Me too, it's a little amateurish but I expected that, it *is* the pilot episode. I think this type of funding could really work with a bit more polish.
Side note: a bigger slice of the donations goes to legal fees than for equipment. What a wonderful world we live in.
So, a group of lawyers with opposing views of the plaintiffs are going to craft a letter letting the defendants know their legal rights. I wonder who the people who get this letter are going to choose to defend them? :P
On a side note, "Techdirt Lite" (which I've never heard of) does not allow threading of comments or creation of a comment. Now that *is* "lite". :)
You don't believe that obscurity is a bigger threat than piracy? I suppose for the past 5 decades artists have been signing away the rights to their creations to the labels because they didn't really like those pesky rights anyway, amirite?
No, it's because having the rights to their music wasn't as important to them as having a shot at being a household name and leveraging that fame to make money elsewhere. Now, the internet can allow a musician to maintain his rights and become known*. The musicians still won't be making much money on direct music sales, and the odds of becoming a household name for longer than 15 minutes are still a long shot but at least they will maintain commercial control over their art.
* Becoming a household name requires actual talent in the "new" system, versus a nice ass, a crap-ton of marketing dollars, and some type of sex/drug scandal.
I understand now, that you don't bother to read anything other than the title of the post.
Allow me to *show* you why I am not assuming what you assume I have assumed:
We've been fighting with ASCAP for 6 years to get the money they received for selling the rights to several of his early recordings to a overseas company.
****
seeing as how several songs I co-wrote have been airing regularly for over 2 years on TV (kid's show stuff, so I do mean regularly)
****
As a musician, I don't feel like a small-time individual has many options; I have a pretty broad idea of fair use, myself, but if Kanye sampled my song and made millions off of it then damn right I would want a piece. Without the resources to hire a lawyer, who else but ASCAP could help me get my share?
****
As a musician, and as an entrepreneur making my living selling equipment to studios and musicians, I obviously have a great deal to lose if the putative forces of "copyleft" somehow succeed in preventing music being paid for.
I would also like to point out that even "bar bands" can make a popular song that "will require collections in the future". Many musicians start out in a bar (or garage, even!) and go on to "make it".
Is this some corollary to Masnick's law? If an ASCAP member dares disagree with ASCAP then they will forever be doomed to musical obscurity? Can you not come up with anything more worthwhile?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that my sentence was gramatically confusing.
Rewrite:
they can't afford lawyers to get what is or will be "owed" to them, so they rely on ASCAP to collect and enforce the proper licenses now or in the future.
I can't help but see the letter and its underlying reasons for this "battle" they want funding to wage as more of a "fight or flight" reaction than any type of malicious endeavor.
That explains why, as you noted, it isn't logical, and a bit silly. As is the theme for everything IP related, if anything causes them to *not* make money, then it should be eliminated. Since the EFF is strongly in the Fair Use camp and in a twisted way CC does compete with ASCAP, both make excellent kneejerk reaction targets.
I would imagine that the musicians that are not "major stars" have more to lose. As a few noted in Mike's post, they can't afford lawyers to get what is "owed" to them, so they rely on ASCAP to do it.
It's okay, though, no one expects critical thinking from you, TAM.
In addition to what was already said, Viacom brought up the email you reference, and the courts replied with:
Mere knowledge of prevalence of such activity in general is not enough.
Not to mention, the court ruling just says that it is the copyright holder's responsibility to alert service providers that something was uploaded without their permission, versus the service provider magically knowing what is authorized and what is not. Which, apparently, Viacom can't even keep track of.
Anyway, if the lawsuit doesn't pan out on the side of privacy (and common sense) then Amazon can always elect to stop selling to people with a North Carolina shipping or billing address. That should stir up enough angry citizens to get North Carolina to back down, I imagine.
Re: Copyright infringement/violation/theft and legal definitions !!
You are, your taking away his property, his copyrights.
You are the worst type of idiot. A right is not property, and you know it. You can't "steal" a right to an exclusive monopoly-- but you can infringe on it.
