As there is more and more pressure to make everything free, open, available, and without cost, the other side will push back harder and harder.
So, one side demands to allow an infinite good to be infinitely available, and the other side wants to control my memories.
You're so right, that seems perfectly reasonable.
Heck, they have all but swallowed the entire music business, made newspapers into buggy whip businesses, and so on.
By "they" do you mean "technological advances in computing power and data transfer"? Or maybe "Increased efficency in ad-based marketing"?
It's not a group of people with a similar mindset that these people fear, it's being displaced from their seats of power due to advances in technology. They are fighting *the future*, and they are doomed to lose.
So in many ways, the more stuff slips over the abyss, the more the ones on the cliff will try to solidfy their positions.
The abyss being the public domain? The place our founders expected everything to end up for the good of *everyone* after a *finite* amount of time? That abyss?
As a side note, sporting events are private events, and the terms and conditions of a ticket are more than likely enforcible.
Yes, they can throw you out or bar you from entering, but they can't take away your rights. Especially since you buy the ticket before you read the back, they'd be throwing money away to stop me from taking a picture, because I'd demand a refund. That's a swell idea-- piss off paying fans. Oh, no, you're right, that's pretty much how things are done these days.
But they are putting it out there to specifically block off the non-media media who will buy a seat and try to report like that.
Non-media media? Seriously? Oh, the people they haven't given a press pass? A press pass is not authorization to report, it's much like a backstage pass, it simply allows the wearer to go into places not open to the general public. The media is the media with or without a backstage pass.
I really don't understand why you're all onboard for anything that is attempting to control your memories of an event. How much of a drone can you be not just to accept it, but to actually *defend* it?
Binge drinking is usually defined as 5 drinks for men and 4 for women in a two hour period. (At least, that's what my Navy training told me) I find that definition to be woefully unrealistic. ONE Long Island Iced Tea is binge drinking unless you take more than two hours to drink it.
Please.
It's a take, take, take until I puke, puke, puke society, so download music far beyond any sane level of need isn't out of line for them.
I thought I had already gone over this. Hard drive space is cheap and abundant. Songs/Albums will be downloaded to "check them out" and most will probably fall into the "Meh." category, and remain on the hard drive until the need to clear up some space. (Assuming they aren't outright deleted.) Only a psycologist would assume this is some kind of impulsive need instead of the normal search for new likable music.
As I understand it, yes. Of course, I'm no expert, so I could be way off base. Any actual legal advice should come from your friendly neighborhood IP lawyer.
Then real music will flourish, and the Creeds and Britanys of the music world will have to sell their gold-plated shark tanks to make ends meet.
How sad are you that you honestly believe that music will suffer because a band doesn't have their IP swindled from them for cross-collateral, all-in 12 points and a 7 Album deal that probably will only see one album because they're not main stream enough to be "worth" the investment to an executive.
There's so much wrong with "standard" Record Label contracts that, after reading about it for a day or three, I find it hard to understand why anyone still signs them.
Here's the scoop, as I understand it: Your works are automatically copyrighted upon creation, but to enforce it, it has to be registered. After registration, you may enforce your copyright, not from the time of registration, but from the time of creation.
I know, it makes absolutely no sense, but that's the way it is.
FUD much, do you? Might as well say, "It's clear these kids don't respect anything, your daughter is probably next." Or maybe, "..your life is probably next."
Do you *honestly* think hitting Ctrl+V on a computer is the step before theft? Seriously, you're a walking, talking caricature.
It's exactly like kleptomaniacs, they are downloading because they can and it turns them on, not because they need or will use what they have pinched.
So, 60% of the UK's kids have a mental disorder? All the more reason not to hunt them down and punish them, I mean, they're sick kids! They need *help*.
