[markl]

Quote:

Artists cover each others songs all the time, if they aren't overtly sampling stuff, how is it illegal?

They have to PAY the songwriter to perform their song. That's why so many artists earn the majority of their income from songwriting *royalties*.

Quote:

Since when can they copy right songs lyrics and "music" (not the physical recording)? Is this new? Or where have i been, i'm pretty sure there is nothing wrong with that.

I don't know where you've been, but artists sign contracts with publishing companies. The publishing companies pay the artist for the *exclusive* right to "own" the songs they create (the actual music, not the recording). When a song is sold for a commercial, the publishing company gets money and the artist gets money (except for many of the older black artists who got screwed out of their publishing and no longer own a thing they made), and the record company gets money *if* they use the original recording of the song which is owned by the record company. Every time a song is played on the radio, the artist gets money, they have to pay for that right to play those songs.
Quote:

Privacy to media is one thing, having licenses to use it... well thats when you "pay" for things, how would you like it if you had to pay everytime you used the english language, because england copywrited it?

That's a really bad analogy. The language (obviously) isn't "owned" by anyone, it's when an artist or writer strings together the language into something their own, something unique that it can be copyrighted.

You own every word that you type on this web site. No one has the right to take your review of the new Sennheiser and put it up on their web site without your permission.

Quote:

I mean sure they can copywrite a book, yet if i'd like to quote the book should i need to pay for the quote (so long as it's not plagarism?).

If you go around copying and then selling a chapter of a book to other people, you bet that's illegal.

Quote:

What's wrong with people learning how to play a song and sharing that knowledge?

Because they should have to actually *pay* for the sheet music like anyone else. It's not theirs to steal. Let's say you are an elderly musician in a rest home. You can't perform the songs you wrote anymore. Your entire livelihood comes from a percentage of your publishing, including the sale of the sheet music to your sonngs. That's reality.

If you are a home-schooled pupil, your parents do not have the right to download textbooks to teach you about copyright law.

They have to buy that text book like anyone else.

 

[MartinJ]

Don't place myself either way on this matter but I thought music artists, (not the uber famous ones) make most of their money from concerts.

 

[bahamaman]

For those of you who have an interest in acquiring a greater understanding of when the use of another's copyrighted work is unlawful and when it is lawful under the fair use doctrine, here is a link to the lengthy but well written opinion in Napster v. A&M Records:

http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newo...6?OpenDocument

Though a bit of a tough read, it does a nice job of laying out:

1. The elements of direct copyright infringement,

2. The factors that go into the determination of when such infringment is excused under the Fair Use doctrine, and,

3. How Napster (in its old, now defunct, form) was guilty of contributory copyright infringement.

 

[MartinJ]

I like http://www.sheetmusicdirect.com/

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oski Why is a corporation always singled out as it were a single person. A company is owned by the tens or hundreds of thousand shareholders. A corporation has the fiduciary responsibility to be profitable for its various owners. Every single one of you is perpetuating the "greed" of the corporation by virtue of you owning stocks directly or indirectly through a retirement account, pension, etc. If you don't want to be a part of this, tell your work not to invest towards your pension, don't put a cent into a 401(k), and then don't even buy a thing made, sold, or distributed by a company. Look around you...most every thing you own is bought from a "greedy" corporation, including the computer you are staring at. Either forego all of it or you are just encouraging them. Also, unless you are self employed, you are likly working for one of these "evil" corporations and helping them to their greedy ends.

Please.
You guys never heard of Enron, Various Airlines that made tons of paycuts only to give their executives extra bonuses, etc. The list goes on.

Oh, and let's not mention price gouging oil companies that took advantage of hurricane disasters to make extra profits, while lying out their @sses about how they were losing money. All except the fact they ended up posting record profits. Gotta love public disclosure of profits for publically held corporations. We all saw it, but hey, whatever, keep paying for that overpriced gasoline. Oh, yeah, you don't really have a choice.

Argue semantics all you want, sure corporations are an entity, but they are made up of and controlled by a few people at the top. Note the title of this thread points to corporate bigwigs, referencing the people at the top. You know, those high salary executives.
Although the protection of IP can and will be valid, it just amazes me how many corporations blindly protect their IP to the point of where they lose sight of the bigger picture and actually lose themselves money.

Oh, and I am self-employed.
.
.
.
.
.
.I'm not incorporated yet, so I can't be greedy yet.

Yet.

-Ed

 

[Edwood]

Oh, and why not start suing people that hum, whistle, or sing copyrighted songs walking down the street?

I mean, someone might hear it, and recognize the song, and then "enjoy" the aspect of hearing a copyrighted song. But they didn't pay for it!?! Why that is potential revenue that was lost!

So now when someone sings a copyrighted song, you can say, "Hey, who sings that song?" <person gives you answer>, "Well, let's keep it that way. Otherwise, I'll report your thieving @ss to the RIAA!!!"

-Ed

 

[markl]

I don't think you'll find anyone who will defend the Enrons of the world.

Those cases you cite are about corporate malfeasance. Throw the book at them. This argument is about consumer malfeasance.

