Anonymous Coward, the families do "leech" of works that where made long ago, and that they themselves had nothing to do with creating. The families of architects, engineers, construction works, etc, don't get any money when someone resells or rents the buildings they made, much less control who can buy, use or demolish those buildings.
That the families get some sort of economic right to creative works (some percentage of profits made from them), I can understand. There is a certain "moral argument" (more of an emotional one) that can be made for it. But total control on who can sell, perform, adapt, make derivative works, etc; that I cannot agree with. What moral right do Gail Zappa or Yoko Ono have to control the uses of their dead husbands' works? The creators are dead. Their works are part of our collective culture. They should belong just as much to you as to the creators' families (at least as far as control is concerned)! And this should apply just as much to Zappa, as to Mozart, Shakespeare or Aristotle.
Instead of suing everybody, the families should just be proud that people haven't forgotten the works of their husbands/fathers/mothers/etc, and in fact love them so much that they want to perform them.
This case isn't really an indictment of the "copyright system". It could have happened anyway. Jon Engle wouldn't be sued for copyright infringement, but he could still be accused of copying all his work from others, which would damage his reputation even if it was not illegal. To me, this is akin to identity theft.
Whoever stole his work, apparently did it from logopond.com, so resolving this matter should be as simple as comparing the upload dates to logopond.com and stockart.com. This is perhaps the best evidence, as logopond is a third party and the designer could not fake upload dates there. He also should have the original source files with metadata showing date of creation, but that can be faked. The emails exchanged with the clients for which he made the logos are also powerful evidence.
If I was him, I would indeed consider suing stockart and it's lawyers for defamation, loss of income, and of course copyright infringement. And I would immediately send DMCA take-down notices to stockart.com for all the logos. That would make stockart liable if they didn't remove the logos, and might put them on the defensive for a change.
To me stockart and it's lawyers are not acting in good faith, when they refuse to provide evidence like upload dates and go around contacting Engle's clients. If Engle had indeed stolen those logos, he would be monstrously stupid to gather them all in a place like logopond, where he would risk exactly this kind of situation.
This case isn't really an indictment of the "copyright system". It could have happened anyway. Jon Engle wouldn't be sued for copyright infringement, but he could still be accused of copying all his work from others, which would damage his reputation even if it was not illegal. To me, this is akin to identity theft.
Whoever stole his work, apparently did it from logopond.com, so resolving this matter should be as simple as comparing the upload dates to logopond.com and stockart.com. This is perhaps the best evidence, as logopond is a third party and the designer could not fake upload dates there. He also should have the original source files with metadata showing date of creation, but that can be faked. The emails exchanged with the clients for which he made the logos are also powerful evidence.
If I was him, I would indeed consider suing stockart and it's lawyers for defamation, loss of income, and of course copyright infringement. And I would immediately send DMCA take-down notices to stockart.com for all the logos. That would make stockart liable if they didn't remove the logos, and might put them on the defensive for a change.
To me stockart and it's lawyers are not acting in good faith, when they refuse to provide evidence like upload dates and go around contacting Engle's clients. If Engle had indeed stolen those logos, he would be monstrously stupid to gather them all in a place like logopond, where he would risk exactly this kind of situation.
bikey, you are wrong about France not having music to protect. They might not be successful (or even known) outside France, but there are plenty of french artists. If you go there you will notice there is a lot of french music on the radio (I believe a certain french/foreign ratio is mandated by law). And they also have a music TV channel, called MCM (available on satellite, I believe).
I'm not saying I agree with this law. I totally oppose it. And this "Hallyday clause" makes me wonder if foreign artists, that never payed taxes in france at all, will get any protection under this law at all.
To be fair that was a trick question, and pretty much irrelevant to the making of the law.
The real problem here is they are taking advice only from the old guard content companies. European governments did the same for a while when radio came along. The "music industry" of the time didn't like radio broadcasting of music and governments also felt it was not a technology for civilian use. But the public loved tuning in to the pirate radios, some broadcasting from ships in the English channel, where no government had jurisdiction to stop them.
The legislators in France (and elsewhere) should think about this. If their predecessors had implemented a 3 strikes policy towards radio broadcasting of music, would we be better now? Would the "music industry" be better or worse?
