Jeffrey Nonken's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the my-neurosis-and-I dept
When Mike asked me to do the Favorites Posts my first reaction (after feeling flattered) was to put it off for another time, with all kinds of excuses why I was too busy. After sleeping on it I realized that was just my neuroses talking and immediately accepted. Of course it turned out I'd taken too long to reply so I got to put it off for a week anyway.I'm going to consider anything after last Friday's submission deadline free game. Without further ado my neuroses and I present to you:
My Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Apparently trademark infringement is in a name, or part of a name, or a single word. The good news? We gamers aren't idiots and can tell the difference between products. Go us!
The Biter Bit.
It's been a great week for IP trolls with Evan Stone grasping at straws and Righthaven tap-dancing on a landmine while being soundly beaten with a clue-by-four. Oops, what was that ominous click? Meanwhile James White can't get his mojo on, if his victims insist on playing fair.
Hail, hail Freedonia, land of the brave and free!
France is in the lead for the Wacky IP Races in Europe this week. First we're seeing scammers finding a way to take advantage of HADOPI, and the government censoring evidence of police misconduct. I bet they won't be so fast to protect their citizens as they were to protect their own asses. Any takers? ...Didn't think so. The UK comes in a close second: London is signing away the public's rights in order to suck up to big advertisers; Parliament assumes that everybody is a clean-cut, upright, honest citizen if they're using their own name, but that anonymity instantly turns them into hardened criminals, and then figures they'll be stopped cold by blaming innocent bystanders. (Our own state of Louisiana has legislated against using cash for much the same reason.) Spain comes in third by making hyperlinks illegal. Yeah, our government hasn't gotten beyond the "plug it in and stuff happens" understanding of the Internet, either.
It's not just the governments who are failing by the numbers. Scientists are failing to learn from history, and one British historian is failing scientific method. He insists that porn turns people into slavering monsters and only a totalitarian government can stop it. Yeah. Well, we USians are well on our way; our government also can't stand its citizens knowing laws or rulings that apply to them, or having any knowledge or say in their making. And we now have a VIPR in our midst: Tennessee has come up with their own clever way to fight against freedom. The partnership with the TSA should ensure rape and pillaging to protect the public. I feel safer already.
Meantime we're working on making copyright violation a felony. And if falsely accused of a crime by the US government it's damned near impossible to prove your innocence without spending the GNP of a small country on legal fees. (All so some schmuck could cheat on his wife.) I bet this is exactly what the founding fathers were thinking when they wrote the Constitution.
And while China is trying to convince the world that black is white, up is down and censorship is freedom, the Jamaican government has confused corporate profits with the public weal and is getting ready to keep its cultural heritage out of the public domain.
Everybody's crazy but me and thee, and sometimes I wonder about thee.
Heading in the other direction are ABC in Australia, who ran an article pointing out how copyright holders may be shooting their own feet, and the Canadian Supreme Court, who decided that hyperlinks shouldn't be illegal after all. And went out of their way to explain why in loving detail. Maybe Spain could take notes. The EU Parliament's legal service is frowning mightily at ACTA, saying that it may or may not be legal -- depending on how you interpret it.
Back in the US, Ron Wyden is doing his usual good job speaking out against PROTECT IP AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST (oh sorry, a bit of editorializing there). But in a surprise move Michele Bachmann has been expressing doubts as well. With so many sides arrayed against it, maybe the darned thing will be stillborn.
You've got a nice army base 'ere, Colonel. We wouldn't want anything to 'appen to it.
Not content with beating up kids for their lunch money and beating up grannies for their welfare checks (we're not sure what they were beating up printers for -- their toner?), the MAFIAA and their ilk are now beating up indie artists for royalty checks and beating up pubs for beer money. (Yeah, I had to stretch a bit for that one.) BMI has learned to multiply, but forgotten how to subtract. Not to be left out, over here at Marvin Gardens, Microsoft is also collecting rent on other peoples' properties. Wow. Must be nice work if you can get it.
That's all, folks!
There was more, but I was scared it would just turn into a summary of the entire week. So I tried to stick to the stuff that fit into the theme and that I could think of smartass remarks for. :) Enjoy the weekend!
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Get this through your heads, pirate Mike and Techdirt fans. You can't paint the Mona Lisa with a ten foot wide paint roller. That's why we have unions that negotiate their maximum acceptable length.
