Trolling? no just pointing out an interesting way that the Music industry handles this particular issue.
The length of copyright is an entirely different issue and I completely agree it's been pushed into abusive territory. We weren't talking about copyright length...
No I don't. Descendants only get copyright protection when the author assigns them the copyright, just like anybody else. If the Author dies during the copyright period, his will should assign the copyright to whomever he chooses (including release to public domain).
But the copyright should exist independent of any person.
As long as the original copyright has expired, there should be no problem with unauthorized sequels and re-imaginings. But until that period expires, the author gets the sole right to use the material as they see fit.
I hesitate to say something positive about the music industry but, given the last elections sampling of music by John McCain (Heart's Barracuda for example), I liked how by making sure the artist was compensated fairly anyone could use the works during the time copyright was still in effect. Heart didn't like it much, but as was pointed out, they didn't have much say because the licenses had been properly paid.
The Heart example was just 'using' an original work as is not transformative. But would it have been different if they had simply changed the words to include 'Sarah Barracuda' so that it wasn't exactly the same? I think paying the royalty fee would allow you to do what you want with it, no?
Sorry it's not free. Just because it is available doesn't make it *legal*. By your definition if I wanted to copy someone's book and give it away online that's ok right? They wrote it, therefore they have the exclusive right to it for the allowed period of time (an entirely different dicussion for another day).
- The economics of it are as you say. Things are going to be very different going forward. But until the creators/distributors of the music decide they wish to change, it clearly and specifically their right to sue people who don't abide by the current law of the land.
If you want to share music, share the music of artists who freely give their music for distribution. If you claim it isn't any good, then you're claiming there is value in the RIAA music.
- Your claim that the law is creating artificial barriers is exactly right.
IT IS CALLED COPYRIGHT. Copyright is a law that creates a barrier to provide incentive for creation of new and interesting works. That barrier has been wildly defined into abusive territory, but it should and must continue to exist in some form.
yes the could, but it's *their* pizza. They are allowed to run their business anyway they wish.
The difference here is that another store giving away totally separate and independent pizza is also perfectly ok. In this example though, they aren't making their own pizza they are simply replicating the original pizza with no input of their own.
That's the big difference. It isn't as if Tenenbaum was giving away his *own* music. He was giving away music to whicht someone else holds the legal rights.
@PopeHilarius wrote:
"I think the point is that music is now free by default".
This is the crux of the issue. The music in question here is decidedly *not* free. There is a quite specific price attached to it by the Label who is selling it.
Should it be free? that's an entirely different question. As you say, many of the costs involved in getting the music to market have been reduced, in some cases to effectively zero.
That does not mean that the music provided by the Labels is in any sense free. They are perfectly within their rights to sell it at any price they desire. Just because you can duplicate infinitely and perfectly with no cost doesn't mean you have the legal right to do so.
Are they being smart? No. But if people simply didn't trade/download/share RIAA music this really wouldn't be an issue would it?
Buy quoting a finite good example you're trying to explain an infinite good example?
Lets say you could clone the original shop's specific pizza offerings infinitely after buying one of each and then gave away to anyone who wanted it. Yes you've likely deprived the original shop of potential customers since they would have eaten for free.
The business model *is* outdated, I don't argue that. But that doesn't change what is and isn't currently *legal*. These particular songs are under specific licensing requirements. It *is* illegal to give away someone else's copyrighted work.
My point was the RIAA's concept of saying each song is work $100,000 is just ridiculous. They deserve something for Mr. Tenenbaum's actions and that should be punitive, but not tied to the number of songs he illegally shared.
The Label's argument that *everyone* who Tenenbaum would have bought the album is ridiculous as you pointed out.
But the reverse, that *no one* would have bought it, is likewise not a reasonable statement either.
The actual settlement amount being related to the 'cost' of the sharing is of course crazy since how much was 'lost' quite finite and small. Since he broke the law, punitive financial sanctions are quite reasonable. Tying the amount to some outrageously false value per song is the real tragedy here.
Maybe that's the point you were trying to separate out?
