play all 7 of my songs @ my space in a row,, MySpace throws in an adv,, after song "5"
SO MYSpace , might, could , maybe be ,, already be paying BMI/ M.J.s kid,, a micro-fee, anytime someone plays my cover song in question at MySpace. Like if i play it in a bar?
Ever think of that Karl? Your a bright boy , with a keyboard , and clearly too much spare time ----look it up and find out .
Comon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bacon
but if he will be content to begin with doubts
he shall end in certainties."
- Sir Francis Bacon
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/28981.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free
1. Last time I looked that was not a crime in itself. For axample you can quite legally take for free anything that is in the public domain (eg Shakespeare, Beethoven or anything created by the US Government - including the extremely useful "Handbook of Mathematical Functions" by Abramovitz and Stegun. You also get a lot of physical goods for free - including the air that you breathe and berries gathered from public places.
2. You are also getting something for free when you cover someone else's composition. It is not legal to perform such a song in public or to publish a recording of it as you are doing on myspace. If you were singing that song in a bar then you (or the bar owner) would need to pay a license fee.
3 File sharers don't actually get stuff for free. They have to pay for connection, bandwidth, disk drives. memory, power etc etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It is not legal to perform such a song in public"
I cannot be stopped.
Any Artist can cover any song , w/ o permission.
It is my craft , I know it well.
If royalties are due , and there is money , it is paid.
No $$ . No payment possible .
the system works . All are happy,
Paul gets a kick , that I love him and the gang enough
to spent 40 hours in the studio-at-home ,,
with little sleep,
, recording and mixing
9 tracks of guitar.
I get the kick of accomplishment.
I share it for free in MP3 -- low bit sound - --- @ my space.
For the better sounding .WAV track (----- the real version and the difference is easily heard---- ), you buy the CD from me ,
that is registered for copyrights and royalties ,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "It is not legal to perform such a song in public"
Not strictly true - if you perform in private - true - in public then it all depends ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "It is not legal to perform such a song in public"
divide by zero?
----------------------------
And again , what is your PhD. in EXACTLY?
And What was your thesis title EXACTLY.
Where is it posted online? if it exists.
Can I read it for free. Or is it now a book ,I must buy-- if it even exists.
Your Ans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "It is not legal to perform such a song in public"
divide by zero?
I suggest you go to ASCAP or one of the other performing rights societies for an explanation of that one. However my reading of the situation is that.
1 The performing rights societies say you need a license to have performances of cover versions on any website - see here
http://www.ascap.com/weblicense/reports/
2 Myspace TOS makes it clear that you need to be able to grant them a license for public performance for any material you make available - see here
http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=misc.terms
That seems to be the legal situation. I must hasten to add that I do not approve of it - I'm just telling you the reality.
As for your point about $$ - they don't care about that - remember these organisations have tried to charge Girl guides for singing round the campfire and shop assistants for singing whilst stacking shelves.
And again , what is your PhD. in EXACTLY?
And What was your thesis title EXACTLY.
Where is it posted online? if it exists.
Theses in those days were not in electronic form so the only copies are with me and in the University of London Library. However you can see one of the papers that contributed to the thesis here
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7755185t35273m1/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "It is not legal to perform such a song in public"
And What was your thesis title EXACTLY.
I said exactly ? Any PhD. can rattle of his thesis title in his sleep.
=====================
You and Karl , are lacking "common sense",, a recognized tool for law and judges since time began.
=============
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "It is not legal to perform such a song in public"
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein
"The freethinking of one age is the common sense of the next."
Matthew Arnold
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "It is not legal to perform such a song in public"
And What was your thesis title EXACTLY.
Where is it posted online? if it exists.
YOU: Theses in those days were not in electronic form so the only copies are with me and in the University of London Library. However you can see one of the papers that contributed to the thesis here
ME:
I repeat: on the internet no one knows you are a dog.
Where is your name on the paper ? I do not know your name.
Richard ,, go home.
===============
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "It is not legal to perform such a song in public"
Not true actually - the final title of a thesis is often invented at the last minute and then promptly forgotten. This is especially true in theoretical physics where students often do a number of smaller - but related projects and then have to work out a title that pulls it all together. Mine was 30 years ago - but I can't even remember the titles of the theses of my successful PhD students from the last few years.
Where is your name on the paper ?
You know my first name - so I thought you would be able to deduce which of the authors is me from the initials - it's not that hard.
If you are in any doubt - then here is another one I wrote (slightly later - after the PhD).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVN-470WKTG-1G1&_user=24 71587&_coverDate=08%2F20%2F1981&_rdoc=9&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info%28 %23toc%235539%231981%23998959997%23349652%23FLP%23display%23Volume%29&_cdi=5539&_sort=d& _docanchor=&view=c&_ct=19&_acct=C000057461&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid= 2471587&md5=d7f16e6bc10a8f7b47e441c21cc2d56f
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but I can't even remember the titles of the theses of my successful PhD students from the last few years.
Where do you teach EXACTLY?
CAN I view YOUR FACILITY WEBpage ?
