"The ISP's aren't claiming that you violated the law, but the TOS."
Yeah. That part of the TOS which says that dealing in unlawful activity is prohibited.
"Este vídeo incluye contenido de Screen Media Ventures, LLC, CD Baby, Diwan Videos y de IODA, y uno o varios de estos usuarios lo han bloqueado en tu país por motivos de derechos de copyright."
Quick and dirty translation: "This video includes content from Screen Media Ventures, LLC, CD Baby, IODA and Diwan Videos, and one or more of these users have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."
So don't worry, somebody is taking care of the copyright.
There are already laws against misrepresentation, no ND clauses are needed for that.
Maybe you can be awarded more damages for copyright infrigment than from misrepresentation, though. So it can be a good deal if that's what you're looking for.
"What if an amateur artist produces one single design that does really well"
What if he produces none, which is more realistic? What are his work's chances of becoming the next "To kill a mockingbird"?
Doing "really well" is unlikely. Most amateurs' works are not going to do well at all no matter how they are licensed, but a free license gives more opportunities.
Re: Re: Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
"My real target are the blowhards around here who justify their piracy by saying that the record companies don't deliver the content in a form that meets an ever growing list of requirements."
You misunderstand. This is not abot justification. The thing is, as long as the record companies don't deliver the content in a form that meets consumers' expectations, infringenment will keek happening. Whether Mike, you or I justify it or not is not relevant.
That's not just punition but damages. Since the main damage appears to be lost sales, that's roughly $25,000 in lost sales just because Joel shared a song.
Let's say that's not a very popular song so about 100 people are sharing it. That's $2,500,000 in lost sales due to file sharing for a single, not very popular song.
Now ypu can see how bad file sharing is, how it's ruining the economy and why it must be stopped at all costs.
Actually I can't see how this incident is "unfortunate". It does not harm the authors and it's funny for the fans --which otoh may be good for both authors.
On the post: Google Looks To Cut 'Funding' To 'Illegal' Sites It Doesn't Fund In The First Place
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Horse", then "Cart"...
Yeah. That part of the TOS which says that dealing in unlawful activity is prohibited.
On the post: Google Looks To Cut 'Funding' To 'Illegal' Sites It Doesn't Fund In The First Place
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google actions = FUD
On the post: Google Looks To Cut 'Funding' To 'Illegal' Sites It Doesn't Fund In The First Place
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google actions = FUD
On the post: Ahimsa: Sita Sings The Blues Now CC-0 'Public Domain'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Martin Luther King's 'I Have A Dream' Video Taken Down On Internet Freedom Day
Re:
Quick and dirty translation: "This video includes content from Screen Media Ventures, LLC, CD Baby, IODA and Diwan Videos, and one or more of these users have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."
So don't worry, somebody is taking care of the copyright.
On the post: Major Labels Back To Going After Vimeo For Its Lipdubs
Re: Re:
On the post: Should Creative Commons Drop Its NonCommercial & NoDerivatives License Options?
Re:
Maybe you can be awarded more damages for copyright infrigment than from misrepresentation, though. So it can be a good deal if that's what you're looking for.
On the post: Should Creative Commons Drop Its NonCommercial & NoDerivatives License Options?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wonder if using a work in a commercial qualifies as commercial use.
On the post: Should Creative Commons Drop Its NonCommercial & NoDerivatives License Options?
Re: Re: Re:
What if he produces none, which is more realistic? What are his work's chances of becoming the next "To kill a mockingbird"?
Doing "really well" is unlikely. Most amateurs' works are not going to do well at all no matter how they are licensed, but a free license gives more opportunities.
On the post: Should Creative Commons Drop Its NonCommercial & NoDerivatives License Options?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Should Creative Commons Drop Its NonCommercial & NoDerivatives License Options?
Re:
On the post: MPAA Pretends 'Offering Something' Is The Same Thing As 'Offering What People Want'
Re: Re: Re: I want more positive coverage of the RIAA
You misunderstand. This is not abot justification. The thing is, as long as the record companies don't deliver the content in a form that meets consumers' expectations, infringenment will keek happening. Whether Mike, you or I justify it or not is not relevant.
On the post: District Court: $675,000 For Non-commercially Sharing 30 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Re:
Let's say that's not a very popular song so about 100 people are sharing it. That's $2,500,000 in lost sales due to file sharing for a single, not very popular song.
Now ypu can see how bad file sharing is, how it's ruining the economy and why it must be stopped at all costs.
On the post: District Court: $675,000 For Non-commercially Sharing 30 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Re: Corporate greed?
He didn't take $675000. If what he did makes him greedy then we have to create a new word for the record companies and their execs.
On the post: District Court: $675,000 For Non-commercially Sharing 30 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RapidShare: It Ain't The Hosting, It's The Linking
Re:
What about them?"
That's easy: they are porn sites.
On the post: Solving Potential Plagiarism Through Mutual Respect And Understanding
On the post: Press Tries To Pin High Profile Killings On The Web & World Of Warcraft
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>