I ran across this on Google. It looks aimed at the copyright termination act but parts seem to apply to this conversation too:
11 Reasons a Federal Copyright does exist in Pre-1972 Sound Recordings.
1) THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT
Back in 1925 Congress had intended to create Federal Copyright protection, and just finally got around to it in 1972.
.
.
.
2) Federal Law Supercedes State Law
IF State copyright laws were meant to be their protection, then why bother passing the Federal protection..
.
.
.
3) Pre-1972 Labels and Music holders have been collecting for 14 years now from Soundexchange as FEDERAL Copyright Holders.
.
.
.
4) The Effective Date on the Law is not determinative of when it begins.
.
.
.
5) Determining that Pre-1972 artists did not have a Federal Copyright law would be Discriminatory...
.
.
.
6) Federal Copyright protection has been claimed for pre-1972 label owners in LOTS of sampling cases...
.
.
.
7) Federalism...
Since Marbury vs. Madison... Federal law trumps state law...
.
.
.
10) If the CD registrations were just derivatives under the State Copyright.. then when they were registered with the Federal Government and given a FEDERAL Copyright registration number...
.
.
.
11) The Fixed Medium of a 78, 33, 45, 8-track are precisely what is required to establish a Federal Copyright... and that is clearly what is required under the Constitution and subsequent acts creating and defining Federal copyrights... And those rights are enforced repeatedly in Federal Courts... as others are excluded from creating competing or similar works ... To the exclusion of others the labels have exercised their Federal Copyright in Federal courts, in numerous cases.
.
.
.
In conclusion,
It is basically just intellectually dishonest to even argue that their isn't a Pre-1972 Federal Copyright.
Why does the white Don Henley and the Eagles deserve to get back the rights to their Masters under a Federal Law, but the poor black doo-wop group doesn't? Is that really an equal application of our Federal Laws...
and flies in the face of what was clearly intended.
The greed of a select few corporations and special interests will invariably try and contort this issue and attempt to create a smokescreen economic argument to protect their interests. However, it is a real no-brainer to see that putting these copyrights back into the hands of he artists would have the greater positive impact on a larger number of people and help the struggling U.S. and World economies.
I can back them up with formal Caselaw, Legislative History, and Public Policy arguments in a formal mem/brief...if so requested.
But I think this reasoning is pretty strong.
thanks again for your time and consideration on this issue.
Joel Kellum, Esq.
Remember how Skype started having problems RIGHT after MS acquired it? Maybe it's my tinfoil hat, but I bet that was the NSA getting the bugs out of their monitoring software.
Hate to say it, but the troll has point. Promoting US interests abroad includes the economic interests of US companies. Whether other countries (or our citizens when the US is actively working against our interests) should logically listen to us is another question altogether...
He may be simply be trying to make a point. How many times have US interests tried to shut down a website in Russia because it didn't conform to US copyright law?
I think "We'll shut down our sites when you shut down Google" would have been my first response when confronted by the US.
Teaching as a career doesn't seem to be a highly-regarded profession
Of course not. Teachers can't afford to take expensive vacations and retire early no matter how good they are at their jobs. Teachers also have to put up with crap from both parents an their children like a nanny or a babysitter might. As someone whose sister is a teacher, I cannot imagine why anyone would ever want to spend their time and money becoming a teacher. Seems like a poor investment.
WOW. I am shocked. Did AT&T forget to pay someone off? Or, maybe the administration decided it really wouldn't be good to approve a merger that would lay off tens of thousands of people in the current economic climate. Either way, this is good news for everyone that isn't AT&T and T-Mobile.
"Hacking is a federal crime, and has been a crime before Anonymous came to prominence."
The word "hacking" gets thrown around way to much these days. "Hacking" as it is commonly known encompasses so much that some of it clearly is a crime, some of it clearly is not, and some falls in a grey area. Be more specific or you look ignorant.
"The problem with Anonymous is that the belief that they are doing something for a cause it must be right. With the earlier comment by TAC they seem to believe that if unauthorized access to a network has been done then there is no problem if it is done again. Even if it was the result of lax security, which is just wrong."
Whether or not it illegal has little to do with legality. In the Sony case, nothing Anon did was new and any information published from Sony's servers was likely taken many time before by others. In context, anon did what they could to make the situation a little better in the long term by making it much worse in the short term. There is too much grey for me to call them right or wrong, but the situation was mostly of Sony's making.
I find the argument legal==moral to be extremely dangerous. We must all question authority or we will eventually have a dictator here too.
"Like the FBI agents who used record requests to get dirt on ex's? Or the police who did it. Or the IRS employees who did it. Or the hospital employees."
These things should definitely be leaked. In fact, I believe they were 'leaked' by the GAO when abuses came to light. Not that the entire NSL thing isn't an entirely different cluster-fuck all together, but I digress.
"He did not have this data for an extended period to go through and sift out only the "good juicy" things that would make the frontpage."
He COULD have though. A little patience and he could have read through them himself and leaked the those details that truly shocked the conscience.
