Free Republic

FYI - Transgendered = has both male and female anatomy.

Funny, I went to school in East Texas, don't remember a single PR campaign that said "Don't cross fences."

Average teens think that all warnings are akin to "Don't run with a sharp stick." They are the definition of "Sophomoric" -- just smart enough to start figuring things out, but just foolish enough not to know what it is they're figuring. It's why we call them "Sophomores," for cryin-out-loud.

They should not be expected to know everything, and we as a community should do more than laugh at their parents and call them "stupid." -- especially considering that the folks who work in those facilities are probably required to have a whole slough of safety training/procedures on the exact dangers that facility poses before they're allowed to set foot on the equipment.

1) Cruel comment. They were teenagers. Teenagers are ignorant and notorious for believing that they are impervious to harm. 2) There is a HUGE difference between ignorance and stupidity.

Bravo.

If anyone wants to point fingers, how about all of the adults who build dangerous facilities and then don't secure them. If a teenager can wander into a facility like that and set off an explosion by accident, someone with malice could easily do the same on purpose.

I guess that's possible, but highly improbable.

Considering they were probably close to vents, tank full of fumes, it might have been something as small as a static electic shock. Not improbable at all.

CNN says isolated cruise missile, not war start. "Target of Opportunity" it was called....

There aren't any of those cuddly animals where they propose to drill.

Yes there are. No matter, oil exploration doesn't bother them. But the animals are there, all the ones listed.

Im a little tired of people coming here to leech our country dry and raising their children to be the same type of parasites.

I'm sorry, I missed that part of the article. Where did it say he was leeching, or that his parents were immigrants, or that anyone here was being parasitic?

Koi vey!"

Oh.

Ow.

That hurt.

Not even the butt-sniffing tests?

That's it. It's all just a big understanding! They guy was a Brit, talking about "Bum-Sniffing" dogs....

"...don't recall signing that,"

You don't have to sign it. It's a copyright reservation of rights statement. And the Uniform Commercial Code says you agree to that when you buy copyrighted intellectual property.

To really cut to the chase, forget about the RIAA. It isn't even part of this issue. Simply because you can't tell the difference between the disc and the contents of the disc doesn't change the law or the rights of those who create music.

The business model that has been in place is simply no longer workable.

I'm sorry, but what part is unworkable? Despite all the theives -- sorry, "entitled businessmen" -- ASCAP is effective, as the article shows. Recording labels are still making money. Exactly what isn't working? There may be millions of copyright violations every day, but without ASCAP et. al., nobody would be getting paid at all. Seems the balance between theft and policing is working just fine.

Not true. I buy a CD, and I don't have to pay (yet) the artist an additional fee every time I listen to it,

That's because you've purchased a private license that allows you unlimited private use. It allows you other rights under copyright law, such as the right to transfer that intellectual property to other media (tape, mp3, etc.), as long as its only used in accordance with private use copyright. It's called "Fair Use."

ASCAP is enforcing payment for public performances, which are not covered by the license you've purchased for personal use. The artists are saying, "If you just want to listen to music in your home, it will cost you this much. If you want to use our music to enhance your business, it will cost you a different amount, depending on what part music plays in your business."

But is the multimillion dollar payment really a *right*? Well... no... only in so much as the market is willing to bear the price. Is Eminem really so wonderfully talented that his labors should result in a life of wealth for producing one measly little album?

Eminem will likely not make millions from his ASCAP rights. He will make his millions from the sales and marketing of his image and recordings. That's an RIAA issue, far removed from what ASCAP is doing.

Hearing names like Madonna, Kravitz, or Eminem, in which all three both perform and write something similar to music, kind of confuses the issue. Imagine all those John/Jane Doe songwriters you've never heard of -- the ones who write the songs performed by people surgically altered to be more beautiful. Those composers/publishers/producers are the people ASCAP represents. If you happen to be a performer as well, more power to you. But ASCAP is there to collect the royalties for the people who created the performance pieces in the first place.

but artists are in this odd category of people that think they should get paid over and over for the same work.

