Posted on 12/31/2007 6:56:52 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
In an unusual case ... the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further ... [the RIAA] maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer ... Whether customers may copy their CDs onto their computers -- an act at the very heart of the digital revolution -- has a murky legal foundation, the RIAA argues.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.computerworld.com ...
You're right about Di$ney being especially evil as far as copyright is concerned, however, they don't actually own Winnie the Pooh (not that you'd ever know it by their use of the characters). The Milne family (decendants of Pooh's creator) has been fighting Disney for years and have won court cases against Disney for going way beyond the initial contracts for Pooh, and the other characters.
It seems that copyright is only a good thing when it favors Disney.
Disney released their bastardization of "The Jungle Book" less than a year after Kipling's copyright on same expired. If copyright law had been the same in 1967 as it is today, they'd not been able to release The Jungle Book until 2 years from now IIRC. Disney has been an evil corporation for decades. They are actively involved in the movement to debase our culture in any way they can.
Any distribution, performance or display of a copyrighted work requires permission unless it falls under fair use. That's a simple fact, and it falls within the intent of the Constitution. The determination of fair use includes:
In the case of a big dance studio, they should pay.
In the case of the old lady teaching local kids in her basement for a small price, she technically should pay. But the reality is that she's pretty much below the radar, and smart copyright holders will let it slide since the bad PR of going after grandma generally isn't worth it.
In the case of a volunteer teaching local kids for free, it probably falls under fair use. There's no profit and kids aren't going there specifically to listen to the music as opposed to licensed venues.
How do they know if someone rips a cd to their computer and then puts in on their iPod?? Or, just plays the MP3 through their computer?
“What they want, is to get a cut from every blank CD and iPod sold.
I think that is only the interim goal. What they want is to control absolutely the distribution of all music.”
BINGO.
They enjoyed a complete monopoly since the 30’s and 40’s, when recorded music came into being, they controlled all aspects of it, from the band, to the studios, to the processing plants, to the brick and mortar stores, to radio via payolla, and further to MTV by payolla.
The music industry is only eclipsed in corruption and pig headed greed by the mob - and surprise, there are DEEP hooks in the music biz with the mob.
Apple came along with a little program called iTunes, which was around before under another name. MP3s were the playtoy of hardcore computer nerds, and everyone laughed at Jobs and Apple when they pushed iTunes. Then Napster hit, and the labels woke up at the numbers. Instead of embracing the ne tchnology, they freaked out and insisted that MP3s were a fad, and sued Napster.
Then the iPod came along, and the world was changed forever.
So Jobs came along with the iTunes Store. Pay for downloads? PFfft! I remember people HERE making fun of iTunes, saying it would go broke in a month, because people would never pay for what they can get free. The RIAA sneered at them, and grudgingly allowed Apple to move forward, as long as they catered to their demands of DRM.
So, Jobs proves them wrong, in a big way, as iTunes becomes a way out of the ballpark smash hit, not only for new artists, but older artists start seeing checks from albums 20, 30 years old.
Does the RIAA embrace the new technology? No. They freak out, unwilling to admit Jobs was right (how dare him, he’s not even IN the music biz!), or anyone else, and think they can keep the genie in the bottle. Well, we’re seeing they are dead wrong, and they have sown the seeds of their own destruction. The world has left them behind, and the more they annoy people, the less people will buy from them.
Was it too much to ask for them to say “hey, people want to put tracks on their mp3 players, maybe we should cater to that, we’d sell billions!”?
Apparently so.
They’re losing the distribution, as brick and mortars are closing left and right. The CD racks, which used to be the most crowded aisles in BestBuy, are now wastelands. Radio is gone, unless you subscribe to satellite. MTV is dead. So you’d think they’d be cramming as much product onto iTunes as possible. Nope. They want MORE money (what else is new), and are pulling off of the service. STUPID. How many sales would Warners have lost back in the day, if they had said “You can ONLY buy our albums from Tower Records”?
Oh well. The suits at the record labels will all get laid off or fired or drift away on golden parachutes over the next few years, into other industries. One day they’ll be over you, and they’ll tank your productivity too, and demand millions in bonuses just for showing up, and demand total and utter respect and butt kissing despite whatever THEY act like.
Woo.
You know that old story of killing the golden goose? They did’nt just kill it, they raped it, torched it, blew it up, peed on it, and them blamed the people buying the golden eggs in mass quantities.
So is public domain. They got most of their greatest stories from there, but don't ever want to have to give back. This is completely against what the Founders envisioned. Jefferson was right in saying to Madison that even a limited grant of monopoly would be abused. Madison thought it was a necessary evil that could be controlled through the will of the people. Jefferson predicted the copyright cartel's lobby, Madison didn't.
“Tipper was too busy making a complete idiot of herself over Prince lyrics.”
Zappa was GREAT at those hearings!
They're working on that problem. They're pretty chummy with Microsoft ($1 of every Zune sale goes to the RIAA).
