Posted on 06/23/2013 5:17:34 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Apples and oranges. No, I don't pay to tell other peoples' jokes. Of course, I don't make any money from telling them, either. Really...is that the best argument you can come up with?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I happen to use "all blank music media" that you list to record my own music, text, photo and film. Why am I paying this fee? Who's being robbed here?
More like the business practices of Alan Klein or the suits at Atlantic records who stole the US publishing money on the Beatles, the Stones, and the Stax Records artists when the slipped them revised "contracts".
Uh, yeah...and?
I'm not denying that creative types get screwed out of what's owed to them. IF your examples did not sign contracts enabling the people buying their creations to do what they did (and that is an "if" that needs to be considered), then they were screwed. No doubt about it...it happens. But that doesn't make it right, moral or legal.
My point is that when someone steals someone else's song (or any other creation) -- be it by the label screwing the artist out of money, or some Generation.com punk illegally sharing songs -- it's theft. Just as stealing a car, shoplifting a bag of chips from the Kwiki-Mart, or making a bootleg copy of software at work, those who illegally share downloaded music are thieves. In all those cases, someone is taking something they don't own from someone who does, and not paying them for it.
So whether it's Bill Gates, Lou Reed, the guy who wrote DOS, or a struggling local band, if they own the rights to their creations, they are entitled to make money from each copy sold or shared. But in this digital world, coming up with a way to enforce those rights proving difficult.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
There is also chemical content which is nearly identical! Cliché Fail!
--snip--
I am referring to disaster footage (collapsing stages at concerts, plane crashes, tsunamis, etc.).
You do realize, don't you, that just because they do it, those who own the rights to those videos do have the right to demand payment for their use? I'm a former reporter, who has been paid by some of the national networks for my reports, and have worked at stations that pay stringers for their video and audio. Had we ever used that video or audio without the stringer's permission, we were liable. Had the networks ever used my reports without paying me, there would have definitely been a lawsuit!
So just because someone's video or audio has been lifted from You Tube doesn't mean they weren't paid for it. To do so would open the station/network up to lawsuits, which trust me, they don't want.
Then again, there's also the whole concept of "fair use", which is another topic altogether.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Yes, and built into the selling price of all those media, is a fee that goes to BMI and ASCAP (not sure which organization protects photogs and film makers). So when you copy a CD and give it to your friend, a portion of the price you paid for that CD or cassette goes to the artist.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
All of the billionaires steal. I’ve seen small musicians discover their latest album cover stolen and used on t-shirts at Wal-Mart.
I’ve seen local bands have their posters ripped off and used on Levi “grungy art” t-shirts.
None of them became millionaires from the transgressions.
None of them got publicity from the transgressions.
The laws are bought and paid for by the billion dollar globalists.
You “can” take ABCDisney to court over stealing youtube footage and putting it in the nightly news but fat chance of seeing any money. Disney kept Peggy Lee in court with appeals for YEARS over the money they didn’t want to give her from Lady & The Tramp home video sales.
Getty sold a photo hundreds of times that was stolen by AFP from someone’s online posting (on twitter?) of tsunami photos. Getty claimed they had no liability in that even though they profited from the sales.
It happens. Again. And again. And again.
Department store window displays using photobucket swiped photos.
USED TO BE lawyers internally would throw a fit over such repeated violations. Now it seems to be the norm.
The points I have made are 1) IT'S WRONG...whether it's Disney ripping off Peggy Lee for her royalties from a movie produced back in the Dark Ages, or the millions of times per year people steal songs online. Either way it's stealing. 2) there are legal recourses for those who have their art/music stolen, provided they haven't signed their rights away in a contract, and have registered their copyright or established their copyright in some way. I'm sure thousands of these suits are settled out of court each year, and are never heard about in the news because a) they're boring stories, and b) the terms of the settlement probably specify the aggrieved party is not to go to the media with the story.
