According to Statistics Canada data, there are approximately 15,500 schools in Canada:
10,100 elementary 3,400 secondary 2,000& mixed elementary and secondary
Enforcement would be no joke. Sounds like a lot of work to talk to that many institutions at least once a year (that is being very conservative). Without seeing the books, I don't know.
1 million dollars over ten years = 100,000 dollars a year lets say a staff of 4 at an annual salary of 20,000= 80,000 lets add rent, electricity, business expenses etc. That could easily eat 20 grand in a year.seems pretty easy to see how they could be 1 mil in debt...
or
they could be stealing all the money they collected for only nefarious and under handed reasons......... My bet would be a mixture of both.
"Ownership" of music and stories is relatively new concept in human history. Ancient societies passed stories and music freely amongst each other.
The Recording process is relatively new. The recording process has forever changed music. A recording transforms song from a mere idea. The performance of that idea is captured as a moment in time unique to that individual and that instills it with worth as a tangible asset. One does not buy a Billy Joel record to hear someone sing one of his songs. One buys a Billy Joel record to hear his infinitely unique voice. One buys Billy Joel's performance of his song. Any minstrel can sing a Billy Joel song but I would think a Billy Joel fan will tell you it is not quite the same.
The R&D active versus non-R&D active distinction is only particularly relevant for utility patents and design patents (and mask works, but hardly anyone registers masks works anymore).
One would posit companies that are inventing or innovating would have any use for utility patents. If most companies do not participate in these activities then it would follow most companies would have no use for patents.
"From a theoretical perspective, there is no reason to think that R&D active businesses would benefit more or less from trademarks than non-R&D active businesses. Of course, these data suggest there is a difference between the two groups, which is something worth exploring."
I think Xerox would be a perfect example. Xerox copies would be a process that a company would want to trademark and undoubtedly required an R&D department to invent.
"The three value Likert items are not really ideal precisely because the definition of "somewhat important" is unclear. Is "somewhat important" equidistant from "very" and "not"? Do survey respondents select it as a "neutral" value when they don't want to choose "very" or "not"? In my opinion, eliding the distinction between "very" and "somewhat" will tend to overstate importance"
If an answer is Yes, no, or maybe, Yes's and maybes count as possibles and no s stand alone. I believe "very important" and "somewhat important" are not ambiguous. They either have importance or they do not. On this we do not agree and that is fine. Thank you for your response
I have no need to convince you or any other "anonymous coward" of anything. I am not addressing Prenda nor made any mention of it in my post. This article is about a survey of U.S companies in relation to Copyright, trademark, and patents. If you do not wish to discuss that then
"these aren't the droid you're looking for,..........." "You can go about your business,........." " Move along..............."
"In 2010, 87.2% of businesses reported that trademarks were 'not important' to them."
While that is true, 55.5% of businesses with an active R&D Department said trademarks were "very important" to "some what important."
"90.1% of businesses reported that copyrights were “not important” to them.
This figure drops to less than 50%(47.9) for companies with an active R&D department with over 50 employees.
"96.2% of businesses reported that patents were “not important” to them."
This figure is specifically for utility patents.
Utility patent: Issued for the invention of a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or a new and useful improvement thereof
In 2010, 96.2% of businesses had no need for a utility patent. Most businesses do not invent and thus have no need for utility patents.
"For example, take one of the most copyright-dependent sectors we can imagine: “R&D active” software publishing. In 2010, 51.4% of respondents in this sector said copyright was “very important”; 34.6% said it was “somewhat important”; and 13.9% said it was “not important.” That is, only about half of respondents in a purportedly heavily copyright-dependent sector describe copyright as “very important” to their business.
What those figures means is that 86% of respondents said copyright was important. Over half saying it was very important. Only 13.9% said it wasn't important. I am not saying this piece is biased in any way but.........
I don't get on here just to be contrarian. But seriously, c'mon. The study itself is set up as companies with active R&D Departments and those without. IP is important to companies that innovate and create. That is what this study communicates to me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It adds to our culture.
"In 2013, life plus 70 years makes absolutely no sense at all. a work can be disseminated in minutes, not year."
I see it more then dissemination. Life plus 70 yrs granted is a long time. However, I see it as being able to commercially maximize a creation, I see that as the right of the creator. A writer rights a story and creates a character. Years later someone wants to make a film based on his story. Then toys are made....maybe an amusement park ride...who knows. I feel the creator should be able to profit from that idea as opposed to someone else. A creator is not lazy for wanting this. The continuing extension of the right I do not agree with.