I wish it were that easy. It isn't, and you're more than foolish to think so. Kids these days have grown accustomed to living in an increasingly connected world. Copying one file to another folder is no big deal, why would one file to another folder on another computer? Not to mention, it's far more likely that an album gets downloaded, a song or two is sampled, and if it's worth it, it goes in the list of "Things I like" and if it isn't to their taste, it is just left on the hard drive until they need the space, when it gets deleted. (Another reason every download != a lost sale, btw)
The real fun part of the equation, assume the IP holders stay sue-happy for another decade-- how will they *possibly* get a jury member who hasn't shared files before?
Does it matter? We are here to discuss ideas, not people.
You're saying that no matter who the person, everything out of their mouth should be weighed as equal on every subject? Let's face it, some people here I'm more likely to skip their comments. (Angrydude, I'm looking at you.)
Furthermore, I think you missed the point of Mike's post, too. I didn't read anywhere that Joel was asking the musicians how they felt about their contract. You're right, it does suck, and in the past, it was the easiest/best may to "make it" as a musician. Of course, that's not the case anymore, and I think a little social education campaign enlightening new musicians to the fact that the record labels are at best, just a middle man and at worst a sinking ship.
The point was to see how the musicians felt about a fan being punished for sharing their art. The RIAA always says that they "have no choice but to sue" because filesharing "robs artists and music creators of the right to be paid for their work", but if the artists/music creators don't care, or even encourage it, then it's not really "about the artists", but instead "about the labels" which puts an entirely different spin on the situation from a PR standpoint. (Legally, of course, it makes no difference, and I know that.)
You're an IP lawyer, aren't you? No, your *brother* is a musician. No, don't tell me...! :P
What I find strange is that out of the 4 comments, only 1 has input a name. However, they are a "standard (small) group of RIAA supporters concerning this idea" who have obviosly posted on this issue before.
Why the secrecy guys? I don't except a real name (Obviously; I don't post mine!) but just any handle so I can assign the appropriate amount of credit (or lack thereof) to the poster.
I think it would be fun if Mike had his site admin change the "default name" (aka, Anonymous Coward) to "Semi-anonymous Mouthpiece" when coming from those IP addresses.
If society was so talented then there would not need to be the talk of getting rid of Copyright at all.
It takes no talent to make a copy of a digital file. So I have no desire to pay someone to do it for me, as any 4 year old with a computer can do it.
Musicians can, and do, get paid to make music. Not copies of music.
In the end he and most of you have lost grasp of the fact that just because you think the business models are outdated and inappropriate, does not mean crap to anyone.
As a consumer, we all have an indirect influence on how a business is run, thus, any smart business owner would take heed.
I don't know about anyone else, but whenever a large company prints the word "FACT:" I'm confident whatever follows it will be, at best, a half-truth and more likely an outright lie.
They are so out of touch with reality it's no longer funny.
Worse yet, there's nothing more pathetic than a group of multi-million dollar record labels bringing the legal hammer down on one private citizen, and then gloat about it. They should be ashamed of themselves, every last cog in their machine needs to call up their mother and explain to her that they financially ruined a young man's life for no better reason than they could-- and then had the soullessness to *gloat* about it. And for what? Because he told other people how to arrange ones and zeros on their computer to mimic sounds that were at some point in the past played by someone else. How can no one see how asinine that is?!
Now, I'm largely, if not entirely, in the dark when it comes to the ins and outs of patents and the patent system, but looking at the three patents listed above, aren't they all patents on ideas?
I saw nothing on *how* to implement, I only saw *what* to implement.
I'm probably missing something fundamental, so any insight would probably make my head stop hurting.
On the post: Big Pharma Abusing Patent Laws To Seize And Destroy Legal Indian Generic Drugs
Come on!
Sheesh. :)
On the post: Wal-Mart Abusing Trademark Law To Try To Shut Down Union Website
Re: Dilution/association
I'm not implying you're wrong, I'm asking if that matters.
On the post: Southeastern Conference Wants To 'Control Memories' Of Sporting Events; Limits Reporters & Fans
Re:
So, one side demands to allow an infinite good to be infinitely available, and the other side wants to control my memories.
