Posted on 06/15/2009 12:51:44 PM PDT by steve-b
The MPAA apparently said that the “enemies of copyright have really done a good job at creating the false premise that the interest of copyright holders and the interest of society as a whole are antagonistic” during the World Copyright Summit. The worry is that their pro-copyright advocacy perspective is fading away in the public conscious.
In an interesting report from IP-Watch where there were a few choice words levelled against those that disagreed with the view-points of the copyright industry. Apparently, Fritz Attaway suggested that it's false to assume that the rights of the industry and the interest of the public good are at odds. Maybe even giving the suggestion that 10 years of copyright debates is all just a big misunderstandings perpetuated by, using the black and white term, "enemies".
So, where do these misunderstandings possibly come from anyway? We figured a short list might be in order: destroying Napster and Audio Galaxy and not creating an alternative for the get-go, raiding people's homes because they uploaded Star Wars (not necessarily leaking it in the first place), hacking the URN hash and polluting FastTrack, hacking The Pirate Bay, having Viacom serve DMCA notices to people posting video's of people eating in a restaurant on YouTube, suing tens of thousands of average American's including fining one individual $222,000 for sharing a couple songs, saying that files in a shared directory is copyright infringement in court, saying that evidence is too hard to get and that the industry shouldn't be burdened to prove their cases in court, suggesting that iPods are little more than little pirate ships, saying in court that even making one back-up copy of a DVD is illegal....
(Excerpt) Read more at zeropaid.com ...
They can’t do that because when Apple agreed to install DRM (the FairPlay setup), they agreed not to sue them.
Via Reuters - http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSTRE49C4BH20081013:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - For those about to rock, AC/DC salutes you. Unless, that is, you want to buy the Australian heavy metal group’s newest album, “Black Ice,” on iTunes, or anywhere but Wal-Mart when it drops in record stores on October 20.
“Maybe I’m just being old-fashioned, but this iTunes, God bless ‘em, it’s going to kill music if they’re not careful,” lead singer Brian Johnson, 61, told Reuters.
AC/DC, formed by brothers Angus and Malcolm Young in 1973, is among only a handful of musicians to refuse to put their music on the popular download website in a move that Johnson defended as a bid to protect the album format from the Internet’s emphasis on buying single songs.
Idiots.
Yeah, I don’t notice them complaining about singles or lone tracks getting played on the radio.... or getting sold in stores......
Why are they idiots? Seems to me that they are asserting the rights over their property.
I thought Freepers were in favor of property rights.
Many artists are doing that, or are doing it via iTunes (which charges a small fee per track for hosting it and the rest goes to the artist or whoever put it up.)
Oh, they have the right to do whatever they wish with their property.
I also have the right to ridicule them for what I think is a stupid decision that has no basis in objective reality and that is costing them tons of money in lost sales.
The politicians will be the judge of that. Law really doesn't matter anymore.
>>If these guys had their way, we’d still be paying royalties for Twain, Mozart, Scott Joplin and Nat Hawthorne.<<
...for singing their stuff in the shower.
Are you kidding? It's unAmerican to buy something you don't want to get something you do want. That'll kill music, definitely...
...and the monster grew, and grew, and grew, and they don't like it that they got aced. Tough!
The best part is that iTunes is exposing more artists to potential customers than the RIAA ever would - tons of people are releasing tracks on iTMS that the record companies turned up their noses at for no good reason, and those people are making pretty good money from those sales.
So when the RIAA drones crank up the latest “iTMS killer” site only to see it fail, it’s really amusing. They’ve had the years to figure out why iTMS is a runaway success the likes of which have never been seen before in the media industry, yet they still don’t get it.
1. Apple does not care if the iTMS turns a profit (though it does, and quite an enormous one). The iTunes Music Store exists for one reason and one reason only - to give people a compelling reason to buy Apple hardware. That’s it.
2. Since they don’t have to care about nickel and dime-ing their customers for each song, they do something totally revolutionary - they give the people what they want (both artists and customers) and little to none of what they don’t want. They have no egotistical need to crank up prices or put the screws to their customers to get one more penny out of some old and worthless catalog.
Most of the record labels in the RIAA still don’t get it. One notable exception, EMI does - in fact, it looks like back catalog sales of EMI properties on iTMS may very well save that label.
Thanks for the ping ShadowAce.
Dunno... I have a natural aversion to monopolies and roadblocks to progress.
I personally think our copyright system is a mess and needs a massive reformation.
Yea tough. That's the way it works in America.
Well, that is how the Constitution designed our system of copyright to be. Unfortunately, it is not that way anymore. We will no longer be at odds when the Copyright Cartel and Congress read the Constitution and truly understand the intent of copyright, and the public forgets this idea that everything should be free.
Copyright in this country was not designed to be the absolute, perpetual right that these people want it to be. Copyright is one of the most blatant examples in this country of our Constitution being destroyed by us signing treaties that more reflect the laws of other countries that are in opposition to the Constitution.
Copyright is also not property. It is a limited, granted right. The only way I can steal a singer's property is to rob his house, take his car or some other such action. Downloading a song is infringing on his copyright, a completely different legal concept.
They lost that legal battle against the old Rio music player. They should get over it.
I can think of some albums that tell a cohesive story and are best listened to as a whole, like The Wall, Tommy, Quadrophenia and Ziggy Stardust. But I can't think of a single AC/DC album that is more than a collection of singles.
Hey, dildo-breath! Who was it that bribed Congress to extend copy-wrong to something comparable to 10 times its original Constitutional duration, in the guise of protecting among other things, Disney works based on plots which had fallen into the public freakin’ domain? Remember that, public domain? Who was it that bribed Congress to TRY to neuter our fair use RIGHTS?
Yeah, how are we going to move all our crap songs if we can’t force you to buy them to get the few good ones?
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.