"Part of the reason to dump everything is to keep the context of what your seeing. 1 scandalous cable is just 1 cable, being able to show that there is a pattern of behavior is more damning."
If that was his goal, he could have leaked a series of cables to show a pattern too.
"Please show me where exactly Manning talks about how he disregarded the effect on others. "
He didn't talk about disregarding others lives. His actions spoke louder than his words. He either didn't consider carefully redacting his leaks or didn't care enough to try. Just as an example, how does a list of critical US assets like the location of mines that supply our economy with rare materials threaten the world, or anyone (other than those whom wish to spy on or harm our economy) for that matter?
A responsible person would assume that these things were being kept semi-secret for a reason and only leaked what was necessary. He didn't even try to read through most of what he put out there. That was an irresponsible and dangerous act and no amount of "but it feels like it should be okay" will change that.
The initial leak was the problem. I'm a fan of knowing what the hell my government is up to as much as anyone else, but Manning did it in the most irresponsible manner possible.
Instead of picking through documents for information that truly was about coverups or wrongdoings, and there were surely some that qualified, he dumped all of it with a callous disregard to the real life and death consequences for those simply trying to do the right thing.
Wikileaks received the information and then didn't properly secure it.
The latest controversy just further demonstrates that some really shouldn't have access to information if they cannot use it responsibly.
I don't usually rate trolling but this one caught my eye. It was an admirable trolling attempt. You took something marginally related to the story and took it in an unexpected and completely bat shit crazy direction. Really, good try.
However, you missed your audience. While anti-democratic, Islamic bigotry is a fruitful subject most places, we are more likely to respond to economic or business related trolling (ie freetard).
Religion isn't a subject regularly covered here so it just feels out of place.
I despised Bush. I hated his approval of the continual erosion of our civil rights. I despised his economic policy. I saw the housing collapse coming. I thought, "There is no way a dem could do worse on civil rights or the economy" last time I voted. Maybe Obama isn't doing worse, but he's certainly not doing much better.
I may be voting for a Republican next time around just because.
On the post: EMI: There Should Be No Safe Harbors For Pre-1972 Songs
Re: Re: Re: EMI
On the post: EMI: There Should Be No Safe Harbors For Pre-1972 Songs
In Someone elses words
11 Reasons a Federal Copyright does exist in Pre-1972 Sound Recordings.
1) THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT
Back in 1925 Congress had intended to create Federal Copyright protection, and just finally got around to it in 1972.
.
.
.
2) Federal Law Supercedes State Law
IF State copyright laws were meant to be their protection, then why bother passing the Federal protection..
.
.
.
3) Pre-1972 Labels and Music holders have been collecting for 14 years now from Soundexchange as FEDERAL Copyright Holders.
.
.
.
4) The Effective Date on the Law is not determinative of when it begins.
.
.
.
5) Determining that Pre-1972 artists did not have a Federal Copyright law would be Discriminatory...
.
.
.
6) Federal Copyright protection has been claimed for pre-1972 label owners in LOTS of sampling cases...
.
.
.
7) Federalism...
Since Marbury vs. Madison... Federal law trumps state law...
.
.
.
10) If the CD registrations were just derivatives under the State Copyright.. then when they were registered with the Federal Government and given a FEDERAL Copyright registration number...
.
.
.
11) The Fixed Medium of a 78, 33, 45, 8-track are precisely what is required to establish a Federal Copyright... and that is clearly what is required under the Constitution and subsequent acts creating and defining Federal copyrights... And those rights are enforced repeatedly in Federal Courts... as others are excluded from creating competing or similar works ... To the exclusion of others the labels have exercised their Federal Copyright in Federal courts, in numerous cases.
.
.
.
In conclusion,
It is basically just intellectually dishonest to even argue that their isn't a Pre-1972 Federal Copyright.
Why does the white Don Henley and the Eagles deserve to get back the rights to their Masters under a Federal Law, but the poor black doo-wop group doesn't? Is that really an equal application of our Federal Laws...
and flies in the face of what was clearly intended.
The greed of a select few corporations and special interests will invariably try and contort this issue and attempt to create a smokescreen economic argument to protect their interests. However, it is a real no-brainer to see that putting these copyrights back into the hands of he artists would have the greater positive impact on a larger number of people and help the struggling U.S. and World economies.
I can back them up with formal Caselaw, Legislative History, and Public Policy arguments in a formal mem/brief...if so requested.
But I think this reasoning is pretty strong.
thanks again for your time and consideration on this issue.
Joel Kellum, Esq.
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/comments/initial/20110131-Joel-Brian%20Kellum-2.pdf
On the post: DailyDirt: Back To School Time...
Re:
No one will ever stop caring about the status of their professions.
On the post: Since When Did US Diplomats Become Microsoft Sales Staff?
Re: Remember _NSAKEY and we'll all stay free!
On the post: Since When Did US Diplomats Become Microsoft Sales Staff?
