Re: Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Copyright and Patent Law , is embedded into to U.S. Constitution.
Jefferson knew it was needed to built a vibrant economy, that would be strongg enough to last 250 years,, now mater how many Bush's try to run it into the ground.
Jefferson was cool..
Though I do disagree with him on on point.
I hold Copyright and Patent Law , is just an extension of Natural Law.
T.J. disagrees , with me on that point , from what Mike tells me.
---
I am dyslexic , sorry about the keyboard anarchy.
This is not formal , pay-for-word writing,, ,,,,,,
Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
yes ,, read ,, all the posts on my profile here for the last 3 weeks ,, it all there ,, i have nothing more to ad
to the subject
in nature of fact and/or opinion
which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
MIKE wrote :(which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Me:
I know you are busy Mike , so let me correct this sentance for you :
It should read:
"....which all seemed to COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND that greater enforcement of copyright & patent law,, was, without ANY possible question, a good thing,,, and most certainly needed , to protect Artist Copyrights & Patent holder's rights in the current digital age, and the future nano-age."
If you need any more help ,,Mike ,, you know where to find me.
Have a Great day, ( But no illegal downloading , OR any circumventing anything. SO Play nice, or we will take away your toys.)
corrected typos & with elucitations : RE: I think you are nitpicking technicalities , that do not apply in "musician to musician" culture.
Before I answer here ,, let me say , I think you are nitpicking technicalities , that do not apply in "musician to musician" culture.
But I think you are writing in good "academic" faith , So let us beat the horse a bit ,, but with a feather , because PETA might be reading
---------------
The horse is dead, yet I can't stop beating it.
ans: w/ a feather i hope too.
-----------------------------
Me: but artist control , while not legally enforceable ,, is still , morally enforceable between the parties.
You : It is not "enforceable." The copyright holder can listen to the other party, or not. If not, then tough titties. If most copyright holders are like you, they'll go with the "tough titties" answer.
Me: Again between musicians , these lawsuits are RARE,
Chuck Berry never sues the Rolling Stones for numerous "rip-offs",, as a mater of fact Kieth produced Chuck's 60th birthday concert jam bash.
I know , Paul , loves to here , Beatles covers, and if someone for M.J.'s estate -- also art / musical types -- SUED ME I would be shocked , and Paul would be too.
While I cannot bet for sure there , it is a VERY highly educated guess.
When dealing with out sale of Pirated Music , that is a horse of a different color ( pun intended in context to opening of your post) , and it can be shot.
Most any musician -- in my opinion --would & should sue ,-- with support of ASCAP /BMI /et. al.,-- ONLY FOR infringement , and loss of control.
$$ would just make it more likely for the Artist to sue.
But really it is never about the $$ , it is about Artist Control.
Charles Mingus referred to songs as his children.** Musicians and songwriters feel that very deeply !!!!** ( major point !!)
Other musicians can play with our babies ,, but Pirates will be shot on site , with a lawsuit.
-----
----------------
---------
ME: My music promotes my talent , with the goal that that talent gets me rich , or better yet broader respect for my music and art.
YOU :So, you are committing commercial copyright infringement, then, even if you release the cover song for free. Legally and morally, you are no different than a car company who used "Help" without approval in one of their ads.
AGAIN SAME ANS: I said i admit that ,,PAUL ,, [can]sue me ,,please,,
It is a musician culture thing.
This is as old as the blues in the delta, rip of the master , so he come to your house , to teach you to do it better.
Musicians do not sue other good faith musicians.
But together we will fight Pirates
----------------------------------------------
YOU : Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA will probably bring the suit. And that is not something that you want.
ME: Paul won't let them .
FOR I get very little traffic --at least now to myspace,, like I said , I doubt anyone knows about ME at "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" ,
,,,, and if they did know , they would not care ,, I make ZERO $$ on my Beatle cover and have nothing to sue , over there.
No one can say there is infringements ,, because no one is NOT going to by the White Album , or is songbook because of my cover of Revolution #1 .
Yes if "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" asked me to remove the song , w/ formal legal notice , i would ,
, but that ain't worth the lawyers pay to write me the formal letter -- or informal phone call. ( Major Point in musicians culture )
And if "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" did so ,, I would appeal to Paul and Yoko for final judgement , and every would respect their wishes.
Trust me . Musician culture. I have been doing this for 30 years now ,, and while , I had only very limited local fame in NYC ,, before i semi-retired-from-music in 1995 to go back to college and get my degrees ,, ,,,
,,,,,, I was respected at all levels, and counted bigger "names" as my supporters,, who often watched my busking gig in Washington Square.