 

[Oski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood Please. You guys never heard of Enron, Various Airlines that made tons of paycuts only to give their executives extra bonuses, etc. The list goes on. Oh, and let's not mention price gouging oil companies that took advantage of hurricane disasters to make extra profits, while lying out their @sses about how they were losing money. All except the fact they ended up posting record profits. Gotta love public disclosure of profits for publically held corporations. We all saw it, but hey, whatever, keep paying for that overpriced gasoline. Oh, yeah, you don't really have a choice. Argue semantics all you want, sure corporations are an entity, but they are made up of and controlled by a few people at the top. Note the title of this thread points to corporate bigwigs, referencing the people at the top. You know, those high salary executives. Although the protection of IP can and will be valid, it just amazes me how many corporations blindly protect their IP to the point of where they lose sight of the bigger picture and actually lose themselves money. Oh, and I am self-employed. . . . . . .I'm not incorporated yet, so I can't be greedy yet. Yet. -Ed

Okay, so due to the malfeasance of a few corporations...a broad sweeping generalization can be applied to all.

The fact of the matter is corporations are what make most everything you see around you possible. It is the very essence of the market economy that has provided employment, tax base, and the engine that propels this country forward. Without which, we are back in the 19th century bartering for goods.

 

[markl]

Quote:

Oh, and why not start suing people that hum, whistle, or sing copyrighted songs walking down the street?

Let's not get hysterical Edwood.

Why are people over-reacting and imagining nightmare scenarios that obviously will never occur, especially when we know what we are really talking about? You are free to read aloud to your child a bed-time story, you are not free to print up a million copies and give them away to other people. That's not "fair use".

 

[slwiser]

The following is my rant on this issue and only an opinion.

"Why is a corporation always singled out as it were a single person" this the reason for a corporation and it's very nature. It is exactly that, to create an entity that exists as an individual so that the actual owners can have an arms length from any liability. That entity can be taken to count the same as an individual.

The problem I have with corporations is that when large enough the executives operate as kings as in a fuedal system. They are under the guidance of the stock owners but these owners are so far from having any actual control and power is so diffuse that they have no bearing on how the large corporation is run. The owners in my view are similar to whom the feudal King pays homage; his "God", essentially lip service. The Lords are the corporate executives under the King. The employees are equal to the serfs in the feudal system. Yes, serfs are free to move to another kingdom but the rules of the feudal system are very much the same in any Kingdom. Corporate boards are suppose to control the King but when the King appoints the board as is the normal case in almost all corporations this system at this point is truly corrupt. Kings appoint other Kings to watch over how each other operates their respective Kingdoms.

Now do not get me wrong, would I rather have the government in control? NO! Many corrupt corporations compete with each other and therefore this produces some corrections where if only a single entity (government) existed corruption would be complete. Where we see the corporate corruption run amok is when their size makes them immune to these competitions.

End of rant...and opinion...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oski Why is a corporation always singled out as it were a single person. A company is owned by the tens or hundreds of thousand shareholders. A corporation has the fiduciary responsibility to be profitable for its various owners. Every single one of you is perpetuating the "greed" of the corporation by virtue of you owning stocks directly or indirectly through a retirement account, pension, etc. If you don't want to be a part of this, tell your work not to invest towards your pension, don't put a cent into a 401(k), and then don't even buy a thing made, sold, or distributed by a company.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Let's not get hysterical Edwood. Why are people over-reacting and imagining nightmare scenarios that obviously will never occur, especially when we know what we are really talking about? You are free to read aloud to your child a bed-time story, you are not free to print up a million copies and give them away to other people. That's not "fair use".

"Fair Use" is getting erroded one lawsuit and legislation at a time.

Remember when you could record a TV show on the VCR and watch it later?

Say bye bye to that. In the near future, Digital Video Recorders like Tivo are giving into the MPAA to remove your "fair use" rights. You can be prevented from recording certain shows, and also, recorded shows will automatically be deleted from your DVR at a specific time frame.

Ten years ago this idea was repulsive and consumers would not stand for it. There was a little thing called DIVX (not the MPEG4 video codec) which was basically a self-destructing DVD. It died a quick death in the marketplace (thankfully), but like it or not technology like DIVX will find it's way into consumer devices, whether you like it or not.

And actually, the creators of DIVX are quite alive and well these days, and oozing their way into the movie industry.

*Puts foil cap on*

-Ed

 

[bahamaman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood "Fair Use" is getting erroded one lawsuit and legislation at a time. Remember when you could record a TV show on the VCR and watch it later?

You still can. Sony v. MGM is still good law. What the Napster case held is that making digital copies available for anyone to copy is fundamentally different from the VCR.

First, the VCR, as a practical matter, is limited to making a single (or perhaps a few) copies. Distinguish that from the capabilities of an mp3 file stored on a computer that is accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

Second, when I record a movie off television, at least the owner of the copyrighted work made the conscious decision to license the film's showing that evening. Conversely, when you make available "Enter Sandman" to the world on your hard drive, the copyright owner did not agree for you to publish the song.