And all this to "save" a business model that is doomed anyway. Even if P2P filesharing stopped tomorrow, there are still music blogs, file hosting sites like rapidshare, email, instant messengers, the old usenet, portable drives, etc, etc, where people could get music without exposing themselves to monitoring. Plus there are new legal streaming services every week, where people can hear music (CC or not) for free.
Even if there was only iTunes and NOTHING else, the old business model of promoting 1 song and selling a CD with 12 songs for 15 dollars/euros is OVER!
Piracy via P2P is an excuse, it's a side issue, it's blinding music execs and politicians, but it's mostly a distraction from the real issues. Even if piracy stopped completely tomorrow, it would not change anything!
Weird Harold, P2P software is indeed usually made as to make it difficult to "receive only", because the system would not work well otherwise. There are some modified versions of emule that do that. They're called leecher mods.
But the fact that the functionality is there, does not mean it was used. If I had a gun, I could have used it to kill somebody - that's what they are made for, after all! But you still have to prove it!
One judge in the US has already thrown out a massive guilty verdict when he realized that proving the files where "made available" was not the same as showing they were actually distributed to others.
And the fact that only pieces of a file, and not the complete file, are sent is also relevant to this issue. At best, as you alluded to, it is a conspiracy to infringe copyright. A conspiracy between complete strangers that never met, never talked to each other, didn't plan or intend to commit copyright infringement, didn't profit from it and possibly didn't even knew the uploading was going on. I don't know about conspiracy law, but that's hard to swallow...
By that reasoning I could argue the people who took sub-prime mortgages and the bankers conspired to bring down the financial system.
Plus, a download does not necessarily equal a lost sale. Many wouldn't buy anyway. Some use it to try before they buy, and some go to concerts they wouldn't otherwise go to. Several studies have indicated there is virtually no impact on sales at all!
Anonymous Coward, that was exactly my point. This info should be available to law enforcement on a limited case by case basis, just like wiretapping. If unfettered access is granted it will lead to mass surveillance, which would be bad. I am familiar with 1984. I haven't read it, but have been meaning to for a long time.
I'm also familiar with (and actually read :)) the US Constitution, and I totally agree with you. My point was, if Obama or anyone in government right now, is for unfettered surveillance via cell phones, they will likely change their minds when it gets abused - J. Edgar Hoover style - against them. This isn't an excuse to let them approve these laws, but rather something they should be reminded off, so they don't.
Now that I think about it, a J. Edgar Hoover type scandal would be good for the US and the world right now. To stop all these ideas of unfettered surveillance and security above everything.
On the post: Frank Zappa's Wife Continues To Claim Cover Bands Can't Play His Music (Even Though They Can)
Re: Re: Copyright Question
That the families get some sort of economic right to creative works (some percentage of profits made from them), I can understand. There is a certain "moral argument" (more of an emotional one) that can be made for it. But total control on who can sell, perform, adapt, make derivative works, etc; that I cannot agree with. What moral right do Gail Zappa or Yoko Ono have to control the uses of their dead husbands' works? The creators are dead. Their works are part of our collective culture. They should belong just as much to you as to the creators' families (at least as far as control is concerned)! And this should apply just as much to Zappa, as to Mozart, Shakespeare or Aristotle.
Instead of suing everybody, the families should just be proud that people haven't forgotten the works of their husbands/fathers/mothers/etc, and in fact love them so much that they want to perform them.
On the post: Designer Threatened With Copyright Infringement Claims... On His Own Work
Why not DMCA take-down stockart.com?
Whoever stole his work, apparently did it from logopond.com, so resolving this matter should be as simple as comparing the upload dates to logopond.com and stockart.com. This is perhaps the best evidence, as logopond is a third party and the designer could not fake upload dates there. He also should have the original source files with metadata showing date of creation, but that can be faked. The emails exchanged with the clients for which he made the logos are also powerful evidence.
If I was him, I would indeed consider suing stockart and it's lawyers for defamation, loss of income, and of course copyright infringement. And I would immediately send DMCA take-down notices to stockart.com for all the logos. That would make stockart liable if they didn't remove the logos, and might put them on the defensive for a change.
To me stockart and it's lawyers are not acting in good faith, when they refuse to provide evidence like upload dates and go around contacting Engle's clients. If Engle had indeed stolen those logos, he would be monstrously stupid to gather them all in a place like logopond, where he would risk exactly this kind of situation.