Re: Once again - Mike totally misses the point
On the post: Russian Bureaucrat: Google & YouTube Should Be Shut Down For Facilitating Infringement
Tounge in Cheek perhaps?
I think "We'll shut down our sites when you shut down Google" would have been my first response when confronted by the US.
On the post: DailyDirt: Back To School Time...
Teaching as a career doesn't seem to be a highly-regarded profession
On the post: Feds Insist That As Long As They Break The Law In A 'Classified' Way, They Can Never Be Sued
Kafka would be proud
On the post: Surprise: Justice Department Says AT&T/T-Mobile Merger Would Be Anticompetitive
On the post: Wasn't The Real Security Problem The Initial Leak Of State Dept. Cables Rather Than The Latest Leak Of Those Same Cables?
Re: Re: Independent minds needed
On the post: Wasn't The Real Security Problem The Initial Leak Of State Dept. Cables Rather Than The Latest Leak Of Those Same Cables?
Re: Independent minds needed
The word "hacking" gets thrown around way to much these days. "Hacking" as it is commonly known encompasses so much that some of it clearly is a crime, some of it clearly is not, and some falls in a grey area. Be more specific or you look ignorant.
"The problem with Anonymous is that the belief that they are doing something for a cause it must be right. With the earlier comment by TAC they seem to believe that if unauthorized access to a network has been done then there is no problem if it is done again. Even if it was the result of lax security, which is just wrong."
Whether or not it illegal has little to do with legality. In the Sony case, nothing Anon did was new and any information published from Sony's servers was likely taken many time before by others. In context, anon did what they could to make the situation a little better in the long term by making it much worse in the short term. There is too much grey for me to call them right or wrong, but the situation was mostly of Sony's making.
I find the argument legal==moral to be extremely dangerous. We must all question authority or we will eventually have a dictator here too.
On the post: Wasn't The Real Security Problem The Initial Leak Of State Dept. Cables Rather Than The Latest Leak Of Those Same Cables?
Re: Re:
These things should definitely be leaked. In fact, I believe they were 'leaked' by the GAO when abuses came to light. Not that the entire NSL thing isn't an entirely different cluster-fuck all together, but I digress.
"He did not have this data for an extended period to go through and sift out only the "good juicy" things that would make the frontpage."
He COULD have though. A little patience and he could have read through them himself and leaked the those details that truly shocked the conscience.
"Part of the reason to dump everything is to keep the context of what your seeing. 1 scandalous cable is just 1 cable, being able to show that there is a pattern of behavior is more damning."
If that was his goal, he could have leaked a series of cables to show a pattern too.
"Please show me where exactly Manning talks about how he disregarded the effect on others. "
He didn't talk about disregarding others lives. His actions spoke louder than his words. He either didn't consider carefully redacting his leaks or didn't care enough to try. Just as an example, how does a list of critical US assets like the location of mines that supply our economy with rare materials threaten the world, or anyone (other than those whom wish to spy on or harm our economy) for that matter?
A responsible person would assume that these things were being kept semi-secret for a reason and only leaked what was necessary. He didn't even try to read through most of what he put out there. That was an irresponsible and dangerous act and no amount of "but it feels like it should be okay" will change that.
On the post: Wasn't The Real Security Problem The Initial Leak Of State Dept. Cables Rather Than The Latest Leak Of Those Same Cables?
Instead of picking through documents for information that truly was about coverups or wrongdoings, and there were surely some that qualified, he dumped all of it with a callous disregard to the real life and death consequences for those simply trying to do the right thing.
Wikileaks received the information and then didn't properly secure it.
The latest controversy just further demonstrates that some really shouldn't have access to information if they cannot use it responsibly.
On the post: Pakistan Officially Bans All Encryption Online
Re: It's just the beginning
However, you missed your audience. While anti-democratic, Islamic bigotry is a fruitful subject most places, we are more likely to respond to economic or business related trolling (ie freetard).
Religion isn't a subject regularly covered here so it just feels out of place.
Good luck next time.
Troll Grade: D+.
On the post: Pakistan Officially Bans All Encryption Online
Re: Re: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Ogres may also have layers, but I have never taken one apart.
On the post: Former Top Government Secrets Keeper Blasts Administration For Abusing Espionage Act To Punish Whistleblowers
Re: Re:
I'm still waiting for another party to be able to win an election.
On the post: Former Top Government Secrets Keeper Blasts Administration For Abusing Espionage Act To Punish Whistleblowers
Re: Re:
I'm still waiting for another party to be able to win an election.
On the post: Former Top Government Secrets Keeper Blasts Administration For Abusing Espionage Act To Punish Whistleblowers
I may be voting for a Republican next time around just because.
On the post: More Misplaced Hatred For The Used Games Market
1. There will always be a resale market
2. The original producer will bitch and moan about how the resale market is destroying his margins
Nothing will change that market dynamic and I couldn't be happier about it.
On the post: Could Google's Motorola Buy To Fend Off Microsoft... Actually Drive More Business To Microsoft?
Re: Re: Google's bigger plan
Next >>