Since she's a minor this likely doesn't apply, but if you give someone your password, aren't you pretty much liable for whatever they do with your access?
If this was an adult who gave up their password, I don't know that the teacher did anything illegal, serious bad form yes, but not illegal.
Fortunately since she's a minor, the girl can't be held to that standard, yes?
A more accurate comparison is that I had a store that only allowed people with nametags saying 'George' to enter. Nothing stopped people from writing their own nametag to say 'George' and so they entered.
Seeing people using the store that I did not intend, I decided to make sure the nametag matched their drivers license. now only 'actual' George's can come in.
Again, it's a dumb business decision by my (and Mike's) opinion, but they are fully within their rights as to who gets to use the software and in what fashion.
sorry, no anti-trust violation (or any other) here.
They aren't preventing the Palm Pre from syncing with *other* software, they aren't preventing other music software from syncing with the Palm Pre. Apple is preventing someone else from using their software. You are perfectly free to use different software to sync with your Palm Pre.
Plenty of competing software and hardware exists.
Just because a company makes a decision that people don't like doesn't make it illegal.
Comparing iTunes to Windows is a bit of a stretch. Sorta like comparing your car radio to General Motors.
The whole OS is vastly different than a single program running on it.
Likewise there are other mp3 players out there, all of which are readily available. Switching is simply a matter of steps. note, DRM'd tracks are not an issue as many services do that and more and more DRM isn't being used anyway. Compared with switching your entire OS, switching mp3 players and music software is trivial.
That said, it's incredibly stupid for Apple, but there's no law requiring smart business practices...
Um, maybe because it's just a boilerplate legal document? It wasn't as if they wrote 3k words just for the twitter site. The word 'Twitter' exists in the entire document only once in the very first sentence defining "the site".
Is it necessary? probably not, but lets not proclaim them writing vast amounts of legalese for no purpose. They simply re-used a standard piece of boilerplate.
On the post: What's Wrong With Paying Homage To A Literary Classic By Writing A Sequel?
Re: troll much?
The length of copyright is an entirely different issue and I completely agree it's been pushed into abusive territory. We weren't talking about copyright length...
On the post: What's Wrong With Paying Homage To A Literary Classic By Writing A Sequel?
Re: Re:
But the copyright should exist independent of any person.
On the post: What's Wrong With Paying Homage To A Literary Classic By Writing A Sequel?
I hesitate to say something positive about the music industry but, given the last elections sampling of music by John McCain (Heart's Barracuda for example), I liked how by making sure the artist was compensated fairly anyone could use the works during the time copyright was still in effect. Heart didn't like it much, but as was pointed out, they didn't have much say because the licenses had been properly paid.
The Heart example was just 'using' an original work as is not transformative. But would it have been different if they had simply changed the words to include 'Sarah Barracuda' so that it wasn't exactly the same? I think paying the royalty fee would allow you to do what you want with it, no?
On the post: Hollywood Kills More Innovation; Judge Overturns DVD Jukebox Ruling
Re:
The 'get it illegally' part is a problem since that just gives them ammunition to get these draconian laws passed in the first place.
Don't use their produce *at all* and they will go away.
On the post: More On Deserving To Get Paid
- The economics of it are as you say. Things are going to be very different going forward. But until the creators/distributors of the music decide they wish to change, it clearly and specifically their right to sue people who don't abide by the current law of the land.
If you want to share music, share the music of artists who freely give their music for distribution. If you claim it isn't any good, then you're claiming there is value in the RIAA music.
- Your claim that the law is creating artificial barriers is exactly right.
IT IS CALLED COPYRIGHT. Copyright is a law that creates a barrier to provide incentive for creation of new and interesting works. That barrier has been wildly defined into abusive territory, but it should and must continue to exist in some form.
On the post: More On Deserving To Get Paid
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The difference here is that another store giving away totally separate and independent pizza is also perfectly ok. In this example though, they aren't making their own pizza they are simply replicating the original pizza with no input of their own.