Anif you do not remember the exact title of your thesis,
certainly , you can tell me the General Topic ,, in PHD. science terms. You have yet to do that either .
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On the Internet no one knows your a dog !!!
On techdirt , no one knows if you are sane; unless you state : "All copyright & Patent Law should be abolished.",, in which case we know you are are insane.
----------------------------------------
Thank you everybody !
You have been a wonderful audience !!
G-D Bless.
=================================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but I can't even remember the titles of the theses of my successful PhD students from the last few years.
CAN I view YOUR FACILITY WEBpage ?
You have enough information to find all of the above already using Google (hint - look for more recent papers by me - the top hit will usually be relevant)
certainly , you can tell me the General Topic ,, in PHD. science terms.
I have given you two papers for which you can read at least the abstract. If you were proficient with the information finding capabilities of things like Google Scholar, citeseer
you could find several other papers that related to my thesis.
If you want a list of keywords related to my thesis it would be:
Quantum field theory, 1/N expansion CP^N-1 models, False Vacuum decay, Instantons
(This list gives rather more information than the title!)
On the Internet no one knows your a dog !!!
Actually -on the internet anyone can find out if they know how to Google...
On techdirt , no one knows if you are sane; unless you state : "All copyright & Patent Law should be abolished.",, in which case we know you are are insane.
You never gave any reason for this other than an appeal to the wisdom of US politicians and judges- the same group of people who once nearly passed a law to mandate incorrect mathematical calculations.
(Incidentally I never actually mentioned patents.)
Also you never asked why I held the opinion that seems to scare you so much - however - I can tell you that one of my major reasons for wishing to abolish it is precisely the type of response I have received from you - which I feel is not in the best interests of those who make it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: but I can't even remember the titles of the theses of my successful PhD students from the last few years.
That is not a thesis title. Sorry Richard , i know how academics talk.
If you ask any PhD to name his/here thesis title , s/he can rattle it off no B.S. or beating around the bush in a flash.
Also you claim you have students. Where is your faculty page?
I only know your name is Richard -- it it is that.
If you wish not to put the information here @ techdirt ,, go to my profile here ,, click around from the info I provide ,, and you can find my email address , in a few clicks.
Email me , your Faculty web page ,, your thesis title , and "3 reference's and their emails".
You do that , then you have answered my question.
You claimed a PhD, in some vauge area of physics.
PROOF it. (pun intended)
=================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "It is not legal to perform such a song in public"
divide by zero?"
YOU: I suggest you go to ASCAP or one of the other performing rights societies for an explanation of that one.
ME: Mike can tell you how funny it is you suggest that.
I have post more form ASCAP here @ techdirt that Mike has these last few weeks.
Richard -- if have a real Ph.D in physics,, i will illegally down load all your copyrighted papers and redistribute then for free .
But you are not so , i won't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
file sharers
I am talking about NON-public-domain-files,
w/o formal permission,
That is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Technopolitical
So that won't happen again, I'm starting a new thread with this post, so we can continue our conversation. But to keep it short(er), I won't respond to posts that I've already replied to. You'll have to hunt those down, sorry. It would probably help the conversation if you would reply to this post only, when you're talking to me.
Not that it's at all relevant, but I'm betting that you're wrong. I've been playing music since the late '80s, and spent the last twenty years hanging out with musicians (most underground, some on labels). So please, drop the paternal act, sonny.
My "common sense" tells me that it is bad to criticize people for breaking the exact same law that you are breaking, and yours does not. But since there's no objective measurement of common sense, we'll have to stick with the law.
To coin your phrase: "wrong."
They are not a "broadcaster," they are a social networking site with user-supplied content.
When you signed up with them, you agreed to their Terms of Use, which state that you control the rights on all material uploaded, and you gave them a royalty-free licence to deliver that material.
Radio (internet or not) only pays royalties to copyright holders and publishers. Since users are (supposed to be) the exclusive rights holders, and agreed to forgo royalties, MySpace doesn't owe anyone any money.
By uploading content to which you don't have the rights, you violated their Terms of Use (a legal contract BTW), which lets MySpace of the hook. If anyone owes money, it is you.
And the Beatles paid royalties whenever they released a cover version. If they covered a song live, the venue paid royalties (as all venues are required to do). Being a Beatle doesn't give you the right to break the law, "micro level" or not.
In private, sure. In public or on a recording, no. If you don't believe me, see the Harry Fox Agency for recordings (including internet releases), and ASCAP's FAQ for live performances.
Again: wrong. You must obtain a license for that song, even if it is used for non-commercial purposes (you don't charge money for it). See the Harry Fox link above. If you do release it without a license, copyright law allows the rights holders to sue you either for their "lost profits" (which you can't contest), or statutory damages, whichever is greater. Plus legal fees, injunctions, and the destruction of all existing copies of that song. If the infringement is "willful," the court can award additional damages up to $150,000.
If it were true that "No $$ . No payment possible," then the RIAA could not have sued any file sharers, since they did not charge (or gain) any money either.
If that Beatles song is on your CD, then you are a commercial copyright infringer - which is much worse, legally speaking, than being a file sharer. Also, you cannot register a cover song under your own copyright, since you have no rights to the song in the first place.
