The right to parody covers the lyrics and the performance, but not the music score.
I would also like to see some sort of citation to back up this assertion.
I was under the impression that if a court declares a parody song to be fair use, no infringement has occurred, regardless if the musical score has a copyright separate from the lyrics since the actual music would be required to make an effective parody. If you cannot recognize the song being parodied then it's not really a parody of the song.
This astonishes me. I've never before heard of an HOA that will pay for your house to be painted, decked, or roofed! All I've ever heard of in connected to these activities is that the HOA will dictate what color you will paint your house and what style your deck and roofing will be.
In my area, we have HOAs and we also have Condo Associations. The HOAs are similar to what you are talking about. The Condo Associations are used in condominium complexes where you don't own the exterior of your building or the property on which it sits. Maybe that is what PRMan was referring to. Those associations are responsible for all the yard maintenance, snow plowing, shrubbery, etc. and anything on the exterior of the building like decks, roofing and painting.
People say this as if it is both inevitable and means that we have no actual control over the extent or way in which it happens. I think that both of those things are untrue.
Well, I believe it's already a fact and what I was trying to convey was that since the laws of our nation only apply to our nation, we would only be curtailing our corporations, not those of other countries, giving us the disadvantage overall.
Please avoid ridiculous corporatist tropes like "penalizing success" if you want your arguments to be taken seriously. "Penalizing success" is a Libertarian strawman designed to provoke a knee-jerk reaction that distracts people's attention from the real issue.
I'm not using "penalizing success" for any other reason than that's how it boils down in my mind at the moment and I don't really care what labels you attach to the phrase. If you have a more preferred descriptive term for penalizing a corporation only because it has become to large or too profitable, then please share.
There is a point at which the accumulation of wealth itself becomes a real danger to everyone else.
I see your point here, but still fail to see how one country limiting the size of corporations would help. We live in a truly global economy these days. It would just mean that huge foreign corporations would have the upper hand over American companies and more control of our government.
I don't know a single one who would avoid starting a business if it were impossible to grow it to monster proportions.
Fair enough. But you are using the term "monster proportions", what if that arbitrary line was drawn much lower than that, would it still not enter into their equations when starting a business? It would for me. Why put sweat and equity into something that has a limit as to how much you can gain from it in the end?
There is successful, and there is excessive profit and.or concentration of money.
Still, that's an arbitrary threshold. How do you quantify "excessive profit"?
When a business owner has more income from dividends that they can spend, all they can do with their money is buy more businesses, and grow to the extent that they become too big to fail.
Well, to be honest, I've never bought into the "too big fail" nonsense and I live in the Detroit area. GM and Chrysler should not have received that bailout money, in my opinion, even though it would have hurt my local economy for a bit. Some other company and/or business would have stepped in and hired up the excess skilled workers in no time.
And just so you know, I do believe that companies engaging in monopolistic behavior should be curtailed. Competition fosters growth. I just don't see how capping success, just because a company reaches a certain size or worth, is helpful.
I disagree -- I think is does foster an environment for economic growth. One of, if not the major, the problems our economy has is that we are prioritizing the wrong kind of economic growth, where the growth comes from megacorporations at the expense of smaller businesses.
I don't disagree that most of innovation and growth does come from small businesses and that they are extremely important to our economy. But the rub is that all of those megacorporations were once small businesses too. Why would someone start a small business knowing that there is a limit to the amount of success they are allowed?
While I see the appeal to such actions, I don't think it's a wise choice.
Penalizing a corporation for being "too" successful does not foster a environment of economic growth. It would be counterproductive.
Secondly, it wouldn't work anyways, you would just end up with a bunch of smaller companies that are still controlled by the same entities. Take for example the breakup of Ma Bell. We ended up with 5 or 6 regional companies that were all still controlled by the same stock holders. And eventually they ended up buying/merging/acquiring each other again so we are back to one company called AT&T.
It’s completely natural. It comes from the natural law.
I disagree that copyright is anywhere near the "natural state" of human culture and learning.
When dealing with a tangible good, say a chair I designed and built, you are right, I built it, so it's mine. But those natural rights only extend up to the point when I transfer ownership to someone else. Then it theirs to use, destroy, modify, copy, resell or whatever.
Copyright is unnatural because it extends the original owner's rights BEYOND the transfer of ownership. If I legally purchase a book I am not free to do what I wish with it.
The only "natural rights" that exist with copyright are those prior to publication. The rights extended by copyright after transfer of ownership are completely unnatural and go against thousands of years of human behavior.
I've said it already above. Life of the author, at a minimum, and one generation past.