Then if you are honest, and did not download/upload the file, you have nothing to worry about. Your what they call innocent.,/i>
Right, because lawyers don't charge you if you tell them you're innocent. I don't know about you, but if I have to pay a lawyer and take time off work to prove I'm innocent because the plaintiff doesn't want to be bothered to do their due diligence *because it would be too much work* then I'd consider that a misuse of the legal system.
And Mike if a theft occures, you dont necessarily have to call the police.
No, you don't. But if you call the person who has stolen from you can threaten to call the cops unless he gives you $5,000 then you are now guilty of extortion, aren't you?
Also, if they are all accused of sharing 1 file, then the MAX that can be awarded is $150,000 divided by each defendant, right?
Re: It's when ordinary citizens ban together to rise up against injustice being forced down on them by corrupt politicians acting on behalf of oppressors such as yourself.
Re: Mike, Alot of talk but short on answers ! A model is the exchange for goods and services for money.
You can sit around and cry at the mean ol' "pirates" that are "stealing" your "property" all day long, but it isn't going to make them go away. Suing them is a losing battle, and ruins public perception-- especially when you toss around numbers like a software company owing 1.5 *trillion* dollars.
Piracy is here to stay.
So, you can find new business model, mimic (or, copy, if you will) someone else's successful business model, or find a new job. That is to say: Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
On the post: Dutch Court Questioning Why Police Outsourced File Sharing Evidence Collection To Industry Group
Re:
Ill gotten?? Really? That's all you've got? What if the music was purchased legally and then copied, is it "still ill gotten"?
On the post: TV Show Released On BitTorrent Raises $20,000 Pretty Damn Fast
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Side note: a bigger slice of the donations goes to legal fees than for equipment. What a wonderful world we live in.
On the post: Court Orders US Copyright Group To Work With Time Warner, EFF To Craft More Informative Letter To Those Being Sued
Free Business
On a side note, "Techdirt Lite" (which I've never heard of) does not allow threading of comments or creation of a comment. Now that *is* "lite". :)
On the post: Ideas vs. Execution Shows Why Competition Is A Good Thing
Re:
No, it's because having the rights to their music wasn't as important to them as having a shot at being a household name and leveraging that fame to make money elsewhere. Now, the internet can allow a musician to maintain his rights and become known*. The musicians still won't be making much money on direct music sales, and the odds of becoming a household name for longer than 15 minutes are still a long shot but at least they will maintain commercial control over their art.
* Becoming a household name requires actual talent in the "new" system, versus a nice ass, a crap-ton of marketing dollars, and some type of sex/drug scandal.
On the post: ASCAP Members Pissed Off At ASCAP's Attack On Creative Commons
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand now, that you don't bother to read anything other than the title of the post.
Allow me to *show* you why I am not assuming what you assume I have assumed:
We've been fighting with ASCAP for 6 years to get the money they received for selling the rights to several of his early recordings to a overseas company.
****
seeing as how several songs I co-wrote have been airing regularly for over 2 years on TV (kid's show stuff, so I do mean regularly)
****
As a musician, I don't feel like a small-time individual has many options; I have a pretty broad idea of fair use, myself, but if Kanye sampled my song and made millions off of it then damn right I would want a piece. Without the resources to hire a lawyer, who else but ASCAP could help me get my share?
****
As a musician, and as an entrepreneur making my living selling equipment to studios and musicians, I obviously have a great deal to lose if the putative forces of "copyleft" somehow succeed in preventing music being paid for.
I would also like to point out that even "bar bands" can make a popular song that "will require collections in the future". Many musicians start out in a bar (or garage, even!) and go on to "make it".
Is this some corollary to Masnick's law? If an ASCAP member dares disagree with ASCAP then they will forever be doomed to musical obscurity? Can you not come up with anything more worthwhile?
On the post: It Appears That The Encyclopaedia Britannica Entry On Shaking Down GPS Providers With A Bogus Patent Needs Updating
Re: Re: That's what happens...
Someone lost their job over that, I bet.
On the post: ASCAP Members Pissed Off At ASCAP's Attack On Creative Commons
Re: Re: Re:
Rewrite:
they can't afford lawyers to get what is or will be "owed" to them, so they rely on ASCAP to collect and enforce the proper licenses now or in the future.