I cannot see how limiting the copyright to the life of the creator would work. Besides the problems you mentioned, I can envision situations where on a very profitable work, the life of the creator would be in serious danger. I am supportive of copyright because I believe the creator should be given ample time to commercially exploit his or her creation. However, the length of terms are greatly in need of re-evaluation.
"and the artists are still stupid enough to think that every time there is a law suit against some member of the public, for doing what all people do and have done since time began, share things in order to enjoy, to improve and benefit everyone, that law suit is done to protect them and their families."
stupid artists........don't they know that when people get sued for downloading their songs without paying for them the person is just doing what people have done since the beginning of time.......Huh?
To view the right the same as a property right. There are certain rights that are attached to property but the property itself is transferable thus the rights transfer.
Sadly this is not surprising and , in the U.S., turns on the definition of a work for hire. If a sound recording is a work for hire then it was made for the employer(i.e. record company) and they hold the copyright. Then the termination right doesn't apply because as opposed to signing over the copyright the artist never had it in the first place. It will be highly litigated in the near future, as was mentioned, as the extensions deadlines are coming up.
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Ltd. v. UMG Recordings, Inc.
So if I pay to see your movie, and think that it is crap, are you going to refund the purchase price and re-imburse me for my lost time.
No
to take away my rights with back door bargains with corrupt politicians.
I haven't done this.
to charge me twice as much for a digital product because I do not live in the USA.
I haven't done this either.
Remove a movie from an online repository after a person has paid for it.
Definitely don't agree with this. I believe often what is purchased is a license and licenses are revocable. Whenever I buy a digital download, I download it because that is what I purchased. I buy it so I want to have it.
Writing songs about our culture without paying us.
Um...I am kinda at a loss on this one. Any artist I have ever worked with, myself included, just right about our personal experiences.
"This is a list of shit they probably didn't download, and we don't produce garbage like this. Please throw the book at them."
I really had a big problem with this. I was discussing this exhibit C business with a colleague and I find it despicable. By placing items they knowingly do not own into the complaint is just a tactic to get them to settle. It would seem criminal and I do not have an answer for you.
"first, just because you made something does not make you entitled to any return."
No, but you are not entitled to have it without paying for it. It is a product that has value and as such, and as any other product, you should pay for it.
"If you didn't manage to convince people that they WANT to pay you for it, tough luck.
Is this the same logic the shoplifter uses? You have to convince me to spend my money. Odd your local department store doesn't hold this same opinion.
"second, you can scream blue murder as much as you like, but that won't make the illegitimate sources go away. you can only learn to live with it and offer a superior service."
I'm not screaming blue murder I'm calling out the ridiculous outrage at getting popped for taking something without paying for it. Webster has a definition for it.
steal: to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal.
I'm not really here to debate the morals of copyright. Here's the thing, copyright is law and grants numerous rights. So when you break the law there are consequences. I live with piracy everyday. It's the new reality and has forever changed the genres I work in. I accept it. Just call it what it is and be honest with yourself. Taking something without paying for it has a definition.
"third, in a world where a number of copyright holders are shamelessly abusing the laws as is, any screams of unfair treatment of rightsholders will be regarded as worthless hyperbole."
I am not them and we are not one in the same. It may be easier for you to pretend we are to justify taking something without paying for it but it simply isn't true. The pirate is not a mass murderer and I am not Disney.
"People can't and won't care anymore about any of your complaints. And the more people get hit with in their view ridiculous and unfair lawsuits, the less these laws will be respected."
You don't have to respect the law just as the speeder doesn't have to respect the speed limit sign. It is just expensive when they get caught.
The nebulous everyone infringes on copyright once a day argument.
I'm afraid this is very specific and actionable by law
Regardless of how I feel about the litigation, If you don't pay for your copy of Giant Butt Destruction 7, and take it for free, you have been put on notice you might get sued. If you want to avoid the embarrassment just buy a copy and you will have nothing to worry about.
I am sure your parents did not approve of you shoplifting, why do you feel it is ok now?
I made it available on DVD. I made a website to order it from. I am not sure why this shouldn't be enough, But after I felt people wanted a digital copy I made one available. I did all you asked of me yet I am wrong for wanting to make money from my investment. I am told repeatedly I am aligned with Disney, I don't know anyone at Disney.
I made a movie 4 years ago. I want to enforce my copyright and have people buy it. This is the law. The bargain that was struck. I have bribed no politicians. I don't and am not trying to do an end around anyone. I want to make the money off of the thing I MADE. You tell me I am part of some cartel and that because what I made is on pirate bay it's OK to TAKE IT? Somehow I have failed the consumer? It cost ME money to MAKE. Why do you get it for FREE?