“Tipper was too busy making a complete idiot of herself over Prince lyrics.”
Zappa was GREAT at those hearings!
Indeed, as was John Denver and Dee Snider, who all took great risks standing up to the idiots in Congress who were allowing the farce to happen. I was vague on Frank until I saw his testimony, and I became a hardcore fan after that. He was relentless over the issue for a few years, but got nowhere - the deal was done, the RIAA got their $1 blood money tax, and they compromised on those idiotic “parental warning” stickers.
See, the labels were getting heat too, along with the artists. Once Congress cat their beady little piggy eyes at THEM, then they wrapped it up as fast as possible, for exchange of the tape tax. That’s my belief after reading about the backroom deals after the fact.
Then EMI got smart and agreed to non-DRM tracks on iTunes. The rest of the RIAA freaked and people predicted it would fail. And it was also a smash hit that led to the price being dropped to that of DRMed music. Then other labels saw the light (even Universal, although they did want the higher prices so left iTunes).
Even seeing their profits plummet wasn't enough to bring them out of their stone-age thinking. The labels will come into this century, but only when led kicking and screaming by powerful, influential people such as Steve Jobs. Even then he still has to twist their arms in negotiations every few years to keep the pricing reasonable and simple.
Thanks for the info! I’ve never heard about that case.
I wonder if the liberals slavering at Al’s feet these days would be so kind if they remembered the PMRC.
I wonder if the computer/tech pro-privacy liberals complaining about Bush’s actions would be so kind if they remembered Gore’s Clipper Chip and key escrow.
“I wonder if the liberals slavering at Al’s feet these days would be so kind if they remembered the PMRC.
I wonder if the computer/tech pro-privacy liberals complaining about Bush’s actions would be so kind if they remembered Gore’s Clipper Chip and key escrow.”
It’s something that used to bother me when Clinton was running with Gore, and later when he was VP. I watched idiotic musicians go on tv and say ‘Vote Clinton/Gore!”, and I’d scream at the TV, “@!@##@, Tipper used YOUR album as an example! She tried to shut you down with Al’s help!”
I’m over it now, but it’s why I’ve detested Al Gore, and everything he stands for. He’s a book burner, he’s supported censorship, and he’s supported idiotic techonolgy to further the nanny state. That’s why I will never vote for him, support him, or buy his books and movies. He’s disgusting, always has been, always will be. He’s done more to strip people of their civil liberties in regards to expression of speech than anything the Republicans have ever been accused of, but they venerate the guy like he’s a prophet.
Says all I need to know about liberals. I used to point out that he tried to outlaw their music, but theyd did’nt want to hear it.
For anyoen that’s interested, here’s Frank’s testimoney to Congress:
http://downlode.org/Etext/zappa.html
Frank got right in their faces and tore them down. The pissy remarks afterwards are hilarious now, but at the time, I remember being pissed that they would act the way they were - like spoiled children.
My message to the RIAA: Come and get me.
I bought all my CDs legitimately and I prefer to have the songs in a more portable file format. So sue me.
I understand your point. They spent good money to get these laws on the books.
But there are plenty of stupid laws that are ignored daily. Seemingly uneven, or unethically enforced laws will be zealously circumvented. What the RIAA has done is place a general contempt for copyright law in the publics heart.
I’ve worked for record labels in the past and work with licensed merchandise now. These intellectual copyright enforcers are fighting a storm of their own creation.
President Bush owns an iPod (given to him by his daughters). He has country & western music on it. Will the RIAA be coming after him?
Thanks for the Zappa testimony. I’ve never read it before.
“The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense ... In this context, the PMRC’s demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation.”
Classic! I bet they thought some dumb rocker would come before them to be chastised, but instead they got intelligent, searing argument.
One interesting thing, it shows a time before Hollings was owned by the copyright cartel. I wonder if they started giving him money right after this so he’d lay off, and eventually belong to them.
Still, points to Gore for knowing Zappa’s music.
The basic concept of copyright is in the Constitution. I don't think anybody paid-off Madison. It is the more recent abuses enacted in the last 30 years or so that were bought, pretty much from the 1976 act onwards.
What the RIAA has done is place a general contempt for copyright law in the publics heart.
Very true. They have done damage to all copyright holders. I might get lumped in with these thugs if I ever have to sue someone for violating my copyright (and, yes, that would be a last resort for egregious cases).
They don't sue straight off. First, they abuse the court system to find out who you are. Then they send you an extortion letter, demanding money or they'll bury you in legal fees. They won't back down from this even if they themselves believe you are innocent because they don't want to set an example that could encourage others to fight (they actually stated this to one victim). They only take you to court if you don't give in to the extortion.
So hypothetically,if ASCAP knew that back in 1966,at a party in San Mateo,me and a couple of friends entertained the crowd with our beer soaked version of Barbara Ann,we could have been SUED?
Go Frank!
It reminds me of Steven Tyler thanking Tipper Gore for guaranteeing an added million sales thanks to the PMRC sticker.
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.