On the post: ASCAP Members Pissed Off At ASCAP's Attack On Creative Commons
Re: Re: Re: Whoa, what?
I can't help but see the letter and its underlying reasons for this "battle" they want funding to wage as more of a "fight or flight" reaction than any type of malicious endeavor.
That explains why, as you noted, it isn't logical, and a bit silly. As is the theme for everything IP related, if anything causes them to *not* make money, then it should be eliminated. Since the EFF is strongly in the Fair Use camp and in a twisted way CC does compete with ASCAP, both make excellent kneejerk reaction targets.
In the end, it doesn't matter, I suppose.
On the post: ASCAP Members Pissed Off At ASCAP's Attack On Creative Commons
Re: Whoa, what?
On the post: ASCAP Members Pissed Off At ASCAP's Attack On Creative Commons
Re:
I would imagine that the musicians that are not "major stars" have more to lose. As a few noted in Mike's post, they can't afford lawyers to get what is "owed" to them, so they rely on ASCAP to do it.
It's okay, though, no one expects critical thinking from you, TAM.
On the post: Viacom In Denial Over Court Smackdown In YouTube Case
Re:
Not to mention, the court ruling just says that it is the copyright holder's responsibility to alert service providers that something was uploaded without their permission, versus the service provider magically knowing what is authorized and what is not. Which, apparently, Viacom can't even keep track of.
On the post: ACLU Jumps Into Case Where North Carolina Wants Detailed Info On Your Amazon Purchases
Re: Plan B
Anyway, if the lawsuit doesn't pan out on the side of privacy (and common sense) then Amazon can always elect to stop selling to people with a North Carolina shipping or billing address. That should stir up enough angry citizens to get North Carolina to back down, I imagine.
On the post: ACLU Jumps Into Case Where North Carolina Wants Detailed Info On Your Amazon Purchases
Plan B
On the post: US Copyright Group Says BitTorrent's Architecture Explains Why It's Ok To Lump 5,000 Defendants Into One Lawsuit
Re: Copyright infringement/violation/theft and legal definitions !!
You are the worst type of idiot. A right is not property, and you know it. You can't "steal" a right to an exclusive monopoly-- but you can infringe on it.
Then if you are honest, and did not download/upload the file, you have nothing to worry about. Your what they call innocent.,/i>
Right, because lawyers don't charge you if you tell them you're innocent. I don't know about you, but if I have to pay a lawyer and take time off work to prove I'm innocent because the plaintiff doesn't want to be bothered to do their due diligence *because it would be too much work* then I'd consider that a misuse of the legal system.
And Mike if a theft occures, you dont necessarily have to call the police.
No, you don't. But if you call the person who has stolen from you can threaten to call the cops unless he gives you $5,000 then you are now guilty of extortion, aren't you?
Also, if they are all accused of sharing 1 file, then the MAX that can be awarded is $150,000 divided by each defendant, right?
On the post: Evidence Suggests RIAA Labels Behind 'Grassroots Citizen's Group' Supporting Canadian DMCA
Re: It's when ordinary citizens ban together to rise up against injustice being forced down on them by corrupt politicians acting on behalf of oppressors such as yourself.
Okay, I'll bite. How do they oppress you?
On the post: Is Forcing IsoHunt To Block Search Terms A First Amendment Violation?
Re: ISOhunt
On the post: Is Forcing IsoHunt To Block Search Terms A First Amendment Violation?
Stupid
How can so many people not understand something as simple using a search engine? It hurts my brain.
On the post: Film Director: File Sharing Only Hurts Bad Or Mediocre Films
Re: New Business Model?
This is bad?
On the post: The Government And Silicon Valley: Lead, Follow Or Get Out Of The Way?
Re: Mike, Alot of talk but short on answers ! A model is the exchange for goods and services for money.
Piracy is here to stay.
So, you can find new business model, mimic (or, copy, if you will) someone else's successful business model, or find a new job. That is to say: Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
On the post: Top Public School Signs Multi-Million Dollar Deal To Copyright & Sell Its Curriculum
Public Domain
Next >>