Horrible logic. Everyone is stealing it must be right? All it shows is that technology has allowed people to take something that cost money to produce and not pay for it.
On the post: Canadian Copyright Collective Calls It A Day After 15 Years Of Failing To Make Payments To Rights Holders
Re: Re: Pedantic Math error
10,100 elementary
3,400 secondary
2,000& mixed elementary and secondary
Enforcement would be no joke.
Sounds like a lot of work to talk to that many institutions at least once a year (that is being very conservative). Without seeing the books, I don't know.
1 million dollars over ten years = 100,000 dollars a year
lets say a staff of 4 at an annual salary of 20,000= 80,000
lets add rent, electricity, business expenses etc. That could easily eat 20 grand in a year.seems pretty easy to see how they could be 1 mil in debt...
or
they could be stealing all the money they collected for only nefarious and under handed reasons.........
My bet would be a mixture of both.
On the post: Judge Says That Sherlock Holmes Is In The Public Domain
On the post: Hidden Within The TPP: The RIAA's Secret Plan To Screw Musicians Out Of Their Rights
Re: Re: Re:
The Recording process is relatively new. The recording process has forever changed music. A recording transforms song from a mere idea. The performance of that idea is captured as a moment in time unique to that individual and that instills it with worth as a tangible asset. One does not buy a Billy Joel record to hear someone sing one of his songs. One buys a Billy Joel record to hear his infinitely unique voice. One buys Billy Joel's performance of his song. Any minstrel can sing a Billy Joel song but I would think a Billy Joel fan will tell you it is not quite the same.
On the post: DOJ Releases Some Megaupload Evidence; Actually Shows Difficulty Of Running Cloud Service
Re:
On the post: Vast Majority Of US Businesses Say Intellectual Property Is Not Important
Re: Re:
One would posit companies that are inventing or innovating would have any use for utility patents. If most companies do not participate in these activities then it would follow most companies would have no use for patents.
"From a theoretical perspective, there is no reason to think that R&D active businesses would benefit more or less from trademarks than non-R&D active businesses. Of course, these data suggest there is a difference between the two groups, which is something worth exploring."
I think Xerox would be a perfect example. Xerox copies would be a process that a company would want to trademark and undoubtedly required an R&D department to invent.
"The three value Likert items are not really ideal precisely because the definition of "somewhat important" is unclear. Is "somewhat important" equidistant from "very" and "not"? Do survey respondents select it as a "neutral" value when they don't want to choose "very" or "not"? In my opinion, eliding the distinction between "very" and "somewhat" will tend to overstate importance"
If an answer is Yes, no, or maybe, Yes's and maybes count as possibles and no s stand alone. I believe "very important" and "somewhat important" are not ambiguous. They either have importance or they do not. On this we do not agree and that is fine. Thank you for your response
On the post: Vast Majority Of US Businesses Say Intellectual Property Is Not Important
Re: Re:
"these aren't the droid you're looking for,..........."
"You can go about your business,........."
" Move along..............."
On the post: Vast Majority Of US Businesses Say Intellectual Property Is Not Important
While that is true, 55.5% of businesses with an active R&D Department said trademarks were "very important" to "some what important."
"90.1% of businesses reported that copyrights were “not important” to them.
This figure drops to less than 50%(47.9) for companies with an active R&D department with over 50 employees.
"96.2% of businesses reported that patents were “not important” to them."
This figure is specifically for utility patents.
Utility patent: Issued for the invention of a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or a new and useful improvement thereof
In 2010, 96.2% of businesses had no need for a utility patent. Most businesses do not invent and thus have no need for utility patents.
"For example, take one of the most copyright-dependent sectors we can imagine: “R&D active” software publishing.
In 2010, 51.4% of respondents in this sector said copyright was “very important”; 34.6% said it was “somewhat important”; and 13.9% said it was “not important.” That is, only about half of respondents in a purportedly heavily copyright-dependent sector describe copyright as “very important” to their business.
What those figures means is that 86% of respondents said copyright was important. Over half saying it was very important. Only 13.9% said it wasn't important. I am not saying this piece is biased in any way but.........
I don't get on here just to be contrarian. But seriously, c'mon. The study itself is set up as companies with active R&D Departments and those without. IP is important to companies that innovate and create. That is what this study communicates to me.