((( I even take credit for helping start the ukulele craze,, as i was publicly performing on uke , way back in the early 1990's , when people ,, even other musicians , would go ,, can you really make serious music on that? I was doing "Wild Thing" and "Honky Tonk Women" ( and more) , on uke , and mandolin , before most everybody,, and I pushed all my friend to play uke. Seems to have spread,, I was not THE leader here,, but I was on the cutting edge.))
My Point ,,trust me ,, no one will sue now ,, no $$ . and as I said if there EVER becomes money from my Beatle cover ,, The LAW rules.
I am nor ducking anyone . I stated that several times in this thread--
Doesn't anybody take the time to read all 1000 posts (sic) -- so i repeat here for the---- CORRECTED & spell-checked POST--- record. ( Who needs sleep?!?)
------------------------
ANS :If they win (and they will), they can make you pay their legal fees, which will be in the tens of thousands at least. The statutory damages can be as high as $30,000. Willful infringement - which you have admitted in these comments - will net you an additional $150,000. And they will win an injunction against you, meaning that you can never make that recording available, to anyone, ever again.
ANS : Like I said ,, I will co-op will any formal request ,, and again , it won't happen in MY case in a million years .
Copyright law protects artists from Pirates ( which include bad faith artists.)
BUT towards other good faith artists, artists ,, and esp musicians , do not sue.
BECAUSE Musicians do not (normally) experience professional jealousy,,, as happens in other Arts -- like writers let us say--( Gore Vidal vs Norman Mailer comes to mind).
Musicians wanna jamm.. we steal little song HOOKS form each other all the time. ....."Here come old flat top , he come grooving slowly." ,,
......was John stealing direct from Chuck Berry,, and ..
"In 1973, "Come Together" was the subject of a lawsuit brought against Lennon by Big Seven Music Corp. (owned by Morris Levy) who was the publisher of Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me". --
-- BUT CHUCK WAS NOT INVOLVED,, just some greedy dude who bought his music , before most songwriters had biz savvy.
(quote from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Together ,, which does not mean it is 100% reliable fact.)
==================================
YOU :If your income is like mine, that means that every single penny you earn in the next decade will be owed to the copyright owners.
Me: again it ain;t gonna happen now ,, but again ,, PLEASE PAUL , sue me ,, i would be honored !!! REALLY.
and if I ever get $$ , ASCAP , and BMI , et al , will make it all kosher for everyone to eat right.
Like I said at the start ,, you are really nitpicking a highly unlikely scenario , in this case in reference specifically to me
-------------------
You : Here's the law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504
Me: I will read it , but I studied it on school as a pol-sci major. Good to review.
---------------
YOU : Of course, people who are caught downloading music (because they like it, not because they're trying to make a buck) will face similar fates.
But we'll be "protecting musician's rights," so I guess it's all OK by you, right?
ME : Actually you are loosing me there ,, i do not see your point on my situation , which is between me and Paul in our musician universe.
The lawyers will do our bidding -- as lawyers are just drones --- ,, and lawyers will do esp, Paul's bidding on these matters-- as he has more $$ than any lawyer -- thank G-D.
Geeks , who download "en mass" , are pirates , and should be stopped.
Lyric sites that fail to pay royalties will be shut down.
Larger organized crime pirates , will be subject to merciless law enforcement.
And a no-$$-dude-like-me, paying homage to his musical masters, but giving away a free cover , simply ain't ever gonna get sued,
Especially if the Musician (Paul in this case ) , is making the decision.
But as with the "Come Together " lawsuit cited above here ,-- where some non- musician music leech , saw a chance for a buck.
But hey , there are idiots everywhere with lawyers.
good nite ,, and no more ,, I have said all I can say here in this thread ,
, any questions ,, re-read the thread ,
, more questions still go to my profile here ,, and read my last 300 posts
sorry for the typos ,, i ain't RE_ proof reading this thing a 2nd time
=============
============
==========
========
==========
===========
= and in the end , the love you make , is equal to the love you take ............ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_(The_Beatles_song)
Re: Re: "Perhaps even worse. From the posts here, it's really obvious that you recorded that song, at least in part, to promote your own music. People who just download music don't expect that kind of advertisement."
Before I answer here ,, let me say , I think you are nitpicking technicalities , that do not apply in musician to musician culture.
But I think you are wring in good "academic" faith , So let us beat the horse a bit ,, but with a feather , because PETA might be reading
---------------
The horse is dead, yet I can't stop beating it.
ans: w/ a feather i hope too.