(This is a new talking point I just made up that I believe IP maximists would love to use; however, they must pay me $10 for each use).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not union-employable.
That's gotta sting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proven wrong already. Too bad Mike isn't good at retractions.
A little more than a stretch there son, more like outright deception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and where is this alleged proof you speak of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not wrong. The events did happen. Zoe did receive a notice claiming that Universal claimed her music. What eventually came out was that the issue came from conflicting claims from a broadcaster. But his statement is still accurate if you consider SoundExchange to be part of the industry -- which as an RIAA spinoff, it is.
Too bad Mike isn't good at retractions.
An update was added to that post hours after it went up with the details, and Zoe put more info into the comments as well.
Too bad this commenter isn't good at reality.
A little more than a stretch there son, more like outright deception.
You're talking about yourself again, son?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I bet you were drooling when you wrote your original hit-piece.
And, being the little man you are, you never admit when you jump the gun on these stories- despite it happening all the time.
But then again- your influence has been neutered, and your only function now is to be unknowingly amusing, so I guess I shouldn't complain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, I've got a new talking point that I think you'll like, it's an improvement over your broad brush talking point. You may use it, but it'll cost you $10 per use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My new and innovative pro-IP talking point stands up to scrutiny much better than all pro-IP talking points before it and I think it'll prove to be one of the best pro-IP talking points for years to come. Act now before I decide to raise the prices once its use gains momentum. The first twenty subscribers will get to use it for a year with a guaranteed price of $25 for each three uses while other subscribers will be paying more. Hurry up, offer ends soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The word "Broad Brush" is subjective to opinion. Broad can mean different things to different people. But my talking point specifies how wide the 'brush' is and, instead of using a brush, it even makes the point more obvious by using a 'paint roller'.
Another reason is that saying that a story is being painted with a broad brush is meaningless if you don't specify how broad of a brush this story needs to be painted with. If you're painting a wall a uniform color, a broad brush is desirable. If you're painting a high resolution picture of the Mona Lisa then a broad brush is not.
My analogy is more specific about what's being painted and what's being used to do the painting, which makes the point much more obvious. You simply can not paint the Mona Lisa with a ten foot wide paint roller, or at least it's very undesirable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I should probably specify the dimensions as well. Let it be a 77 cm � 53 cm (30 in � 21 in) painting, like the original. Attempting to paint that with a ten foot wide paint roller would likely be a disaster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Update: The situation has now been resolved, with Universal admitting -- yet again -- that it does not have any claim or rights to Keating's music. "
Universal didn't make the claim at all this time, they had nothing to "admit".
Why do you insist on making the story all about Universal, when they in fact did NOTHING at all.
You really should date and time stamp the update, I didn't see it when I made my comments, and wasn't aware that you had added an update, slanted as it is.
Oh and retractions typically are as big as the original story, not a little tag on at the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh and retractions typically are as big as the original story, not a little tag on at the end.
Maybe you should create an account so Mike can run any updates by you first via email. This should also help you keep your horse in front of your cart, comment-wise.
And where do you get the idea that "retractions are as big as the original story?" Every place I've seen them either appends the retractions (of various sizes) to the front or the rear of the post. Perhaps you're thinking of newspapers who print them the next day in 6-pt type somewhere towards the Classifieds. Or maybe you just get your news from somewhere completely unreliable that features a 50-50 split between new content and lengthy retractions.
As for the slant? Let me fix that for you:
UPDATE: Universal proudly announced that THIS time it was not actually trying to hoover up someone else's royalties. A spokesman speaking under the condition of anonymity stated that while Universal was fond of royalties, it was not in the business of claiming non-Universal artists' royalty streams as its own, the occasional clerical error in its favor notwithstanding.
An official statement followed: "We at Universal Music would like to remind our artists that we did NOTHING at all, as is certainly reflected in your royalty statements. We hope to continue this trend of 'doing NOTHING' well into the future and extend our condolences to Keating, who was given the full major label treatment only without the 'benefit' of being signed to a major label. Yes, I made singular air quotes when I said that. Is this still off the record?"
