And just why should the American people care about a patent's resale value? The lie that innovation only comes about through the agency of big bucks has been proven false many times over.
It's a real shame people like Russell can't afford the legal expense to stand up to this kind of bullying. And it amuses me that the bully lists all those other victims as if they were a badge of legitimacy: "these companies recognized the rights of Mr. French". No, you creep; they recognized that standing up for their rights would take them directly to bankruptcy.
In a nutshell: 1. it can be incredibly difficult to determine who are the interested parties because copyright can change hands and can be divided into portions; 2. it can be challenging even to determine if a work is controlled by copyright in the first place; 3. Large publishers ignore inquiries from independent artists; 4. Hiring the lawyers necessary to engage the publishers is expensive; 5. they wanted an average of 20,000 dollars per song for mechanical licensing of works whose authors are long dead and that should have entered public domain in the 1980's.
Art has value when people experience it and think about it. If nobody experiences or thinks about it, then a work of art has no value. Copying, then, far from diminishing the value of a work of art, contributes to its value.
I've been solving cryptics for twenty years. I enjoyed the puzzle and thought it was very well done. I might quibble with one or two definitions, but so what. I find the complaints posted here beyond bizarre. There's a favorite saying in a church I used to belong to: "If you don't like it, you can't have any!"
Please watch this interview with Nina Paley. She describes her experience obtaining permission to use songs from the mid-1920's in her film Sita Sings the Blues. The most relevant part starts at chapter 15, but do watch the whole thing; she's a very charming speaker.
If your aim is to be understood, then yes, it helps to use words according their widely accepted definitions and established usage. Your "concept of what a collage is" is nothing I have ever encountered.
Why does Andy have to prove anything? It's right there in the paragraphs that Mike has quoted:
The new report highlights that whilst the Music Licensing Industry continues to grow as a multi-billion dollar segment of the global music industry, there remains some unhealthy practices, most notably the prolific practice of retitling. Retitling is where a music licensing company re-registers a song under a different title with a performing rights organization (PRO), allowing for the royalties to be separately tracked when that song is licensed for a specific third party use. This allows the music licensing company to control and earn a significant share of the royalties collected.
On the post: Monsanto Wins Case Of Seed Patents; Planting Your Own Legally Purchased & Grown Seeds Can Be Infringing
"a patent would plummet in value"
On the post: Bogus Trademark Threat From Twisted Sister Forcing Coffee Shop To Change Its Name
Shame
On the post: New Data Exposes Scammy Hospital Pricing; Now Let's Crowdsource Some More
Re: Re: Yup
On the post: Author Of To Kill A Mockingbird Sues Agent For Swiping Her Copyright
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Frankencows: A Complete Misunderstanding Of Science
Re: Re: fOR WHAT REASON?
On the post: IL Follows Suit: Employers Right To Ask For Social Media Passwords Codified Into Law
Re: Factual errors in the article
On the post: Jaron Lanier And Gobbledygook Economics
Re: Re: Jaron Lanier: Why people should pay more attention to me and not Web 2.0
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Please watch this interview with filmmaker Nina Paley:
http://archive.org/details/QuestionCopyright.org_Nina_Paley_Sita_Interview_2008_11_06
In a nutshell: 1. it can be incredibly difficult to determine who are the interested parties because copyright can change hands and can be divided into portions; 2. it can be challenging even to determine if a work is controlled by copyright in the first place; 3. Large publishers ignore inquiries from independent artists; 4. Hiring the lawyers necessary to engage the publishers is expensive; 5. they wanted an average of 20,000 dollars per song for mechanical licensing of works whose authors are long dead and that should have entered public domain in the 1980's.
On the post: Jaron Lanier And Gobbledygook Economics
the value of art
On the post: Solution: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, not bug
On the post: Celebrate The Right To Share On 'World Intellectual Property Day'
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, not bug
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: Re: Feature, not bug
On the post: Thought Prenda Was Dead? No, It's Up To Its Old Tricks... And More
On the post: Performance Rights Organizations Accused Of 'Retitling' Songs To Collect Royalties Without Paying Artists
Re: Re: Wrong culprit
On the post: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re: Re:
On the post: YouTube Wins Yet Another Complete Victory Over Viacom; Court Mocks Viacom's Ridiculous Legal Theories
Re: Re: Re: Re: So Masnick has taken a postion on copyright?
On the post: When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?
On the post: US Gov't Tops Itself In Waiting Years Before Responding To FOIA Requests With Nothing
gray box of nothing
Next >>