posted
Kinda like Drake and Morgan ripping off the immorally-but-legally thieving&murdering conquistadores: the worst part was that the privateers didn't sink all of the Spanish shipping.
posted
It's more like changing the channel when ads come on the TV. It's screwing over the advertisers (who will pass it on to the TV station), and if everyone did it completely we would have no TV. Nevertheless, we still are entitled to do it.
posted
How is that comparable? We don't pay for the TV shows, the advertisers do. And they know they're taking a chance that no one will watch or remember their ads. But the people who made the show you're watching got paid.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They only got paid because many viewers did not exercise their right to change the channel and paid for the program they were watching in ad-watching time. Had they all started not watching ads, the advertisers would stop paying the networks and the creators of the TV programs would not be paid - they would be screwed over by viewers trying to get TV without ads. That was the whole issue with TiVo.
Similarly, musicians continue to get paid, despite file sharing, because not everyone listens to mp3s instead of CDs. In the hypothetical case where everyone did, those artists wouldn't be paid - screwed over by listeners who want music without having to pay.
The point of the comparison is this: Sometimes you're entitled to do things that could screw over others to some degree.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
I've not read this entire thread yet so this may have been covered. If so I apologize.
This follows along with 'ownership', music etc....
Karaoke. Thsi medium was created for the sole urpose of allowing others to sing along/perform without vocals from the original recordings. You bought the CD with the musical score YET, according to the RIAA/Labels etc, you cannot play this without paying then yet again, and again, and again.... where does that end? Is that more morally right than file sharing? They got paid for their product for petes sake. Yet they want to keep on geting paid. and paid, and paid from the very same copy you already paid for. Doesn't the fact that you paid for it in the first polace give you license to use it as intended? Since this IS the sole purpose of what you bought the CD for AND the labels know this, put it out with that very intention.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: by Tresopax It's more like changing the channel when ads come on the TV. It's screwing over the advertisers (who will pass it on to the TV station), and if everyone did it completely we would have no TV. Nevertheless, we still are entitled to do it.
There was an interview some time ago by one of the head honcho's at Turner maybe 2 years ago that hit on this very thing. According to this guy, when you skip commercials you are stealing content and he wants something done to 'those thieves'. Very militant guy that was.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Similarly, musicians continue to get paid, despite file sharing, because not everyone listens to mp3s instead of CDs. In the hypothetical case where everyone did, those artists wouldn't be paid - screwed over by listeners who want music without having to pay.
But that ratio is changing, which is the whole problem. The theme of your posts seems to be that as long as at least someone is still paying for music, you shouldn't have to.
quote:The point of the comparison is this: Sometimes you're entitled to do things that could screw over others to some degree.
Ah. Well, that explains it. I don't agree with this. It may sometimes be necessary to do something that screws someone else over to some degree, it might be convenient, it might even be untraceable or unstoppable, but I do not believe that you are in any way, shape or form entitled to do so. That, to me, smacks of offensive arrogance and disrespect for others.
[ September 15, 2003, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
If an advertising agency buys space on a billboard, I am not required to stop my car and look at it. All that has happened is that the ad agency paid the owners of the billboard so they can place their ad there, in the hopes that I might look at it and consider them favorably when I'm out shopping. That's all.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that you're basically arguing for your right to screw people over is somewhat amusing. If it weren't so frightening that so many others feel the same way you do.
And that's the real problem. If you said to me, "I don't care if I screw over artists", that's fine. It's one person. But when ten, and a hundred, and then several million people say to themselves "it's okay to screw over artists"... well, then the artists get fed up of being screwed all the time... or they end up not being able to create anything anymore.
The ratio *is* changing. More and more people are feeling that it's okay to download *anything* for free. Hey, it's on the interent, it should be public domain, right? Wrong. That's like saying "it's in a magazine, it's public domain" or "it's on television, it's public domain" or claim any other information transferrence medium becomes public domain.
As for your comment about people not wanting to read books on a computer... eBooks are becoming more and more popular... as are eBook readers that are roughly the size of a hardcover. They're basically the literary version of mp3 players... and they will usher in a new era of stealing from artists, and this time from artists who *don't* have the money to spare.
---
No, the law should not be changed to accommodate those who feel it's their right to screw other people over. There should be *more laws* to *prevent* those people from screwing over anyone they feel like. Such as the laws that protect people from fraud. Or from theft. Or from any number of other things. Just because thieves think it's their right to screw over the little guy, that doesn't mean it is... or that it should be.
You're promoting anarchy, you realize. Anyone who wants to do something can - the laws be damned. Again, laws only keep the honest people honest... the dishonest and unethical don't care one whit about them.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand Flying Cow. (I really don't, I'm not being stupidly sarcastic, as I very often and against my will end up doing) I don't understand what you mean by saying that published works on the net aren't public - for the taking, in other words If someone downloaded music or a poem from the net and then claimed that they had made it, then that's grounds for a lawsuit. I apologize if I'm missing the obvious Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*blinks* Read the thread, it might help you understand basic copyright issues. Essentially, books, etc. have copyright in them held by a person or entity. Sticking that book up to be available on the net without the permission of the copyright holder is a violation of that copyright. You're NOT ALLOWED to put it in public domain without their permission. Surely this is blatantly obvious?