Happy now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There... at least now the slanting is balanced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The news business is much like a giant see-saw. This must be what Fox News means when it says "Fair and Balanced": nobody's having any fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So they did announce something ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was just more yellow, pirate propaganda from the slimester himself, Mike Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other news, Universal has just announced the hiring of several witches, as per EOE requirements. No one has stated specifics as to what the witches will be tasked with, but many analysts expect these new positions to be temporary seasonal help.
This just in: Universal representatives wish to announce that they have NOT made any announcements. The witch hiring spree was inadvertently made public when an intern mistook the fax machine for a copier and sent several hundred issues of the internal Universal monthly newsletter (slogan: "Putting the U (that means YOU!) back in Universal!") to The Hollywood Reporter ("Se Habla Press Releases!"). A spokesperson stated that the normal distribution area usually only includes the two corkboards in main concourse and the employee cafeteria.
The spokesperson also offered heartfelt apologies for anyone who tried out Helen Birnbaum's recipe on page 6 ("Old Country Sour Cream and Marmalade Snackwiches"), stating "We honestly thought she was laid off during the '07 cuts."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rather than return the payment and point out the error, that has happened before, they kept it until she raised a fuss about it and then said oh to bad you waited to long. They directed money to someone who did not "earn it" or had any claim to it. The fact they do no checking beyond we assume the labels are always right, which is how they pretty much want the entire world to operate. Whatever we say is completely factual and any evidence to the contrary should not be considered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Royalty statements from them are at least 10 pages long because they are so thorough, and completely computerised.
Blame tech, not Uni.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So please talk down to me some more about how I do not understand a corporation getting money that is not theirs and keeping it. Explain how that is right. She does no business with Universal... so explain how your statements are relevant to the actual case under discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any idea of the numbers we're talking about here?
Sound Exchange keeps track of what they owe Uni, not vice versa. Uni would have to audit them to find out if they were overpaid or underpaid.
You people are so desperate to rationalize your illegal behavior that there is no limit to how low in the gutter you'll go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Illegal such as... taking the royalties from someone else?
Irony and felony, live together in perfect harmony!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In a check that might run to 7 or 8 digits left of the decimal, you expect the $50-$100 that this particular artist was probably due to make a big difference in the overall total? SE isn't sending one check per artist.
With the number of artists on their roster (past and present) it probably takes Universal 6 months to a year to assign those funds to the right accounts, and probably has an account for "not sure who this is" that runs back any number of years.
Universal might have caught the error in a couple of years, providing the artist hadn't complained to SE and then SE made a correction.
In simple terms, it just isn't Universal's fault... and no matter how much Mike mis-represents the story "Universal Music Keeps Trying To Claim Zoe Keating's Royalty Checks", it just isn't true. Do you really want to go on the record supporting lies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's amazing, IP maximists keep on making claims but they can not make a single verifiable claim. Not one. We should just trust them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether you want to believe it or not is immaterial with the fact that it is reality. Truthfully it's nothing but another example of you people burying your head in the sand when someone that makes their living in music calls out your bullshit and pathetic rationalizations for ripping us off.
But keep going if you want. I'm happy to let you dig the hole you're in even deeper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, because you're a failure, it's everyone else's fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either way, what I meant is my bank balance verifies it because it's how I make my living. For example I just deposited another royalty check from a label last week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anonymity is great, isn't it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We'll wait for Mike to receive your email with said bank statement attached, which I'm sure he'll share with us as soon as it's in his possession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one else seems to have these sorts of problems that it should take them so long to deliver money owed due to tracking issues. Heck, even the government, who has the largest number of people on their 'roster' (practically everyone) doesn't take that long to assign tax stimulus money back to its people whenever the president passes stimulus checks, and that's the government, which isn't the most efficient entity either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know nothing about the music business (other than how to steal from them) so you sound like an idiot with all this stupidity you're posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which wasn't the point that That Anonymous Coward was making. But go ahead, keep missing the point and ignoring criticisms that you can't address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the payments are really laughable, I saw the payments they send out, for dozens of songs some hits, a friend was paid an incredible $75 bucks for the entire year, is that enough to have high standards of living?
Lets start asking around and see how many people count on royalties to put food on the table, really, of the thousands of musicians I'm sure only a fraction of them gets something above $1000.
Lets start collecting the data and see where that money is going.