You aren't buying a door. You are performing a piece of someone else's work for a period of time, for a given audience.

Artists don't necessarily want to be paid over and over again for the same work; however the economic value of an artist's work can only be established by how many people are exposed to the performance. Therefore, the only fair way to reward a songwriter is to pay him/her a little every time the song is performed under certain circumstances. The more performances, the more important it must be, and thus, more reward to the people who made it happen.... theoretically.

Artists don't need them any more. THAT is what they are really afraid of. Any artist or band that wants to distribute their music to the whole planet no longer needs an industry group or a record company to do it.

Sorry, but songwriters need groups like this more than ever.

First, yes, you can now independently distribute your music to the world if you wish. But how exactly will you make a living that way, much less make enough to pay off the investment in college (do you realize that many composers and songwriters actually have degrees in music? No, really!) or the decades of practice to learn the craft in the first place.

Second, with music so easy to steal, and such a casual attitude toward stealing music to use in your own businesses, ASCAP is definitely desired by musicians. That's why musicians join -- it is member-supported, you know....

Google up ASCAP. They are an extortion racket. A mafia.

And if there weren't so many unrepentant theives, they wouldn't have developed that way.

ASCAP has been taken to terms for their methods a number of times, yes. But most of the time, they protect the copyrights of thousands of small songwriters, composers, and publishers who often have only their royalties to show as income.

In this case, we had a nightclub -- a place that makes money from selling drinks in an atmosphere of MUSIC and dancing -- ignoring repeated requests for the club to pay the songwriters for the performance of their work (notice, Kravitz and Ciccone are listed as songwriters in the case, not as recording artists). As a dance club, their business atomosphere *depended* upon music -- come for the dancing, buy the drinks while you're there....

When they felt too good to pay for something they made money with, and continued to ignore ASCAP, ASCAP sued. And I think they're in the right this time.

You mean they aren't paid unless ASCAP extorts money from private business owners?

Oh, the poor, hapless private business owners, who just happen to be stealing something they don't have the rights for...

Still nobody has answered why any of these businesses *must* have music, and why they should be entitled to enhance their business using someone else's work without paying for it.

The musician has *not* been compensated. There are different rates for putlic and private performance licenses. The club (if it paid for a CD at all) paid for a private license, then used it for a public performance to enhance its own profits.

It's not up to you to decide what I charge for my business. If I think a loaf of bread is only worth a quarter, I can't walk into a store, throw a quarter down and walk out. If I think it's too pricey, I can just do without, but I can't walk around paying what I think something should be worth and just taking off with the goods.

People buy music because they have heard it and like it. No public performance, no sales. Its real simple.

And simpler still: If I control the copyright, *I* decide when it is given away and when it is subject to a fee. It's not up to you to "work in my best interest" by performing my work for your own profits. Again, why do you feel entitled to play a musician's work in your business for the sole purpose of increasing your business' profitability?

As for the idea that just because you don't get a physical copy, it isn't giving it away -- you're wrong. That's like saying that if I show a movie without paying rights, and let you leave without providing a videotaped copy, I'm not breaking the law.

Here's the simplest way to put it: You don't deserve to make money from my work without paying me for it. If my prices are too high, go somewhere else. I'll make my own business decisions, and fail or prosper the same as anyone else. But in the meantime, nobody deserves to improve their business by using something I thought up and copyrighted.

If no one is "publically" playing the music, they are never going to sell it in the first place

I'm Gillette. I make razors. In order to let people know I have a new product, I send out a bunch of freebies. Of course, I'll never make money if I give it away free all the time, so I have to charge sometimes too. It's up to me when I charge or give them away.

What people around here are saying is that, just because you're allowed to hear something on the radio without paying for it, the music should always be free. You should be able to open a business that profits from that music without paying for it.

Just like any other business, it's my choice when I give away my goods or services gratis and when I don't. And copyright law makes it pretty clear that public performance of these materials is not one of those gratis moments.