-----------------------------
Me: but artist control , while not legally enforceable ,, is still , morally enforceable between the parties.
You : It is not "enforceable." The copyright holder can listen to the other party, or not. If not, then tough titties. If most copyright holders are like you, they'll go with the "tough titties" answer.
Me: Again between musicians , these lawsuits are RARE, Chuck Berry never sues the Rolling Stones for numerous "rip-offs",, as a mater of fact Kieth produced Chuck's 60th birthday concert jam bash. I know , Paul , loves to here , Beatle covers, and if someone for M.J.'s estate -- also art / musical types -- I would be shocked , and Paul would be too. While I can bet for sure there , it is a highly educated guess.
When dealing with out sale of Pirated Music , that is a horse of a differnt color , and it can be shot. Most any musician -- in my opinion --would & should sue ,-- with support of ASCAP /BMI /et. al.,-- even over ONLY infringement , and loss of control. $$ would just make it more likey for the Artist to sue,, but really it is never about the $$ , it is about Artist Control. Charles Mingus referred to songs as his children. Musicians and songwriters feel that very deeply. Other musicians can play with our babies ,, but Pirates will be shot on site , with a lawsuit.
-----
-------------------------
ME: My music promotes my talent , with the goal that that talent gets me rich , or better yet broader respect for my music and art.
YOU :So, you are committing commercial copyright infringement, then, even if you release the cover song for free. Legally and morally, you are no different than a car company who used "Help" without approval in one of their ads.
AGAIN SAME ANS: I said i admit that ,,PAUL ,, [can]sue me ,,please,, it is a musician culture thing. This is as old as the blies in the delta, rip of the master , so he come to your house , to teach you to do it better. Musicans do not sue othe good faith musicians.
But together we will fight Pirates
----------------------------------------------
YOU : Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA will probably bring the suit. And that is not something that you want.
ME: Paul won't let them . Buy I get very little traffic --at leat now to myspace,, like I said , I dublt , anyone knows at "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" , and if the did know , they would not care ,, I make ZERO $$ on the song, and have nothing to sue , over.
Yes if "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" asked me to remove the song , w/ formal legal notice , i would ,, but that ain't worth the lawyers pay. And if "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" did so ,, I would appeal to Paul and Yoko for final judgement , and every would respect their wishes.
Trust me . Musician culture. I have been doing this for 30 years now ,, and while , I had only very limited local fame in NYC ,, before i retired in 1995 to go back to college and get my degrees ,, I was respected at all levels, and counted bigger "names" as my supporters,, who often watched my busking gig in Washington Square. ( I even take credit for helping start the ukulele craze,, as i was publicly performing on uke , way back in the early 1990's , when people ,, even other musicians , would go ,, can you really make serious music on that? I was doing "Wild Thing" and "Honky Tonk Women" ( and more) , on uke , and mandolin , before most everybody,, and I pushed all my friend to play uke. Seems to have spread,, I was not THE leader here,, but I was on the cutting edge.
My Point ,,trust me ,, no one will sue now ,, no $$ . and as I said if there becomes money ,, The LAW rules. I am nor ducking anyone . I stated that several times in this thread-- doesn't anybody take the time to read all 1000 posts (sic) -- so i repeat here for the record. ( Who needs sleep?!?)
------------------------
ANS :If they win (and they will), they can make you pay their legal fees, which will be in the tens of thousands at least. The statutory damages can be as high as $30,000. Wilful infringement - which you have admitted in these comments - will net you an additional $150,000. And they will win an injunction against you, meaning that you can never make that recording available, to anyone, ever again.
ANS : Like I said ,, I will co-op wil any formal request ,, and angain , it won't happen in MY case in a million years .
Copyright law protects artists from Pirates ( which include bad faith artists. BUT towards other good faith artists, artists ,, and esp musicans , do not sue.
Musicians do not experience professional jealousy as in other Arts -- like writers let us say--( Gore Vidal vs Norman Mailer comes to mind).
Musicians wanna jamm.. we steal little song gooks form each other all the time. "Here come old flat top , he come grooving slowly." ,, was John stealing direct from Chuck Berry,, and ..
"In 1973, "Come Together" was the subject of a lawsuit brought against Lennon by Big Seven Music Corp. (owned by Morris Levy) who was the publisher of Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me". ---- BUT CHUCK WAS NOT INVOLVED,, just some greedy dude who bought his music , before most songwriters had biz savvy.
(quote from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Together ,, which does not mean it is 100% reliable fact.)