Why is this accounting system not public, I can't find the numbers for ASCAP or BMI anywhere, if they function in benefit of musicians shouldn't this data be public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You idiots have reached new lows in this thread...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're going to claim shit that all other musicians (who are at least named when they do) say is the opposite, the least you could do is provide evidence. But you're full of shit and never provide evidence, much less a name. Which honestly isn't surprising, because then you would be raveled for the shill that we all know you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Imagine if you directed your energy into doing something useful, rather than just ripping off the most obviously talented people in the world.
I'm betting the result would have a far better result than what you're currently expounding your energy on.
But what does it say when I have more hope for your existence on this planet than you quite obviously do?
Darwin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't strip the names out, you can provide concrete numbers of how many people received what right?
Why is the government not auditing labels, studios and collection agencies? Then we would see who is lying.
How hard it is to provide a list like:
$1 = 99%
$10 = 0%
$100 = 0%
$1000 = 0%
$10 000 = 0%
$100 000 = %1
Where is the breakdown of those numbers so musicians and people forced to pay that crapoula can see where the money goes?
Zero transparency = zero accountability = CORRUPTION!
That is not to hard for you to understand is it muppet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=1046897§ioncode=1
http://www.woodpe cker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html
Quote:
Source: http://www.musicmarketing.com/2004/08/ascap_vs_bmi_th.html
I also know that life + 95 years of a monopoly is no laughing mater.
I also understand that something that was paid once and it is billed again and again and again for the same thing can't be right.
I also see that it is unfair to business everywhere to have a competitor that have more right than they do, anybody wanting to make money should be able to buy the tools necessary to do business without having to have to pay rents to other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, why are you people complaining about these outliers? You steal from musicians every day, you slimy hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know enough to see that in the privacy of my home your rights means zilch to me.
I know enough to know that once I paid once I'm not going to keep paying again, and again and again, not for a minute and certainly not for life + 95 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While they might get sent a large check, there should be an invoice showing all of the artists the check covers. While it might work in Universals favor to take up to a year to process out the payments, with the magic thinking machines there is no reason for it to take that long. The magic thinking machines no longer require having a punchcard filled out by hand for each piece of data.
It is Universals fault that they are getting payments not destined for anyone on their roster and keeping them. It is Universals fault for not demanding better record keeping from SoundExchange. It is SoundExchange having a policy that favors the larger labels over the actual rights holder who is due payment that is broken.
The larger problem in here, with the "won't someone think of the artists" lament we hear on so many other topics, is there is a major label and a collection society who apparently can't manage to handle their responsibilities with any real skill or concern for those artists.
We have systems that deal with thousands of payments an hour, and they get the money to the right accounts in seconds. There is no reason for it to take months or a year to figure out where the money is supposed to go other than they do not wish to improve the system.
I never laid the blame fully at Universals feet and considering they were involved in the "incident" in Canada where if the law had been applied to them infringing copyright they would have owed $60 billion to artists they "forgot" to get permission from when releasing albums it seems they have an issue with making payments and communications in a timely fashion. Artists being paid what they are owed is a much better battle cry when your not commercially infringing on copyright yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And everything is itemized.
Seriously, just stop. You've already demonstrated that you're a fool on this issue, so there's no need in continuing to prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yup, that makes about as much sense...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I figured it was the mailman or something, but when I opened the door, I saw this beautiful vision: the ultimate dweeb stood there before my eyes saying, "Come. Hither. Let's go consume without remuneration, young buck".
There's more, but I'm going to leave that for Part Two.
Plus, there's something I have to do in the bathroom real quick-like..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Performing Rights
I observed a couple of different types of copyright Nazi's.
There's the ones that are half full of used car salesman humor, half full of dad-analogies: "ya couldn't just take one of the ranchers cows"(or some other crap that I paraphrased)
And then there were the vindictive creeps: "This guy White apparently thinks he's one tough guy...that he could give 'em some biker attitude and the problem go away...now he is going to lose his bar!"Guy wouldn't pay fee according to (Voice of Reason)
And then there were the arguments/assertion (mostly paraphrased here:
That an AC/DC cover band is stealing the real AC/DC's livelihood....ya know, the "paycheck" they would have earned playing that gig at that one dive bar. No one will want to see AC/DC now!They already saw the third rate knock-off. Who can tell the difference?