You're so right, that seems perfectly reasonable.
Heck, they have all but swallowed the entire music business, made newspapers into buggy whip businesses, and so on.
By "they" do you mean "technological advances in computing power and data transfer"? Or maybe "Increased efficency in ad-based marketing"?
It's not a group of people with a similar mindset that these people fear, it's being displaced from their seats of power due to advances in technology. They are fighting *the future*, and they are doomed to lose.
So in many ways, the more stuff slips over the abyss, the more the ones on the cliff will try to solidfy their positions.
The abyss being the public domain? The place our founders expected everything to end up for the good of *everyone* after a *finite* amount of time? That abyss?
As a side note, sporting events are private events, and the terms and conditions of a ticket are more than likely enforcible.
Yes, they can throw you out or bar you from entering, but they can't take away your rights. Especially since you buy the ticket before you read the back, they'd be throwing money away to stop me from taking a picture, because I'd demand a refund. That's a swell idea-- piss off paying fans. Oh, no, you're right, that's pretty much how things are done these days.
But they are putting it out there to specifically block off the non-media media who will buy a seat and try to report like that.
Non-media media? Seriously? Oh, the people they haven't given a press pass? A press pass is not authorization to report, it's much like a backstage pass, it simply allows the wearer to go into places not open to the general public. The media is the media with or without a backstage pass.
I really don't understand why you're all onboard for anything that is attempting to control your memories of an event. How much of a drone can you be not just to accept it, but to actually *defend* it?
On the post: $1 Trillion Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Oprah Dismissed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: general question
That'll be $700. :)
On the post: New Study States The Obvious: Kids Download A Lot Of Music
Re: Re: Re:
Please.
It's a take, take, take until I puke, puke, puke society, so download music far beyond any sane level of need isn't out of line for them.
I thought I had already gone over this. Hard drive space is cheap and abundant. Songs/Albums will be downloaded to "check them out" and most will probably fall into the "Meh." category, and remain on the hard drive until the need to clear up some space. (Assuming they aren't outright deleted.) Only a psycologist would assume this is some kind of impulsive need instead of the normal search for new likable music.
On the post: $1 Trillion Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Oprah Dismissed
Re: Re: Re: general question
On the post: New Study States The Obvious: Kids Download A Lot Of Music
Re: Re:
How sad are you that you honestly believe that music will suffer because a band doesn't have their IP swindled from them for cross-collateral, all-in 12 points and a 7 Album deal that probably will only see one album because they're not main stream enough to be "worth" the investment to an executive.
There's so much wrong with "standard" Record Label contracts that, after reading about it for a day or three, I find it hard to understand why anyone still signs them.
On the post: $1 Trillion Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Oprah Dismissed
Re: general question
I know, it makes absolutely no sense, but that's the way it is.
On the post: New Study States The Obvious: Kids Download A Lot Of Music
Re:
and your retail store is probably next.
FUD much, do you? Might as well say, "It's clear these kids don't respect anything, your daughter is probably next." Or maybe, "..your life is probably next."
Do you *honestly* think hitting Ctrl+V on a computer is the step before theft? Seriously, you're a walking, talking caricature.
It's exactly like kleptomaniacs, they are downloading because they can and it turns them on, not because they need or will use what they have pinched.
So, 60% of the UK's kids have a mental disorder? All the more reason not to hunt them down and punish them, I mean, they're sick kids! They need *help*.
I wish it were that easy. It isn't, and you're more than foolish to think so. Kids these days have grown accustomed to living in an increasingly connected world. Copying one file to another folder is no big deal, why would one file to another folder on another computer? Not to mention, it's far more likely that an album gets downloaded, a song or two is sampled, and if it's worth it, it goes in the list of "Things I like" and if it isn't to their taste, it is just left on the hard drive until they need the space, when it gets deleted. (Another reason every download != a lost sale, btw)
The real fun part of the equation, assume the IP holders stay sue-happy for another decade-- how will they *possibly* get a jury member who hasn't shared files before?