==================================
YOU :If your income is like mine, that means that every single penny you earn in the next decade will be owed to the copyright owners.
Me: again it ain;t gonna happen now ,, but again ,, PLEASE PAUL , sue me ,, i would be honored !!! REALLY.
and if I ever get $$ , ASCAP , and BMI , et al , wil make it all kosher for everyone to eat right.
Like I said at the start ,, you are really nitpicking a highly unlikely scenario , in this case in reference specifically to me
-------------------
You : Here's the law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504
Me: I will read it , but I studied it on school as a pol-sci major. Good to review.
---------------
YOU : Of course, people who are caught downloading music (because they like it, not because they're trying to make a buck) will face similar fates.
But we'll be "protecting musician's rights," so I guess it's all OK by you, right?
ME : Accually you are loosing me there ,, i do not see your point on my situation , which is between me and Paul in our musician universe. The laywers will do our ,, and esp, Pauls bidding on these matters.
Geeks , who download en mass , are pirates , and should be stopped. Lyric sites that fail to pay royalites will be shut down. Larger organized crime , will be suject to law enforcement.
A no $$ dude like me, paying homage to his musical masters, but giving away a free cover , simply ain't ever gonna get sued, if the Musican (Paul in this case ) , is making the decsion.
But as with the "Come Together " lawsuit ,-- where some non- musician music leech , saw a chance for a buck.
But hey , there are idiots everywhere with lawyers.
good note ,, and no more ,, I have said all I can say here ,, and questions ,, re-read the thread ,, more questions still go to my profile here ,, and read my last 300 posts
sorry for the typos ,, i ain't proof reading this thing
In any case, not a single member of the Beatles (nor even Yoko) owns the copyrights to any of their music. They do still collect royalties on it, of course.
no , as i understand it .
M.J.'s estate get royalties from the "John & Paul" song publishing rights they own . ( George & Ringo own their music and publishing rights independently of John and Paul .)
Beatles inc. still gets $$ from , physical or digital medium sales.
--------------------
Don't Do Him Like That: Tom Petty vs. Scalpers - washingtonpost.com
Jun 2, 2006 ... Tom Petty, who's hinted this might be his band's last big summer tour, ... Ticketmaster notified the original buyers that their tickets were ... www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/.../AR2006060100521.html -
actually , i like soundblaster wave studio, It is free for one.
and it is simple to use ,, and I feel , i can mix , all that I need to at this time for demos and the like right @ home , for free w/o renting a studio for 1,000,000 bucks a day in NYC.
"Damn it , Jim ,, i am a musician ,, not and engineer" (star trek)
"Perhaps even worse. From the posts here, it's really obvious that you recorded that song, at least in part, to promote your own music. People who just download music don't expect that kind of advertisement."
"Perhaps even worse. From the posts here, it's really obvious that you recorded that song, at least in part, to promote your own music.""
I said i admit that ,,PAUL ,, sue me ,,please,, it is a musician culture thing.
==========================
"People who just download music don't expect that kind of advertisement."
What ? Think about that .
My music promotes my talent , with the goal that that talent gets me rich , or better yet broader respect for my music and art.
In any case, not a single member of the Beatles (nor even Yoko) owns the copyrights to any of their music. They do still collect royalties on it, of course.
but artist control , while not legally enforceable ,, is still , morally enforceable between the parties.
When MJ. ( may G-D rest his soul) ,,, started selling Beatle songs for ads ,, i remember reading Paul was not happy , and gave M.J. a polite ring on the phone to express his displeasure w/ beatle songs in ads.
I do not remember the full details from what i read ,, and I bet Paul , does not either.
On the post: NetCoalition/CCIA Reinforces Recent Comments To IP Czar Over Bogus Industry Studies On Copyright
copyright laws should be abolished)
"copyright laws should be abolished".
On the post: NetCoalition/CCIA Reinforces Recent Comments To IP Czar Over Bogus Industry Studies On Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Jefferson knew it was needed to built a vibrant economy, that would be strongg enough to last 250 years,, now mater how many Bush's try to run it into the ground.
Jefferson was cool..
Though I do disagree with him on on point.
I hold Copyright and Patent Law , is just an extension of Natural Law.
T.J. disagrees , with me on that point , from what Mike tells me.
---
I am dyslexic , sorry about the keyboard anarchy.
This is not formal , pay-for-word writing,, ,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,, yet .