The reason they ask for a blanket fee without hearing the venue playing any licensed songs is because they can't be around to make sure that infringement doesn't take place, but of course, it will inevitably happen and if the venue doesn�t pay the fee then they will be sued into oblivion.
Small coffee shops(coffee shops come up a lot) are trying to screw songwriters out of their money(or will, or might have already).
��I was absolutely disgusted by how predatory these organizations came across. Here�s a neat summary:
�somewhere, someplace, someone might be making money off of my work in a really indirect way.� or �Some guy might like a song they play on the stereo at this one place and they might return the next night which means that increases the business of that place, which means
�They�re Profiting Off My Work!�
Of course that�s if the guy became a regular customer because they played that one song, ya don�t know for sure but that�s a remote possibility, and because there�s a remote possibility that song drummed up some business, and increased the owners profits, then I want a piece of the action!�
Do you think having an extortion racket work on the artists behalf will earn them a following or even a decent living? Do you think threatening music venues will make them increase in number? Would music even be worth it anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Performing Rights
It won't and that's obvious. I talked to one person who swears up and down by ASCAP, believing them to be helping artists. Which would be great and all but he calls businesses that don't pay their compulsory licenses ignorant.
How the heck can you call yourself a person trying to help artists when you shut down all the venues for muzak, art, or whatever else? It's sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Performing Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Performing Rights
I know that "anecdotal" evidence from the web seems kind of sketchy but the articles are all eerily similar.In the comments below the articles people share negative anecdotes about ASCAP/BMI's misdeeds. In the comment sections there's usually one or two trolls who I'm sure as shit are some were hired by someone. I can't think of any normal person(or everyday asshole) who would think a club owner should be sued 14 grand because a band played a tom petty cover.
I read the comment board on one of the articles here where an anonymous coward/troll basically admitted he was defending an extortion racket. One guy asked why a venue should pay licensing fees for songs which the venue never played. The reply was along the lines of "what does (x amount of dollars) mean to you?", "What kind of credible music venue can't pay (x amount of dollars)?"...as though a venue is obliged to pay a single fucking penny before the collecting agency has even seen/heard any copyright infringement take place.
The trolls accused the guy who wrote the article of slander, and yellow journalism, but never really refuted any of the content. They didn't even deny that BMI feels entitled to money because they assume that a venue is playing their songs.
Is there such thing as ASCAP/BMI forum trolls, or am I just paranoid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
You do know that *everyone* knows you guys are simply trying to use it as a justification for ripping people off, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
They have "agents" out in the field trying to catching venues "red-handed" so they can serve venues with enormous lawsuits?....That's also true, isn't it?
Where are the strawmen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
10 out of 10 people in prison claim they're innocent.
Think about it; you scumbags come here and lie about your real motives- which are to continue to not have to pay for your content addiction. You suck at the teat of the coward that runs this blog who can't even bring himself to be honest about who he really is, and you think this line of defense is actually *effective*???
wow.
I mean, really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
Look, innocent people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
We have citations. Just Techdirt search Hollywood Accounting, for instance. There are many examples.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/ar ticles/20091207/1201017234.shtml
and the list goes on.
"rather than the reality of them actually being the ones that pay them and allow them to make a living from music"
[citation needed]
Why should I believe your un - evidenced opinion over the substantial evidence that says you're wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
How exactly do think musicians that used to never tour made a living?
Once again, it's obvious none of you have even the slightest clue about what you're opining about, and are just trying to rationalize the fact that you rip off musicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
When you are handling other peoples money there is no excuse for making mistakes. PERIOD. ask a banker
You screw up with money that doesn't belong to you and at best you are incompetent, at worst a criminal stealing from those you claim to protect.
And in this case it is actually stealing not infringing.
You quite probably know more about the industry than I do but your defense of inappropriate and potentially illegal activities, points to a lack of integrity and values on you part that makes it difficult to take you seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
Without "we" there would be no fancy hotels for musicians, there would be no multi-million contracts to be signed.
We rip off and we give it back, although some musicians today don't appreciate that little simple fact, maybe they will when they realize that we are not buying it anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Performing Rights
How exactly do think musicians that used to never have the RIAA made a living?
Once again, it's obvious none of you have even the slightest shred of honesty about what you're opining about, and are just trying to rationalise the fact that you're a paid shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]