On the post: Santa Claus Is Coming To Town... And EMI Is Keeping The Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It adds to our culture.
I see it more then dissemination. Life plus 70 yrs granted is a long time. However, I see it as being able to commercially maximize a creation, I see that as the right of the creator.
A writer rights a story and creates a character. Years later someone wants to make a film based on his story. Then toys are made....maybe an amusement park ride...who knows. I feel the creator should be able to profit from that idea as opposed to someone else. A creator is not lazy for wanting this. The continuing extension of the right I do not agree with.
On the post: Santa Claus Is Coming To Town... And EMI Is Keeping The Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It adds to our culture.
I am supportive of copyright because I believe the creator should be given ample time to commercially exploit his or her creation. However, the length of terms are greatly in need of re-evaluation.
On the post: Hidden Within The TPP: The RIAA's Secret Plan To Screw Musicians Out Of Their Rights
Re:
stupid artists........don't they know that when people get sued for downloading their songs without paying for them the person is just doing what people have done since the beginning of time.......Huh?
On the post: Hidden Within The TPP: The RIAA's Secret Plan To Screw Musicians Out Of Their Rights
Re: Re: Is anyone surprised by this?
On the post: Hidden Within The TPP: The RIAA's Secret Plan To Screw Musicians Out Of Their Rights
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Ltd. v. UMG Recordings, Inc.
Really digs into this if anyone is interested.
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Has Filed Over 1,100 Lawsuits This Year Alone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No
to take away my rights with back door bargains with corrupt politicians.
I haven't done this.
to charge me twice as much for a digital product because I do not live in the USA.
I haven't done this either.
Remove a movie from an online repository after a person has paid for it.
Definitely don't agree with this. I believe often what is purchased is a license and licenses are revocable. Whenever I buy a digital download, I download it because that is what I purchased. I buy it so I want to have it.
Writing songs about our culture without paying us.
Um...I am kinda at a loss on this one. Any artist I have ever worked with, myself included, just right about our personal experiences.
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Has Filed Over 1,100 Lawsuits This Year Alone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"This is a list of shit they probably didn't download, and we don't produce garbage like this. Please throw the book at them."
I really had a big problem with this. I was discussing this exhibit C business with a colleague and I find it despicable. By placing items they knowingly do not own into the complaint is just a tactic to get them to settle. It would seem criminal and I do not have an answer for you.
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Has Filed Over 1,100 Lawsuits This Year Alone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, but you are not entitled to have it without paying for it. It is a product that has value and as such, and as any other product, you should pay for it.
"If you didn't manage to convince people that they WANT to pay you for it, tough luck.
Is this the same logic the shoplifter uses? You have to convince me to spend my money. Odd your local department store doesn't hold this same opinion.
"second, you can scream blue murder as much as you like, but that won't make the illegitimate sources go away. you can only learn to live with it and offer a superior service."
I'm not screaming blue murder I'm calling out the ridiculous outrage at getting popped for taking something without paying for it. Webster has a definition for it.
steal: to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal.
I'm not really here to debate the morals of copyright. Here's the thing, copyright is law and grants numerous rights. So when you break the law there are consequences. I live with piracy everyday. It's the new reality and has forever changed the genres I work in. I accept it. Just call it what it is and be honest with yourself. Taking something without paying for it has a definition.
"third, in a world where a number of copyright holders are shamelessly abusing the laws as is, any screams of unfair treatment of rightsholders will be regarded as worthless hyperbole."
I am not them and we are not one in the same. It may be easier for you to pretend we are to justify taking something without paying for it but it simply isn't true. The pirate is not a mass murderer and I am not Disney.
"People can't and won't care anymore about any of your complaints. And the more people get hit with in their view ridiculous and unfair lawsuits, the less these laws will be respected."
You don't have to respect the law just as the speeder doesn't have to respect the speed limit sign. It is just expensive when they get caught.
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Has Filed Over 1,100 Lawsuits This Year Alone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Has Filed Over 1,100 Lawsuits This Year Alone
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm afraid this is very specific and actionable by law
Regardless of how I feel about the litigation, If you don't pay for your copy of Giant Butt Destruction 7, and take it for free, you have been put on notice you might get sued. If you want to avoid the embarrassment just buy a copy and you will have nothing to worry about.
I am sure your parents did not approve of you shoplifting, why do you feel it is ok now?
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Has Filed Over 1,100 Lawsuits This Year Alone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Has Filed Over 1,100 Lawsuits This Year Alone
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Has Filed Over 1,100 Lawsuits This Year Alone
Re: Re:
Next >>