These at least were the arguments the Ninth Circuit in Napster used to distinguish legal "time-shifting" from illegal downloading.

It is, imo, a fair distinction.

 

[TenaciousO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWill "Would you like it if some stranger trespassed on your land, even if there were neither harm in his presence nor an impediment to your enjoyment of your property?" I wouldn't give a damn, and in many countries people actually have the right to do this, at least in some areas. See the recently passed "right to roam" legislation in the U.K. To take the analogy the other way, do you shoot the neighbour's cat if it walks through your yard?

Thanks for refuting my statements with just about the worst analogy ever. It should have been implicit in my statements that the music industry is entitled to enforce their ip rights through legal means. Did I ever say that a corporation is allowed to shoot and kill someone who steals their ip? No, but they are entitled to threaten legal action and bring their claims to court if necessary.

Let's use your pet analogy. If my neighbor's pet trespasses onto my yard, that doesn't entitle me to kill that pet or to commit any illegal action for that matter. However, nothing prevents me from asking the pet owner to keep his pet off my land. Moreover, where actual harm exists, such as if that pet continually craps on my yard and the neighbor does nothing about it, I'm entitled to claim to the court that the pet constitutes a nuisance just as the music industry is entitled to claim that a person who publishes tabs to thousands or even millions of people via the internet is violating copyright laws.

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oski Why is a corporation always singled out as it were a single person. A company is owned by the tens or hundreds of thousand shareholders. A corporation has the fiduciary responsibility to be profitable for its various owners. Every single one of you is perpetuating the "greed" of the corporation by virtue of you owning stocks directly or indirectly through a retirement account, pension, etc. If you don't want to be a part of this, tell your work not to invest towards your pension, don't put a cent into a 401(k), and then don't even buy a thing made, sold, or distributed by a company. Look around you...most every thing you own is bought from a "greedy" corporation, including the computer you are staring at. Either forego all of it or you are just encouraging them. Also, unless you are self employed, you are likely working for one of these "evil" corporations and helping them to their greedy ends.

A corporation, a company, does not have to be "greedy". Every company has a symbiotic relationship with society in general: the company offers something of worth to the society with value and quality, the society grants the company existence and prosperity by purchasing and using the company's goods using money as trade.

The problem is when a company loses sight of this basic truth. When a company - the controlling interests, the CEO's, the managers or even the stockholders - begins to believe that profits overweigh all else, that the goal of profits validates any action no matter how unmoral or unequal to people in general, greed occurs and people are hurt.

When a corporation or company is seen as an entity unto itself is when this happens. When the entity of the company construct begins to override the greater good of the people who actually make up that construct, or the people that the construct is supposed to serve via their creations (that is, the customer), the corporation has become "evil".

Our problem is that we currently live in a social system that is preaching such shifts of beliefs. Even though we have been there - in the 1880's to 1920's - society desires to return there again under the guise of the rose-colored glasses of "The Good Old Days". Didn't work then, won't work now by some magic pixie dust no matter what these fools think. We have proof of this - but they don't want to listen because - OF COURSE - the past never repeats itself because "I'm different, I'm better!" always exists.

What the music industry must do is figure out a way to protect it's interests while joining the consumer in this act, rather than fighting the consumer in everything they do new. Why? Because, as we see here, and only in hundreds of other places, the outright fight alienates your consumer base. But the bean counters of these large corporations are just too stupid - too "greedy" - to see this. They believe blindly that they are correct and blindly put their protection plans into action...against the very people they hope to collect money from, either today or tomorrow. And once burned, twice shy.

This is where the "greed" comes in - the inability to work to a amenable end to both sides. Instead they forward their own agendas, roll over public opinion, lose market - and think that the lost market must be regained through any means, and the whole process begins all over again.

Instead a new paradigm of operation could easily be created. When a radio station plays a song online they pay a small airplay royalty, just cents. But at the end of the year these royalties add up to millions. The music industry could charge very small amounts for each download of some types of music information - very cheap - and regulate others out of existence, those types that are truly copyright infringements. If the public thought that the music industry was trying to play "fair" - work well here, control the "bad" there - I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem with this. But the public thinks that the music industry is being very heavy-handed in it's practices and therefore they are damaging themselves more than doing a long-term good.

 

[CookieFactory]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oski Why is a corporation always singled out as it were a single person.

Because in law a corporation has many of the same rights as natural person. This is like Accounting 101.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Look at the way China is stealing our intellectual property and pirating everything from music to *automobiles* and *medicines*, then turning around and selling all this stuff back to Americans at a discount. Our native companies can't compete, they spend all those dollars developing these innovations only to have them stolen by fly-by-night companies in China who incur none of these development costs. We have an enormous and growing trade deficit, and it's the equivalent of China just vacuuming up dollars out of our economy. They are stealing our national wealth, "cheating" on the rules of international trade, and our very way of life is threatened. All because we refuse to get tough and put our foot down to force China to respect our intellectual property rights.

False.
1) If trade with China is equivalent to, "China just vacuuming up dollars out of our economy," then why is the US and Europe so eager to trade with China?