If someone decides they WANT something they wrote to be available online, THEY can make that choice and post / distribute it online. Kinda of like the way people can't sleep in your house without your permission...
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, if you're talking about things published exclusively online - like an article for an online zine - then yes, they are available free of charge. But if the person asserts their copyright on that article, then you can't publish it on your website.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just butting in and pointing out that the public domain and being available in public are two very very different things.
The only (major) ways a work can go into the public domain are if it is a government report (this is more specific a category than it sounds), if the copyright holder(s) place it in the public domain, if the copyright expires, or if a court orders it put in the public domain.
The public domain is a free for all zone. You can do whatever you want to with a public domain work. Absolutely whatever (though if some of the elements of the work are subject to other intellectual property laws, such as trademark, you have to be a little careful: you can still use them, but your ability to make derivatives is restricted by the trademark or other right).
For instance, if the Bono copyright act had not passed, Steamboat Willey (a very early Mickey Mouse-esque cartoon by Disney) would be in the public domain. One would be able to make copies of that work, distribute copies of that work, and generally do whatever one wanted with characters in that work. The one exception would be with certain likenesses of the main character (and this would only apply for derivatives, not for distribution of original in whole or in part), because those likenesses are near enough the likeness of Mickey Mouse to infringe on Disney's trademark.
Putting something up in public implies no right to distribute a work (except those ephemeral "copies" implied by the method of distribution, such as at caching servers).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
*blinks* Read the thread, it might help you understand basic copyright issues. Essentially, books, etc. have copyright in them held by a person or entity. Sticking that book up to be available on the net without the permission of the copyright holder is a violation of that copyright. You're NOT ALLOWED to put it in public domain without their permission. Surely this is blatantly obvious?
Back to my question, apply that to Karaoke CDs. Those are made with the express purpose of putting it out in 'public domain' so to speak. Yet the Labels want to continue charging for it ad infinitum.
They (the labels/RIAA et al) want their cake and to eat it to and screw us, the consumer out of every penny. Their hands aren't exactly clean here either. Two times that *I* know of they've been caught with their hands in the price fixing cookie jar. That doesn't justify 'stealing', but it does at times make it understandable why the attitude of today is so prevalent.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, karaoke CDs do not put the music in public domain.
The publishers of those CDs pay license fees to the copyright holders to use the songs. The reason the RIAA asks for a continuous license is because the purchase by the end-user (say, a bar) generates income for that user. It's essentially a royalty fee.
posted
I'm not a bar nor do I make any money yet I'm expected to continue paying the RIAA/Label.
Royalty fees my big toe when one doesn't garner income from it. Just a way for them to squeeze people more.
Bars don't generate true income from it either. Not in the sense they are charging customers to listen like the 'stars' do in concerts.
If that were the case then there could be NO music in bars, stores, or anywhere else because stores make money from sales of things other than music. The business of a bar isn't to provide music. Its to provide a drinking/socializing atmosphere. Bars have TV's but you don't see the NFL suing bars for having Monday Night Football on.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Bookwyrm, you might want to read the fine print at the end of Monday Night Football, or listen to what the announcers say very quickly near the end:
"Reproduction or rebroadcast of tonight's Monday Night football without the express written consent of (insert both team names here), the National Football League, Monday Night Football and ABC is strictly forbidden."
And they will sue, all of them. That's why you never see Sports Bars touting "Come and watch the greatest football games of all time!" Also, most of the chain sports bars actually do pay a licensing fee to show those broadcasts since they are done for promotional purposes. The local mom and pops sports bars often aren't hunted down and asked for payments, but there are lawyers who do travel from town to town explaining the situation and leaving a bill behind.
And yes, they do that with music, too. Generally it's done by ASCAP, a songwriters/producers association. That's why so many places, especially chain stores, use Muzak or their own broadcasting. The rights are covered by the fees they pay to Muzak or to their own "in store radio station."
A retail store or restaurant can be hit by ASCAP (and have it stand up in court) for simply playing open broadcast radio from the local AM/FM station where their customers can hear it.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet another sign of how well the RIAA checks it's facts before suing people:
quote:Six record labels including Sony, BMG and Virgin have withdrawn a $300m lawsuit against a 66-year old woman sculptor who, it turns out, has never used file sharing software.
The RIAA said Sarah Ward was sharing 2,000 songs through the KaZaA P2P network exposing her, at $150,000 per offense, to $300,000,000 in penalties. But not only had she never downloaded a song, but as a a Macintosh user, she couldn't even run the KaZaA software, which only runs on Windows.
With characteristic bad grace, attorneys for the RIAA members reserved the right to harass the woman in future:
"Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant," wrote Colin Zick, attorney for the record labels, the Boston Globe reports.
Having attacked naval cadets, students, young children and now innocent senior citizens, the music business appears not to fear the consequences of its litigation. However, it can't afford too many more cases of mistaken identity.
Good thing they "caught" her sharing files on Kazaa...
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article didn't say. One guess is that the ISP may have screwed up the identity of the person using the IP at that time.
Other than that, I know that they've got bots that they've used in the past to scour servers for possible (as in any word contains something from a title that they own), and they got beserk without checking it out first (there was a school that owned a title that the RIAA told them to delete).
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
If someone downloaded music or a poem from the net and then claimed that they had made it, then that's grounds for a lawsuit. I apologize if I'm missing the obvious ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