That's the big difference. It isn't as if Tenenbaum was giving away his *own* music. He was giving away music to whicht someone else holds the legal rights.
On the post: More On Deserving To Get Paid
Re:
"I think the point is that music is now free by default".
This is the crux of the issue. The music in question here is decidedly *not* free. There is a quite specific price attached to it by the Label who is selling it.
Should it be free? that's an entirely different question. As you say, many of the costs involved in getting the music to market have been reduced, in some cases to effectively zero.
That does not mean that the music provided by the Labels is in any sense free. They are perfectly within their rights to sell it at any price they desire. Just because you can duplicate infinitely and perfectly with no cost doesn't mean you have the legal right to do so.
Are they being smart? No. But if people simply didn't trade/download/share RIAA music this really wouldn't be an issue would it?
On the post: More On Deserving To Get Paid
Re: Re:
Buy quoting a finite good example you're trying to explain an infinite good example?
Lets say you could clone the original shop's specific pizza offerings infinitely after buying one of each and then gave away to anyone who wanted it. Yes you've likely deprived the original shop of potential customers since they would have eaten for free.
The business model *is* outdated, I don't argue that. But that doesn't change what is and isn't currently *legal*. These particular songs are under specific licensing requirements. It *is* illegal to give away someone else's copyrighted work.
My point was the RIAA's concept of saying each song is work $100,000 is just ridiculous. They deserve something for Mr. Tenenbaum's actions and that should be punitive, but not tied to the number of songs he illegally shared.
On the post: More On Deserving To Get Paid
Close but not quite.
The Label's argument that *everyone* who Tenenbaum would have bought the album is ridiculous as you pointed out.
But the reverse, that *no one* would have bought it, is likewise not a reasonable statement either.
The actual settlement amount being related to the 'cost' of the sharing is of course crazy since how much was 'lost' quite finite and small. Since he broke the law, punitive financial sanctions are quite reasonable. Tying the amount to some outrageously false value per song is the real tragedy here.
Maybe that's the point you were trying to separate out?
On the post: Student Files Lawsuit After Teacher Demands Facebook Password, Logs Into Account & Distributes Private Messages
giving away her rights?
If this was an adult who gave up their password, I don't know that the teacher did anything illegal, serious bad form yes, but not illegal.
Fortunately since she's a minor, the girl can't be held to that standard, yes?
On the post: Apple Does As Many Expected: Kills Palm Pre iTunes Syncing
Re: Re: Re: Excessive Reach????
A more accurate comparison is that I had a store that only allowed people with nametags saying 'George' to enter. Nothing stopped people from writing their own nametag to say 'George' and so they entered.
Seeing people using the store that I did not intend, I decided to make sure the nametag matched their drivers license. now only 'actual' George's can come in.
Again, it's a dumb business decision by my (and Mike's) opinion, but they are fully within their rights as to who gets to use the software and in what fashion.
On the post: Apple Does As Many Expected: Kills Palm Pre iTunes Syncing
Re: Re:
They aren't preventing the Palm Pre from syncing with *other* software, they aren't preventing other music software from syncing with the Palm Pre. Apple is preventing someone else from using their software. You are perfectly free to use different software to sync with your Palm Pre.
Plenty of competing software and hardware exists.
Just because a company makes a decision that people don't like doesn't make it illegal.
On the post: Apple Does As Many Expected: Kills Palm Pre iTunes Syncing
Re: Re: Re: Excessive Reach????
The whole OS is vastly different than a single program running on it.
Likewise there are other mp3 players out there, all of which are readily available. Switching is simply a matter of steps. note, DRM'd tracks are not an issue as many services do that and more and more DRM isn't being used anyway. Compared with switching your entire OS, switching mp3 players and music software is trivial.
That said, it's incredibly stupid for Apple, but there's no law requiring smart business practices...
On the post: Why Does Wal-Mart Need A 3,379-Word Terms Of Use For Its Twitter Account?
Is it necessary? probably not, but lets not proclaim them writing vast amounts of legalese for no purpose. They simply re-used a standard piece of boilerplate.
Next >>