Why so long? Most studies show that most profits are received within the first ten years of the copyright term.
And why one generation past? Copyright was never, ever supposed to be welfare plan for the creator's children. Why are artists so special that they can't save and invest their present day earnings for their children's future like everyone else on the planet does?
I think progress means dissemination: We advance knowledge by encouraging authors to dissemination their works by way of the marketplace. It's not about disseminating at all costs. it's about disseminating on the author's terms.
I vehemently disagree with this. Yes, encouraging the authors to disseminate their works via the marketplace is a good place to start, for a limited time. (Personally, I feel 20 years or so to be about the maximum term for copyright).
But, you seem to be forgetting the most important part of how human culture and knowledge evolves - by building upon the works of others. By locking works up for 150 years (or forever, if Disney keeps up their antics) you have effectively curtailed human creation. Is that within the stated purpose of copyright?
For example, most agree that murder is wrong, morally speaking. That's why it's illegal. The morality of the act and the legality of the act are intertwined.
I agree with this. Law should reflect the morals of those governed.
My question is this: Why is that fact pointedly ignored by copyright maximalists? If filesharing is considered to be morally OK by a large swath of the population, why have we been ratcheting up the penalties for personal filesharing into the realms of the uncomprehendable? Shouldn't we be moving in the other direction?
LOL! Sorry, I missed your question earlier. (1) De minimis, (2) fair use, (3) implied license. Make sense?
Ok. Fair enough. Now let me ask you this, since all three of those items are merely defenses against infringement, which need to be proven in a court of law, is quoting someone else's email enough for a party to initiate a lawsuit and therefore the potential for claim of infringement would, in fact, still exist?
Because if it is, all communications between people using a persistent medium are illegal.
No, not all. It would only be infringement if you copied someone's else's words. Like when you respond to an email and include their message with yours.
On the post: How Copyright Forced A Filmmaker To Rewrite Martin Luther King's Historic Words
Re: Weird Al
I would also like to see some sort of citation to back up this assertion.
I was under the impression that if a court declares a parody song to be fair use, no infringement has occurred, regardless if the musical score has a copyright separate from the lyrics since the actual music would be required to make an effective parody. If you cannot recognize the song being parodied then it's not really a parody of the song.
But, IANAL, so I could be wrong.
On the post: DRM, Or How To Turn Your Cat's Litter Box Into An Inkjet Printer
Re:
On the post: DRM, Or How To Turn Your Cat's Litter Box Into An Inkjet Printer
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In my area, we have HOAs and we also have Condo Associations. The HOAs are similar to what you are talking about. The Condo Associations are used in condominium complexes where you don't own the exterior of your building or the property on which it sits. Maybe that is what PRMan was referring to. Those associations are responsible for all the yard maintenance, snow plowing, shrubbery, etc. and anything on the exterior of the building like decks, roofing and painting.
On the post: Developers Of Chrome Extension That Finds Cheaper Textbook Prices Receive Legal Threats From Major Textbook Supplier
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Broadband, Airline Industries Are Incredible Innovators -- When It Comes To Giving You Less But Claiming It's More
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I believe it's already a fact and what I was trying to convey was that since the laws of our nation only apply to our nation, we would only be curtailing our corporations, not those of other countries, giving us the disadvantage overall.
On the post: Broadband, Airline Industries Are Incredible Innovators -- When It Comes To Giving You Less But Claiming It's More
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not using "penalizing success" for any other reason than that's how it boils down in my mind at the moment and I don't really care what labels you attach to the phrase. If you have a more preferred descriptive term for penalizing a corporation only because it has become to large or too profitable, then please share.
On the post: Broadband, Airline Industries Are Incredible Innovators -- When It Comes To Giving You Less But Claiming It's More
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see your point here, but still fail to see how one country limiting the size of corporations would help. We live in a truly global economy these days. It would just mean that huge foreign corporations would have the upper hand over American companies and more control of our government.
On the post: Broadband, Airline Industries Are Incredible Innovators -- When It Comes To Giving You Less But Claiming It's More
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough. But you are using the term "monster proportions", what if that arbitrary line was drawn much lower than that, would it still not enter into their equations when starting a business? It would for me. Why put sweat and equity into something that has a limit as to how much you can gain from it in the end?
On the post: Broadband, Airline Industries Are Incredible Innovators -- When It Comes To Giving You Less But Claiming It's More
Re: Re: Re:
Still, that's an arbitrary threshold. How do you quantify "excessive profit"?
