They're threatening his livelihood! By making him have to treat each defendant as an individual, and show only evidence against the individual, instead of the (somehow) more valid giant-pile-o'-addresses, they are committing an act that he and his brotherhood have declared illegal:
Felony Interference with a Business Model.
Having never used reddit, for no particular reason one way or the other, I did not know that. That's great! I wonder how the crazies here will react to find out that someone got paid, even though nobody had to.
I concur. Frankly, Blue's not even trying lately. I mean, (s)he hasn't even been addressing anything that articles are actually about.
Blue's more fun when (s)he is foaming at the mouth, and desperately trying to "disprove" anything that crosses "The Masnick's" lips. Fingers. Whatever. But ignoring everything to complain about the quality of the movie? Laame.
Umm. No. What they bought and paid for was the movie rights. They do not now own the story. Unless the story above got that wrong, all that means is that WB can prevent someone else from making a movie based on RomeSweetRome, and, I'm assuming, they get first crack at any sequels. Which they are (insanely) insuring are probably never made.
You mean like in the story in this very article? The local bands he used played only original music, but BMI didn't care.
"He was, 'James, James you don't have a choice. I'm leaving this right here. If I don't get this paperwork from you soon, the next person you see will be an investigator. They're going to come in and you're not going to have a choice.' I said, 'Prove that we're violating your laws. Find a song that you own the rights to that we're playing, it's not going to happen.'
"He said, 'That's not how it works, James. It's going to be too late. By the time we have an investigator come in, we don't have to prove anything.'
So I should pay a property tax on land that I don't own or use. And a landline bill, even though I only own a cellphone. After all, that money's going back into the infrastructure, and improving service everywhere.
Also, as in this story, if they collect a fee for a performance that is not tracked, or has no cover music played, each individual artist's share is either "impossible" to declare, or zero. Either way, no one gets paid except the agency.
Correction: BMI, ASCAP, RIAA, MPAA and their ilk only make sure that a "licensing" fee is paid by the person/business promoting their "client's" music. And then lie to them about how much was paid, and again about what proportion of even the admitted collection is owed them.
The reason I put client in quotations is, they regularly collect fees for artists who they do NOT represent. And since they are not members, that "royalty" stays in the agency's pocket. If ANYONE else did that, they would be correctly charged with fraud, and never used again. Since, in any other line of business, falsely representing who you are or represent, especially with regards to money collection, is criminal.
So apparently I didn't pay $35 dollars to go to that concert, for the band I never would have discovered if not for searching and "pirating" their music for my hardware of choice. The same $35 I would have paid for only 2 of their CDs, of which they would have received ~$1-2 (or none, depending on their label), as opposed to the ~$15-20 they made from my ticket.
Good to know, bob.
I totally agree with your first sentence. It is very disheartening to realize that, even after 160 years, copyright maximalists still just don't get it.
I made the PBR comment cause I was getting a "hipster" vibe from the AC. "Anyone that eats at chains (mainstream) is too gauche to know what REAL food is worth." Or something.
Oh, yes. Let us quantify intangibles. My grandfather left me a watch. It is priceless to me. My cousin stole and hocked it. I must sue him for the "true" value of the watch. I could really use those infinite dollars.
Actually, the only reason sampling is like that at all is because of rulings like this. If judges hadn't imposed time, note progression, and other restrictions on samples, there would be no need for the calculations required to keep samples "legal."
Yes, because we all know that people who eat at chain restaurants and people who eat at standalone restaurants are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GROUPS. Overlap does not exist. No one on the planet has ever decided to eat cheaply today, because money is a little tight, and it would ruin their week if they gambled $35 on a joint, and it sucked. Especially since that $35 can no longer be spent eating chain food for a few days, as opposed to a single meal.
It's like this...
Entrepreneur A's business has always been subpar. But they never had to deal with any publicity stronger than pure word-of-mouth. They could depend on a small, but significant, stream of first-time customers. Most of these will never return. With a popular service like Yelp, their revenue from first-timers will shrink. That can be directly attributed to Yelp('s users?) convincing people they (the restaurant) ain't worth your time. Of course, the bad reviews were directly caused by bad service, but if Yelp didn't exist, the customers wouldn't have anywhere public to complain. So it's Yelp's fault.
No, really. It is. Didn't you read my post? It's logical. If it's logical, it must be correct.