By the way: if you want to know the ugly details of how the music industry works, here are a couple articles for you: The Problem With Music by Steve Albini, and Courtney Love does the math by (you guessed it) Courtney Love.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Technopolitical
The earth is round.
Karl:
TP ,, How can you be so insane and closed minded?
1] the earth is a sphere , not round dummy.
2} the earth is not a perfect sphere either, even if that is what you meant by writing "round"..
2a} Every school kid knows the earth is "pear-shaped", with the southern hemisphere being bulkier ,
2b}, and also the polar circumference , being less than the equatorial circumference ,, by several dozen miles,, if I remember correct ,, but
3} that is really beside the point ,, the exact numbers,, as you are clearly a disingenuous fool's fool for trying to say the "world is round",, it shows you are just covering up your basic lack of knowlege in the earth sciences -
4] - which has everything to do with copyright laws at My Space ,, because being you hold copyright law is from natural law, and Natural Law is the grist of earth science -(- well philosophically at least if not actually physically.)
5] So your statement "the world is round" , has been dis-proofed by me -- Karl -- super genius!!!!!
==============
bye karl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To Technopolitical
I don't hold this, because it's not true. Copyright is not a "natural law," nor an inalienable right. Ideas and expressions (songs, movies, art in general) are not property, nor are they "owned" by the people who make them.
If you don't believe me, ask Thomas Jefferson, the person who actually wrote the part of the Constitution that allows copyright law:
-from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson (which is worth reading in its entirety), emphasis mine.
More like...
YOU:
The earth is flat.
ME:
You're wrong, and here are a dozen reasons WHY you're wrong, which I will now go into in excruciating detail.
If you're leaving this thread, fine. But here is what you should take away from it:
- You are a copyright infringer, so you cannot harp on other copyright infringers (file sharers) without being a hypocrite.
- Whatever you thought about copyright law is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To Technopolitical
Mike and I had this discussion last week. More reading , less writing Karl ::::
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100514%2F0126329423&threaded=true&sp=1#c3525
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To Technopolitical
Response to satire , shows you are drinking too much coffee or taking meth.
Have a nice weekend Karl. chill out . try to live w/o a computer for 2 days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To Technopolitical
Since you were replying to him and not me, I must have missed it. Also, the fact that the thread was one word wide probably didn't help.
That discussion did yield some guffaw-inducing quotes. Such as:
He's advocating that ideas cannot be property. He was discussing what the basis for American copyright law should be, since he was creating it.
So, you're saying that Jefferson is not talking about books, songs, etc. when he is talking about ideas. If that were true, copyright law would not include the word "author." It's also pretty obvious that he's talking about these things if you actually read the full text. He's saying that physical things can be property; but that products of the mind cannot. According to Jefferson, "intellectual property" does not exist.
But let's assume you're right. Copyrights (and patents) are the basis of all legal rights to the products of your mind. If what you say is true, it would mean that books, songs, etc. would not be covered by copyright. So, they should be afforded no legal protection at all.
Oh, that's what it was? Forgive me, I thought it was just you attacking me to hide the fact that you're wrong. Thanks for letting me know, Mr. Swift.
I will, and I am. I actually enjoy these little arguments. There's nothing like coming home after a hard day's work, and lifting up your spirits by proving you're better than someone else. And if I can't do that - well, then I've learned something I didn't know. It really warms the cockles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalist License?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michigan Lawmaker wants to license journalist to ensure their moral character, and that will help how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A4 Paper 80 GSM, 75 GSM, 70 GSM
Specifications:
Sheet Size:210mm x 297mm, International Size A4
Quality: Imported 100% Virgin Wood Pulp
Whiteness = 102-104%,Natural White
Capability: High Speed Copying100ppm, Laser
Capable,Inkjet Capable, Fax Capable.
Brands:
Double A copier paper --- $ 0.85USD
Paperone copier paper ---$ 0.85USD
Ik plus paper( yellow) --------$ 0.80USD
Paperline Copier Paper 80g --$ 0.80USD
Xerox copier paper 80g-------$ 0.85USD
Port of loading: Dickson sea port/ Klang Port
Mode of payment:T/T
Delivery Time: Asia 14 working days,Africa 21 working days,Europe 21 working days
and America 24 working days.
And in one 20FCL they will be packed.
500 Sheets per Ream
5 Reams per Box
1560 Boxes per container(With Pallet)
1600 Boxes Per container( Without Pallet)
7800 Reams Total in one 20FCL( With Pallet)
8000 Reams Total in one 20FCL( Without Pallet)
Minimum Order Quantity: 1 container.
Regards
Abdul Raheem.
Online Sales Rep.
K.K.P AND OFFICE SUPPLIES SDN BHD.
Tel:+60133072140
fax.+60170080010
Email Address: officesupplies2011@gmail.com
Email Address2: expressofficesupplies@gmail.com
Skype Address: customerscare01
Company Address: No. 8256, 1st Floor, Jln Pending, 93450 Kuching,
Sarawak MALAYSIA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]