As a side note, you can register your copyright online these days, in about 10 minutes, through the US Copyright Office. So if a photog snaps some cool tornado pics, in minutes he can register his work before taking it to The Weather Channel or Fox News. All he needs to do is cool his jets for a few minutes, whip out his laptop and credit card, and he can have some legal protection before shopping his pics out to the media. Same goes for any other creative type -- be they musician, artist, writer, sculptor, or whatever. They're not helpless, as you seem to make them out to be. They just have to use their heads and not sign their lives away, and be willing to fight if their work is stolen.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I’m saying I don’t care when the rats who bought the legislation they wanted (after repeatedly losing in Supreme Court cases of fair use) WHO have repeatedly stolen from the artists they claim to be protecting the interests of AND who have repeatedly stolen “from the little guy” because he has little legal chance at funding decades of appeals, when THOSE GUYS are wronged, I do not shed a tear. Not one.
The music industry was mob run for decades. The mob isn’t involved so much these days but it is just as corrupt if not more so.
Lie down with fleas, don’t complain when you get bit.
Toss out the endless revamps to copyright law. It doesn’t benefit the creators. It benefits the billion dollar monopolies. 100 years is more than enough “exclusivity”.
If the corporations weren’t so shielded from market forces for the crud they create today by the wealth of “old product” that they do not cherish (but still profit from), they would’ve gone bankrupt long ago (or had to surrender their pro-homo, anti-US, activism in the culture war).
You maybe haven’t heard about the cases because the companies get a slap on the wrist “cease and desist” order but they don’t pay for the violations.
And you don’t “have to file your copyright in ten easy minutes”. Copyright now begins at the time of creation.
The big boys don’t like to respect it.
The music industry was mob run for decades. The mob isn’t involved so much these days but it is just as corrupt if not more so.
Lie down with fleas, don’t complain when you get bit.
Toss out the endless revamps to copyright law. It doesn’t benefit the creators. It benefits the billion dollar monopolies. 100 years is more than enough “exclusivity”.
I don't know what revamps you're talking about (and I'm really not interested, either, so please don't send me the history of US copyright laws), but copyright laws most definitely do benefit artists...I know this firsthand.
"If the corporations weren’t so shielded from market forces for the crud they create today by the wealth of “old product” that they do not cherish (but still profit from), they would’ve gone bankrupt long ago (or had to surrender their pro-homo, anti-US, activism in the culture war)."
OK...what does this have to do with people pirating music online? Because that's what I've been talking about all along. How did you infer from my talking about illegal downloads that I was somehow giving the industry a pass? You made a quantum leap onto another topic somewhere along the line.
"You maybe haven’t heard about the cases because the companies get a slap on the wrist “cease and desist” order but they don’t pay for the violations."
Yeah, and "maybe" we never heard of them because the records burned up when the little green men from Mars landed and began shooting people with their ray guns. Regardless of why we never hear of the outcomes of these cases, those stories would never make the news anyway, because they're B-O-R-I-N-G. Boring stories don't get aired, because they make people change the channel, which isn't something any news or program director wants to happen.
"And you don’t “have to file your copyright in ten easy minutes”. Copyright now begins at the time of creation.
The big boys don’t like to respect it."
I didn't say "file" your copyright, I said "register" your copyright. Big difference. No, you don't have to register your copyright. Yes, you own the copyright as soon as you create your song, story, painting, whatever...you don't have to lift a finger. You own the copyright. But by registering your copyright with the Copyright Office, you establish an irrefutable time frame, proving you owned the rights to your creation, at a certain time and date.
That way, if/when Fox or The Weather Channel steal your hurricane pics, it's a matter of public record that you owned those pics before Fox and/or TWC used them (without your permission). It doesn't take a genius to see the advantage of registering a copyright, but unfortunately, some people just can't seem to be bothered to take that one, simple, but very important step. It's a form of insurance, in that you may never need it, but if you do, you'll be very glad you have it...and the big boys respect it.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.