Plus, you're being very mean, trying to suggest that I should spend money trying to please my customers, when ANYONE can tell it's those dirty pir- *ahem* yuppies making my business fail.
Just one nitpick, there. While the visual quality of the old Naruto manga was higher in the official version, the quality of the official translation was quite bad. Not as ridiculous as some of the crap they pull with other manga (like when they try to convert a tenn & older title into a children's book), but pretty bad.
On the post: Mass Infringement Lawyer Complains About Too Many People Challenging His Lawsuits
Those terrible people! ('ey 'ook err jearabs!)
Felony Interference with a Business Model.
On the post: Warner Bros. Buys Story That Was Written In The Reddit Comments; Then Tells Author To Stop Redditing
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Roger Ebert Points People To The 'Ebert-Edit' Of Psycho On The Pirate Bay
Re: Re: Re: Shorter crap is still crap.
Blue's more fun when (s)he is foaming at the mouth, and desperately trying to "disprove" anything that crosses "The Masnick's" lips. Fingers. Whatever. But ignoring everything to complain about the quality of the movie? Laame.
On the post: Warner Bros. Buys Story That Was Written In The Reddit Comments; Then Tells Author To Stop Redditing
Re:
On the post: British Historian On Porn And Internet Censorship: North Korea Is Right -- The Internet Is Our Enemy
Re: Re:
On the post: BMI Hurting Artists, Yet Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"He was, 'James, James you don't have a choice. I'm leaving this right here. If I don't get this paperwork from you soon, the next person you see will be an investigator. They're going to come in and you're not going to have a choice.' I said, 'Prove that we're violating your laws. Find a song that you own the rights to that we're playing, it's not going to happen.'
"He said, 'That's not how it works, James. It's going to be too late. By the time we have an investigator come in, we don't have to prove anything.'
On the post: BMI Hurting Artists, Yet Again
Re: Re: Re:
Hell. No.
On the post: BMI Hurting Artists, Yet Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: BMI Hurting Artists, Yet Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reason I put client in quotations is, they regularly collect fees for artists who they do NOT represent. And since they are not members, that "royalty" stays in the agency's pocket. If ANYONE else did that, they would be correctly charged with fraud, and never used again. Since, in any other line of business, falsely representing who you are or represent, especially with regards to money collection, is criminal.
On the post: Worst Kept Secret Now Confirmed: Government Was Very Involved Helping RIAA/MPAA Negotiate Six Strikes
Re: Re: Re: Just who are "the people".
Good to know, bob.
On the post: UK Government Admits That It Has No Evidence (Zip, Zilch, Zero) To Support Its Claims For Draconian Copyright Law
Re:
On the post: Universal Backs Away From Planned $60 VOD Release Of Tower Heist
Re: Re:
On the post: Should We Pass A Law To Stop Yelp From Harming Chain Restaurants?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Insanity: Judge Rules That Copyright Holder Of 10-Second Sample Deserves 84% Of The Royalties
Re:
On the post: Insanity: Judge Rules That Copyright Holder Of 10-Second Sample Deserves 84% Of The Royalties
Re: Re:
On the post: Should We Pass A Law To Stop Yelp From Harming Chain Restaurants?
Re:
On the post: Should We Pass A Law To Stop Yelp From Harming Chain Restaurants?
Re:
On the post: Should We Pass A Law To Stop Yelp From Harming Chain Restaurants?
Re: who's fault?
Entrepreneur A's business has always been subpar. But they never had to deal with any publicity stronger than pure word-of-mouth. They could depend on a small, but significant, stream of first-time customers. Most of these will never return. With a popular service like Yelp, their revenue from first-timers will shrink. That can be directly attributed to Yelp('s users?) convincing people they (the restaurant) ain't worth your time. Of course, the bad reviews were directly caused by bad service, but if Yelp didn't exist, the customers wouldn't have anywhere public to complain. So it's Yelp's fault.
No, really. It is. Didn't you read my post? It's logical. If it's logical, it must be correct.
Plus, you're being very mean, trying to suggest that I should spend money trying to please my customers, when ANYONE can tell it's those dirty pir- *ahem* yuppies making my business fail.
On the post: WIPO Article About Manga Piracy Describes Publishers' Failure To Meet Demand In Graphic Detail
Re: Re: An exception to the rule...
On the post: WIPO Article About Manga Piracy Describes Publishers' Failure To Meet Demand In Graphic Detail
Re: An exception to the rule...
Next >>