When a business owner has more income from dividends that they can spend, all they can do with their money is buy more businesses, and grow to the extent that they become too big to fail.
Well, to be honest, I've never bought into the "too big fail" nonsense and I live in the Detroit area. GM and Chrysler should not have received that bailout money, in my opinion, even though it would have hurt my local economy for a bit. Some other company and/or business would have stepped in and hired up the excess skilled workers in no time.
And just so you know, I do believe that companies engaging in monopolistic behavior should be curtailed. Competition fosters growth. I just don't see how capping success, just because a company reaches a certain size or worth, is helpful.
On the post: Broadband, Airline Industries Are Incredible Innovators -- When It Comes To Giving You Less But Claiming It's More
Re: Re: Re:
I don't disagree that most of innovation and growth does come from small businesses and that they are extremely important to our economy. But the rub is that all of those megacorporations were once small businesses too. Why would someone start a small business knowing that there is a limit to the amount of success they are allowed?
On the post: Broadband, Airline Industries Are Incredible Innovators -- When It Comes To Giving You Less But Claiming It's More
Re:
While I see the appeal to such actions, I don't think it's a wise choice.
Penalizing a corporation for being "too" successful does not foster a environment of economic growth. It would be counterproductive.
Secondly, it wouldn't work anyways, you would just end up with a bunch of smaller companies that are still controlled by the same entities. Take for example the breakup of Ma Bell. We ended up with 5 or 6 regional companies that were all still controlled by the same stock holders. And eventually they ended up buying/merging/acquiring each other again so we are back to one company called AT&T.
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree that copyright is anywhere near the "natural state" of human culture and learning.
When dealing with a tangible good, say a chair I designed and built, you are right, I built it, so it's mine. But those natural rights only extend up to the point when I transfer ownership to someone else. Then it theirs to use, destroy, modify, copy, resell or whatever.
Copyright is unnatural because it extends the original owner's rights BEYOND the transfer of ownership. If I legally purchase a book I am not free to do what I wish with it.
The only "natural rights" that exist with copyright are those prior to publication. The rights extended by copyright after transfer of ownership are completely unnatural and go against thousands of years of human behavior.
On the post: Help Create Some Neil deGrasse Tysonisms: Tautologically Meaningless Solutions To All The World's Problems
Re: Re: Tech writer judges a person's thinking based on 140 character tweet. GIF at 11.
journamalist - noun
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why so long? Most studies show that most profits are received within the first ten years of the copyright term.
And why one generation past? Copyright was never, ever supposed to be welfare plan for the creator's children. Why are artists so special that they can't save and invest their present day earnings for their children's future like everyone else on the planet does?
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I vehemently disagree with this. Yes, encouraging the authors to disseminate their works via the marketplace is a good place to start, for a limited time. (Personally, I feel 20 years or so to be about the maximum term for copyright).
But, you seem to be forgetting the most important part of how human culture and knowledge evolves - by building upon the works of others. By locking works up for 150 years (or forever, if Disney keeps up their antics) you have effectively curtailed human creation. Is that within the stated purpose of copyright?
On the post: All Of These Works Should Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree with this. Law should reflect the morals of those governed.
My question is this: Why is that fact pointedly ignored by copyright maximalists? If filesharing is considered to be morally OK by a large swath of the population, why have we been ratcheting up the penalties for personal filesharing into the realms of the uncomprehendable? Shouldn't we be moving in the other direction?
On the post: Help Create Some Neil deGrasse Tysonisms: Tautologically Meaningless Solutions To All The World's Problems
Re: Tautology yes, but not quite the same as your examples ...
I believe it's impossible to create a totally unhackable system, personally.
It's related to the old programming axiom: "As soon as you make a program idiot-proof, someone makes a better idiot."
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok. Fair enough. Now let me ask you this, since all three of those items are merely defenses against infringement, which need to be proven in a court of law, is quoting someone else's email enough for a party to initiate a lawsuit and therefore the potential for claim of infringement would, in fact, still exist?
On the post: New Year's Message: Change, Innovation And Optimism, Despite Challenges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've asked you to explain why exactly you think this isn't infringement here:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141227/05571829528/sonys-own-copyright-infringement-shows-h ow-broken-our-copyright-system-is-today.shtml#c557
Perhaps you missed it or were too busy to respond or....just maybe....you were too chicken to respond. Who knows?
Glass houses, my friend.
On the post: Sony's Own Copyright Infringement Shows How Broken Our Copyright System Is Today
Re: Re: Re:
No, not all. It would only be infringement if you copied someone's else's words. Like when you respond to an email and include their message with yours.
Next >>