On the post: Designer Threatened With Copyright Infringement Claims... On His Own Work
Why not DMCA take-down stockart.com?
Whoever stole his work, apparently did it from logopond.com, so resolving this matter should be as simple as comparing the upload dates to logopond.com and stockart.com. This is perhaps the best evidence, as logopond is a third party and the designer could not fake upload dates there. He also should have the original source files with metadata showing date of creation, but that can be faked. The emails exchanged with the clients for which he made the logos are also powerful evidence.
If I was him, I would indeed consider suing stockart and it's lawyers for defamation, loss of income, and of course copyright infringement. And I would immediately send DMCA take-down notices to stockart.com for all the logos. That would make stockart liable if they didn't remove the logos, and might put them on the defensive for a change.
To me stockart and it's lawyers are not acting in good faith, when they refuse to provide evidence like upload dates and go around contacting Engle's clients. If Engle had indeed stolen those logos, he would be monstrously stupid to gather them all in a place like logopond, where he would risk exactly this kind of situation.
On the post: France Passes Three-Strikes Law
Re: France's new 'law'
I'm not saying I agree with this law. I totally oppose it. And this "Hallyday clause" makes me wonder if foreign artists, that never payed taxes in france at all, will get any protection under this law at all.
On the post: French Lawmakers Trying To Regulate File Sharing Don't Know Much About It
Trick question
The real problem here is they are taking advice only from the old guard content companies. European governments did the same for a while when radio came along. The "music industry" of the time didn't like radio broadcasting of music and governments also felt it was not a technology for civilian use. But the public loved tuning in to the pirate radios, some broadcasting from ships in the English channel, where no government had jurisdiction to stop them.
The legislators in France (and elsewhere) should think about this. If their predecessors had implemented a 3 strikes policy towards radio broadcasting of music, would we be better now? Would the "music industry" be better or worse?
And all this to "save" a business model that is doomed anyway. Even if P2P filesharing stopped tomorrow, there are still music blogs, file hosting sites like rapidshare, email, instant messengers, the old usenet, portable drives, etc, etc, where people could get music without exposing themselves to monitoring. Plus there are new legal streaming services every week, where people can hear music (CC or not) for free.
Even if there was only iTunes and NOTHING else, the old business model of promoting 1 song and selling a CD with 12 songs for 15 dollars/euros is OVER!
Piracy via P2P is an excuse, it's a side issue, it's blinding music execs and politicians, but it's mostly a distraction from the real issues. Even if piracy stopped completely tomorrow, it would not change anything!
On the post: File Sharing, Damages And The Constitution...
Re: Re: Another line of attack
But the fact that the functionality is there, does not mean it was used. If I had a gun, I could have used it to kill somebody - that's what they are made for, after all! But you still have to prove it!
One judge in the US has already thrown out a massive guilty verdict when he realized that proving the files where "made available" was not the same as showing they were actually distributed to others.
And the fact that only pieces of a file, and not the complete file, are sent is also relevant to this issue. At best, as you alluded to, it is a conspiracy to infringe copyright. A conspiracy between complete strangers that never met, never talked to each other, didn't plan or intend to commit copyright infringement, didn't profit from it and possibly didn't even knew the uploading was going on. I don't know about conspiracy law, but that's hard to swallow...
By that reasoning I could argue the people who took sub-prime mortgages and the bankers conspired to bring down the financial system.
Plus, a download does not necessarily equal a lost sale. Many wouldn't buy anyway. Some use it to try before they buy, and some go to concerts they wouldn't otherwise go to. Several studies have indicated there is virtually no impact on sales at all!
On the post: White House Says Feds Should Have Unfettered Access To Mobile Phone Location Info
Re: Re:
I'm also familiar with (and actually read :)) the US Constitution, and I totally agree with you. My point was, if Obama or anyone in government right now, is for unfettered surveillance via cell phones, they will likely change their minds when it gets abused - J. Edgar Hoover style - against them. This isn't an excuse to let them approve these laws, but rather something they should be reminded off, so they don't.
Now that I think about it, a J. Edgar Hoover type scandal would be good for the US and the world right now. To stop all these ideas of unfettered surveillance and security above everything.
Next >>