On the post: NetCoalition/CCIA Reinforces Recent Comments To IP Czar Over Bogus Industry Studies On Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
On the post: NetCoalition/CCIA Reinforces Recent Comments To IP Czar Over Bogus Industry Studies On Copyright
Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
On the post: NetCoalition/CCIA Reinforces Recent Comments To IP Czar Over Bogus Industry Studies On Copyright
busting basement-dwellers for downloading Transformers.
On the post: NetCoalition/CCIA Reinforces Recent Comments To IP Czar Over Bogus Industry Studies On Copyright
Re: Re: which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
to the subject
in nature of fact and/or opinion
that I have not posted
here
already.
READ,
On the post: NetCoalition/CCIA Reinforces Recent Comments To IP Czar Over Bogus Industry Studies On Copyright
which all seemed to assume that greater enforcement was, without question, a good thing),
Me:
I know you are busy Mike , so let me correct this sentance for you :
It should read:
"....which all seemed to COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND that greater enforcement of copyright & patent law,, was, without ANY possible question, a good thing,,, and most certainly needed , to protect Artist Copyrights & Patent holder's rights in the current digital age, and the future nano-age."
If you need any more help ,,Mike ,, you know where to find me.
Have a Great day, ( But no illegal downloading , OR any circumventing anything. SO Play nice, or we will take away your toys.)
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
p.s. Re: corrected typos & with elucitations : RE: I think you are nitpicking technicalities , that do not apply in "musician to musician" culture.
BUT ... S/He does have to pay the original SONGWRITER -- or who ever owns the rights these days --- if the cover version EVER makes $$$$
------------------------
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
corrected typos & with elucitations : RE: I think you are nitpicking technicalities , that do not apply in "musician to musician" culture.
But I think you are writing in good "academic" faith , So let us beat the horse a bit ,, but with a feather , because PETA might be reading
---------------
The horse is dead, yet I can't stop beating it.
ans: w/ a feather i hope too.
-----------------------------
Me: but artist control , while not legally enforceable ,, is still , morally enforceable between the parties.
You : It is not "enforceable." The copyright holder can listen to the other party, or not. If not, then tough titties. If most copyright holders are like you, they'll go with the "tough titties" answer.
Me: Again between musicians , these lawsuits are RARE,
Chuck Berry never sues the Rolling Stones for numerous "rip-offs",, as a mater of fact Kieth produced Chuck's 60th birthday concert jam bash.
I know , Paul , loves to here , Beatles covers, and if someone for M.J.'s estate -- also art / musical types -- SUED ME I would be shocked , and Paul would be too.
While I cannot bet for sure there , it is a VERY highly educated guess.
When dealing with out sale of Pirated Music , that is a horse of a different color ( pun intended in context to opening of your post) , and it can be shot.
Most any musician -- in my opinion --would & should sue ,-- with support of ASCAP /BMI /et. al.,-- ONLY FOR infringement , and loss of control.
$$ would just make it more likely for the Artist to sue.
But really it is never about the $$ , it is about Artist Control.
Charles Mingus referred to songs as his children.** Musicians and songwriters feel that very deeply !!!!** ( major point !!)
Other musicians can play with our babies ,, but Pirates will be shot on site , with a lawsuit.
-----
----------------
---------
ME: My music promotes my talent , with the goal that that talent gets me rich , or better yet broader respect for my music and art.
YOU :So, you are committing commercial copyright infringement, then, even if you release the cover song for free. Legally and morally, you are no different than a car company who used "Help" without approval in one of their ads.
AGAIN SAME ANS: I said i admit that ,,PAUL ,, [can]sue me ,,please,,
It is a musician culture thing.
This is as old as the blues in the delta, rip of the master , so he come to your house , to teach you to do it better.
Musicians do not sue other good faith musicians.
But together we will fight Pirates
----------------------------------------------
YOU : Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA will probably bring the suit. And that is not something that you want.
ME: Paul won't let them .
FOR I get very little traffic --at least now to myspace,, like I said , I doubt anyone knows about ME at "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" ,
,,,, and if they did know , they would not care ,, I make ZERO $$ on my Beatle cover and have nothing to sue , over there.
No one can say there is infringements ,, because no one is NOT going to by the White Album , or is songbook because of my cover of Revolution #1 .
Yes if "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" asked me to remove the song , w/ formal legal notice , i would ,
, but that ain't worth the lawyers pay to write me the formal letter -- or informal phone call. ( Major Point in musicians culture )
And if "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" did so ,, I would appeal to Paul and Yoko for final judgement , and every would respect their wishes.