Oh, that's right, game over. Thanks for playing.
On the post: USPTO Getting Paupers To Hand Over Thousands On The Dream Of Patent Wealth
Re: 1040?
Here's the (very long) page of fees.
On the post: Why Are RIAA Supporters So Scared Of What Actual Musicians Think?
Re: Re: Just a fun idea.
You're saying that no matter who the person, everything out of their mouth should be weighed as equal on every subject? Let's face it, some people here I'm more likely to skip their comments. (Angrydude, I'm looking at you.)
Furthermore, I think you missed the point of Mike's post, too. I didn't read anywhere that Joel was asking the musicians how they felt about their contract. You're right, it does suck, and in the past, it was the easiest/best may to "make it" as a musician. Of course, that's not the case anymore, and I think a little social education campaign enlightening new musicians to the fact that the record labels are at best, just a middle man and at worst a sinking ship.
The point was to see how the musicians felt about a fan being punished for sharing their art. The RIAA always says that they "have no choice but to sue" because filesharing "robs artists and music creators of the right to be paid for their work", but if the artists/music creators don't care, or even encourage it, then it's not really "about the artists", but instead "about the labels" which puts an entirely different spin on the situation from a PR standpoint. (Legally, of course, it makes no difference, and I know that.)
You're an IP lawyer, aren't you? No, your *brother* is a musician. No, don't tell me...! :P
On the post: USPTO Getting Paupers To Hand Over Thousands On The Dream Of Patent Wealth
Re: Re: what?
On the post: Why Are RIAA Supporters So Scared Of What Actual Musicians Think?
Just a fun idea.
Why the secrecy guys? I don't except a real name (Obviously; I don't post mine!) but just any handle so I can assign the appropriate amount of credit (or lack thereof) to the poster.
I think it would be fun if Mike had his site admin change the "default name" (aka, Anonymous Coward) to "Semi-anonymous Mouthpiece" when coming from those IP addresses.
It would make me smile, anyway. :P
On the post: No, A Jury In A Trial Is Not A Representative Sample Of Views On Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a line of crock
It takes no talent to make a copy of a digital file. So I have no desire to pay someone to do it for me, as any 4 year old with a computer can do it.
Musicians can, and do, get paid to make music. Not copies of music.
In the end he and most of you have lost grasp of the fact that just because you think the business models are outdated and inappropriate, does not mean crap to anyone.
As a consumer, we all have an indirect influence on how a business is run, thus, any smart business owner would take heed.
On the post: Musician: Any Aspiring Musician Should Download As Much Music As He Can
Re: Professional musician
I can't make music, but I can make a copy of it. Am I a musician?
On the post: More On Deserving To Get Paid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks a lot. Sheesh.
On the post: More On Deserving To Get Paid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't even own a CD player, why the hell would I buy a CD?
Yeah, yeah, I'm getting off your damn lawn.
On the post: If Robert Johnson Died In 1938... Why Is His Music Still Covered By Copyright?
Re:
On the post: Correcting A Few 'Facts' From The RIAA... For Which We Feel We Deserve Payment
Just me.
They are so out of touch with reality it's no longer funny.
Worse yet, there's nothing more pathetic than a group of multi-million dollar record labels bringing the legal hammer down on one private citizen, and then gloat about it. They should be ashamed of themselves, every last cog in their machine needs to call up their mother and explain to her that they financially ruined a young man's life for no better reason than they could-- and then had the soullessness to *gloat* about it. And for what? Because he told other people how to arrange ones and zeros on their computer to mimic sounds that were at some point in the past played by someone else. How can no one see how asinine that is?!
The world we live in has become a parody.
On the post: And Of Course: Twitter Sued For Patent Infringement In Texas
But seriously..
I saw nothing on *how* to implement, I only saw *what* to implement.
I'm probably missing something fundamental, so any insight would probably make my head stop hurting.
Next >>