Trust me . Musician culture. I have been doing this for 30 years now ,, and while , I had only very limited local fame in NYC ,, before i semi-retired-from-music in 1995 to go back to college and get my degrees ,, ,,,
,,,,,, I was respected at all levels, and counted bigger "names" as my supporters,, who often watched my busking gig in Washington Square.
((( I even take credit for helping start the ukulele craze,, as i was publicly performing on uke , way back in the early 1990's , when people ,, even other musicians , would go ,, can you really make serious music on that? I was doing "Wild Thing" and "Honky Tonk Women" ( and more) , on uke , and mandolin , before most everybody,, and I pushed all my friend to play uke. Seems to have spread,, I was not THE leader here,, but I was on the cutting edge.))
My Point ,,trust me ,, no one will sue now ,, no $$ . and as I said if there EVER becomes money from my Beatle cover ,, The LAW rules.
I am nor ducking anyone . I stated that several times in this thread--
Doesn't anybody take the time to read all 1000 posts (sic) -- so i repeat here for the---- CORRECTED & spell-checked POST--- record. ( Who needs sleep?!?)
------------------------
ANS :If they win (and they will), they can make you pay their legal fees, which will be in the tens of thousands at least. The statutory damages can be as high as $30,000. Willful infringement - which you have admitted in these comments - will net you an additional $150,000. And they will win an injunction against you, meaning that you can never make that recording available, to anyone, ever again.
ANS : Like I said ,, I will co-op will any formal request ,, and again , it won't happen in MY case in a million years .
Copyright law protects artists from Pirates ( which include bad faith artists.)
BUT towards other good faith artists, artists ,, and esp musicians , do not sue.
BECAUSE Musicians do not (normally) experience professional jealousy,,, as happens in other Arts -- like writers let us say--( Gore Vidal vs Norman Mailer comes to mind).
Musicians wanna jamm.. we steal little song HOOKS form each other all the time. ....."Here come old flat top , he come grooving slowly." ,,
......was John stealing direct from Chuck Berry,, and ..
"In 1973, "Come Together" was the subject of a lawsuit brought against Lennon by Big Seven Music Corp. (owned by Morris Levy) who was the publisher of Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me". --
-- BUT CHUCK WAS NOT INVOLVED,, just some greedy dude who bought his music , before most songwriters had biz savvy.
(quote from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Together ,, which does not mean it is 100% reliable fact.)
==================================
YOU :If your income is like mine, that means that every single penny you earn in the next decade will be owed to the copyright owners.
Me: again it ain;t gonna happen now ,, but again ,, PLEASE PAUL , sue me ,, i would be honored !!! REALLY.
and if I ever get $$ , ASCAP , and BMI , et al , will make it all kosher for everyone to eat right.
Like I said at the start ,, you are really nitpicking a highly unlikely scenario , in this case in reference specifically to me
-------------------
You : Here's the law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504
Me: I will read it , but I studied it on school as a pol-sci major. Good to review.
---------------
YOU : Of course, people who are caught downloading music (because they like it, not because they're trying to make a buck) will face similar fates.
But we'll be "protecting musician's rights," so I guess it's all OK by you, right?
ME : Actually you are loosing me there ,, i do not see your point on my situation , which is between me and Paul in our musician universe.
The lawyers will do our bidding -- as lawyers are just drones --- ,, and lawyers will do esp, Paul's bidding on these matters-- as he has more $$ than any lawyer -- thank G-D.
Geeks , who download "en mass" , are pirates , and should be stopped.
Lyric sites that fail to pay royalties will be shut down.
Larger organized crime pirates , will be subject to merciless law enforcement.
And a no-$$-dude-like-me, paying homage to his musical masters, but giving away a free cover , simply ain't ever gonna get sued,
Especially if the Musician (Paul in this case ) , is making the decision.
But as with the "Come Together " lawsuit cited above here ,-- where some non- musician music leech , saw a chance for a buck.
But hey , there are idiots everywhere with lawyers.
good nite ,, and no more ,, I have said all I can say here in this thread ,
, any questions ,, re-read the thread ,
, more questions still go to my profile here ,, and read my last 300 posts
sorry for the typos ,, i ain't RE_ proof reading this thing a 2nd time
=============
============
==========
========
==========
===========
= and in the end , the love you make , is equal to the love you take ............
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_(The_Beatles_song)
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
Re: Re: "Perhaps even worse. From the posts here, it's really obvious that you recorded that song, at least in part, to promote your own music. People who just download music don't expect that kind of advertisement."
But I think you are wring in good "academic" faith , So let us beat the horse a bit ,, but with a feather , because PETA might be reading
---------------
The horse is dead, yet I can't stop beating it.
ans: w/ a feather i hope too.
-----------------------------
Me: but artist control , while not legally enforceable ,, is still , morally enforceable between the parties.
You : It is not "enforceable." The copyright holder can listen to the other party, or not. If not, then tough titties. If most copyright holders are like you, they'll go with the "tough titties" answer.
Me: Again between musicians , these lawsuits are RARE, Chuck Berry never sues the Rolling Stones for numerous "rip-offs",, as a mater of fact Kieth produced Chuck's 60th birthday concert jam bash. I know , Paul , loves to here , Beatle covers, and if someone for M.J.'s estate -- also art / musical types -- I would be shocked , and Paul would be too. While I can bet for sure there , it is a highly educated guess.
When dealing with out sale of Pirated Music , that is a horse of a differnt color , and it can be shot. Most any musician -- in my opinion --would & should sue ,-- with support of ASCAP /BMI /et. al.,-- even over ONLY infringement , and loss of control. $$ would just make it more likey for the Artist to sue,, but really it is never about the $$ , it is about Artist Control. Charles Mingus referred to songs as his children. Musicians and songwriters feel that very deeply. Other musicians can play with our babies ,, but Pirates will be shot on site , with a lawsuit.
-----
-------------------------
ME: My music promotes my talent , with the goal that that talent gets me rich , or better yet broader respect for my music and art.
YOU :So, you are committing commercial copyright infringement, then, even if you release the cover song for free. Legally and morally, you are no different than a car company who used "Help" without approval in one of their ads.
AGAIN SAME ANS: I said i admit that ,,PAUL ,, [can]sue me ,,please,, it is a musician culture thing. This is as old as the blies in the delta, rip of the master , so he come to your house , to teach you to do it better. Musicans do not sue othe good faith musicians.
But together we will fight Pirates
----------------------------------------------
YOU : Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA will probably bring the suit. And that is not something that you want.
ME: Paul won't let them . Buy I get very little traffic --at leat now to myspace,, like I said , I dublt , anyone knows at "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" , and if the did know , they would not care ,, I make ZERO $$ on the song, and have nothing to sue , over.
Yes if "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" asked me to remove the song , w/ formal legal notice , i would ,, but that ain't worth the lawyers pay. And if "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" did so ,, I would appeal to Paul and Yoko for final judgement , and every would respect their wishes.
Trust me . Musician culture. I have been doing this for 30 years now ,, and while , I had only very limited local fame in NYC ,, before i retired in 1995 to go back to college and get my degrees ,, I was respected at all levels, and counted bigger "names" as my supporters,, who often watched my busking gig in Washington Square. ( I even take credit for helping start the ukulele craze,, as i was publicly performing on uke , way back in the early 1990's , when people ,, even other musicians , would go ,, can you really make serious music on that? I was doing "Wild Thing" and "Honky Tonk Women" ( and more) , on uke , and mandolin , before most everybody,, and I pushed all my friend to play uke. Seems to have spread,, I was not THE leader here,, but I was on the cutting edge.
My Point ,,trust me ,, no one will sue now ,, no $$ . and as I said if there becomes money ,, The LAW rules. I am nor ducking anyone . I stated that several times in this thread-- doesn't anybody take the time to read all 1000 posts (sic) -- so i repeat here for the record. ( Who needs sleep?!?)
------------------------
ANS :If they win (and they will), they can make you pay their legal fees, which will be in the tens of thousands at least. The statutory damages can be as high as $30,000. Wilful infringement - which you have admitted in these comments - will net you an additional $150,000. And they will win an injunction against you, meaning that you can never make that recording available, to anyone, ever again.
ANS : Like I said ,, I will co-op wil any formal request ,, and angain , it won't happen in MY case in a million years .
Copyright law protects artists from Pirates ( which include bad faith artists. BUT towards other good faith artists, artists ,, and esp musicans , do not sue.
Musicians do not experience professional jealousy as in other Arts -- like writers let us say--( Gore Vidal vs Norman Mailer comes to mind).
Musicians wanna jamm.. we steal little song gooks form each other all the time. "Here come old flat top , he come grooving slowly." ,, was John stealing direct from Chuck Berry,, and ..
"In 1973, "Come Together" was the subject of a lawsuit brought against Lennon by Big Seven Music Corp. (owned by Morris Levy) who was the publisher of Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me". ---- BUT CHUCK WAS NOT INVOLVED,, just some greedy dude who bought his music , before most songwriters had biz savvy.
(quote from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Together ,, which does not mean it is 100% reliable fact.)
==================================
YOU :If your income is like mine, that means that every single penny you earn in the next decade will be owed to the copyright owners.
Me: again it ain;t gonna happen now ,, but again ,, PLEASE PAUL , sue me ,, i would be honored !!! REALLY.
and if I ever get $$ , ASCAP , and BMI , et al , wil make it all kosher for everyone to eat right.
Like I said at the start ,, you are really nitpicking a highly unlikely scenario , in this case in reference specifically to me
-------------------
You : Here's the law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504
Me: I will read it , but I studied it on school as a pol-sci major. Good to review.
---------------
YOU : Of course, people who are caught downloading music (because they like it, not because they're trying to make a buck) will face similar fates.
But we'll be "protecting musician's rights," so I guess it's all OK by you, right?
ME : Accually you are loosing me there ,, i do not see your point on my situation , which is between me and Paul in our musician universe. The laywers will do our ,, and esp, Pauls bidding on these matters.
Geeks , who download en mass , are pirates , and should be stopped. Lyric sites that fail to pay royalites will be shut down. Larger organized crime , will be suject to law enforcement.
A no $$ dude like me, paying homage to his musical masters, but giving away a free cover , simply ain't ever gonna get sued, if the Musican (Paul in this case ) , is making the decsion.
But as with the "Come Together " lawsuit ,-- where some non- musician music leech , saw a chance for a buck.
But hey , there are idiots everywhere with lawyers.
good note ,, and no more ,, I have said all I can say here ,, and questions ,, re-read the thread ,, more questions still go to my profile here ,, and read my last 300 posts
sorry for the typos ,, i ain't proof reading this thing
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
"the $$ is in Touring."
, BUT for other bands ,, esp , older bands that still get moderate airplay ,,
but really "cannot" or "do not want to" tour because :
: 1] they just don't want to physically tour , at the age of 60 +
, 2] can't get their fans to pay again to see the same act as ten years ago,
or , 3] can't get investors for the tour they are willing to do.
Those bands get their $$$ mostly from royalties under copyright law.
=====================
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
the $$ is in Touring.
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
In any case, not a single member of the Beatles (nor even Yoko) owns the copyrights to any of their music. They do still collect royalties on it, of course.
M.J.'s estate get royalties from the "John & Paul" song publishing rights they own . ( George & Ringo own their music and publishing rights independently of John and Paul .)
Beatles inc. still gets $$ from , physical or digital medium sales.
--------------------
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFgHB_3MOt8&feature=related
gimme some truth JOHN LENNON cover remix ( could not find the original ) , by somebody ,, but you will get the point for the lyrics
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
Re: Now, on to smash Ticketmaster.
search here :
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=9NI&rlz=1R1GPMD_en___US361&a mp;q=%22Don%27t+Do+Him+Like+That%3A+Tom+Petty+vs.+Scalpers%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=& ;gs_rfai=
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
Now, on to smash Ticketmaster.
Jun 2, 2006 ... Tom Petty, who's hinted this might be his band's last big summer tour, ... Ticketmaster notified the original buyers that their tickets were ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/.../AR2006060100521.html -
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
Re: I'll go back to download something interesting..
"Legally download" is what you meant , i am sure
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
Re: In other words, the jury found that they were not the same song."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
(anybody seen my house keys??)
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
but i wont having heard it you need protools pal.
and it is simple to use ,, and I feel , i can mix , all that I need to at this time for demos and the like right @ home , for free w/o renting a studio for 1,000,000 bucks a day in NYC.
"Damn it , Jim ,, i am a musician ,, not and engineer" (star trek)
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
"Perhaps even worse. From the posts here, it's really obvious that you recorded that song, at least in part, to promote your own music. People who just download music don't expect that kind of advertisement."
I said i admit that ,,PAUL ,, sue me ,,please,, it is a musician culture thing.
==========================
"People who just download music don't expect that kind of advertisement."
What ? Think about that .
My music promotes my talent , with the goal that that talent gets me rich , or better yet broader respect for my music and art.
it is a given.
=============
On the post: Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring
In any case, not a single member of the Beatles (nor even Yoko) owns the copyrights to any of their music. They do still collect royalties on it, of course.
When MJ. ( may G-D rest his soul) ,,, started selling Beatle songs for ads ,, i remember reading Paul was not happy , and gave M.J. a polite ring on the phone to express his displeasure w/ beatle songs in ads.
I do not remember the full details from what i read ,, and I bet Paul , does not either.
Next >>