«

impossible wrote:
>
> "victor" <> wrote in message
> news:hfl0lb$903$...
>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>> "victor" <> wrote in message
>>> news:hfkjv1$ue1$...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hfk48c$21u$...
>>>>>> Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs, may
>>>>>> owe $60 billion in damages
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/07...rd-labels.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Copyright infringement isn't kid stuff anymore. Corporations, like
>>>>> individuals, need the permission of copyright holders before
>>>>> copying and distributing original works. It's just too bad that
>>>>> artists like the Chet Baker (or in his case, his estate) can't
>>>>> collect damages from individual pirates the way they can from
>>>>> corporations. Same crime.
>>>>
>>>> Not the same at all
>>>> In these cases the labels have sold the cds and pocketed the income
>>>> without paying the royalty share they agreed to.
>>>> Its more like counterfeiting which is the reason the copyright law
>>>> was set up, and the area in which it can be used effectively, its
>>>> useless against filesharing end users who don't sell anything.
>>>
>>> Existing law is useless to prevent copyright infringement by
>>> individual pirates -- that doesn't make internet piracy any less a
>>> crime. Did internet pirates compensate Chet Baker for the copies they
>>> downloaded and distributed without his permission. No -- same
>>> thieving, self-interested behavior as the corporations. Wake up!
>>
>> Chet Baker was long dead when the internet arrived, his estate is the
>> arbitrary leader of the class action.
>
> Chet Baker's estate is hardly the "arbitrary leader of the class
> action". Chet Baker's estate owns the property rights to Chet Baker' songs.
>
>> There is no dispute here about the labels right to distribute the
>> content on compilations, its about their accumulation of pending
>> royalties which have remained unpaid like Mikey Havocs parking fines,
>
> Dead wrong. The record companies had **no right** to distribute
> compilations that included Chet Baker's songs without the permission of
> Chet Baker (or now his estate). As is common in the record business,
> permission to distribute would have been given if the record companies
> had chosen to pay the appropriate per copy royalites, but they did not
> do this.
They put them on a pending list which they were entitled to do in Canada
under the arrangements with collecting societies there. They had
permission, the artists assigned those rights.
They collected the royalties as part of the purchase price from the end
users, they just didn't pass them on.
Oopsie !! Bad accountants. Bad.

This is exactly what internet pirates do when they decide to
> download music without the copyright holder's permission. They could
> easily obtaion permission by paying a per copy fee, but they choose to
> steal the works instead.

There is no way of doing that, the rights are assigned through
collecting societies, its a different situation, whether you download
the song or not, no income is generated

>
>> They will work out a deal.
>
> It's called a legal settlement. The record companies will agree to pay
> damages fo infringing copyright -- but less than the the amoun t they
> would be expected to pay if the case been to jury. Most ofd the internet
> pirates who have been caught have opted for a similar resolution of
> their cases.
>
>> Its a bit of a hyperbolic beatup from copyright lobbyist Michael
>> Geists blog.
>> Its funny to see the copyfighters indulging in the same shonky moral
>> equivocation as the industry shills.
>
> Theft is theft.

And what the record companies did was actually theft.
As opposed to copyright infringement by file copiers.

impossible wrote:
>
> "victor" <> wrote in message
> news:hfruv9$dnk$...
>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>> "victor" <> wrote in message
>>> news:hfl0lb$903$...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "victor" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hfkjv1$ue1$...
>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hfk48c$21u$...
>>>>>>>> Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs,
>>>>>>>> may owe $60 billion in damages
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/07...rd-labels.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Copyright infringement isn't kid stuff anymore. Corporations,
>>>>>>> like individuals, need the permission of copyright holders before
>>>>>>> copying and distributing original works. It's just too bad that
>>>>>>> artists like the Chet Baker (or in his case, his estate) can't
>>>>>>> collect damages from individual pirates the way they can from
>>>>>>> corporations. Same crime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not the same at all
>>>>>> In these cases the labels have sold the cds and pocketed the
>>>>>> income without paying the royalty share they agreed to.
>>>>>> Its more like counterfeiting which is the reason the copyright law
>>>>>> was set up, and the area in which it can be used effectively, its
>>>>>> useless against filesharing end users who don't sell anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Existing law is useless to prevent copyright infringement by
>>>>> individual pirates -- that doesn't make internet piracy any less a
>>>>> crime. Did internet pirates compensate Chet Baker for the copies
>>>>> they downloaded and distributed without his permission. No -- same
>>>>> thieving, self-interested behavior as the corporations. Wake up!
>>>>
>>>> Chet Baker was long dead when the internet arrived, his estate is
>>>> the arbitrary leader of the class action.
>>>
>>> Chet Baker's estate is hardly the "arbitrary leader of the class
>>> action". Chet Baker's estate owns the property rights to Chet Baker'
>>> songs.
>>>
>>>> There is no dispute here about the labels right to distribute the
>>>> content on compilations, its about their accumulation of pending
>>>> royalties which have remained unpaid like Mikey Havocs parking fines,
>>>
>>> Dead wrong. The record companies had **no right** to distribute
>>> compilations that included Chet Baker's songs without the permission
>>> of Chet Baker (or now his estate). As is common in the record
>>> business, permission to distribute would have been given if the
>>> record companies had chosen to pay the appropriate per copy
>>> royalites, but they did not do this.
>> They put them on a pending list which they were entitled to do in
>> Canada under the arrangements with collecting societies there. They
>> had permission, the artists assigned those rights.
>
> The songs were on a "pending list" because approval to distribute had
> not yet been granted. Approval was <cough, cough> pending, said the
> record companies, which was the excuse they then used to distribute the
> songs on compilations cds and make a bundle from those products without
> providing any compensation to the artists in the form of royalty
> payments. That's copyright infringement and the record companies are now
> being sued for damages.
>
>> They collected the royalties as part of the purchase price from the
>> end users, they just didn't pass them on.
>> Oopsie !! Bad accountants. Bad.
>
> LOL. It's called theft, and it will cost the record companies millions
> in damages. Copyright infringemnt isn't kid stuff anymore.
>
>>
>> This is exactly what internet pirates do when they decide to
>>> download music without the copyright holder's permission. They could
>>> easily obtaion permission by paying a per copy fee, but they choose
>>> to steal the works instead.
>>
>> There is no way of doing that, the rights are assigned through
>> collecting societies, its a different situation, whether you download
>> the song or not, no income is generated
>>
>
> Copyright infringement is not about theft of income, it's about theft of
> property. Internet [pirates do not have the permission of copyright
> holders to download copyrighted works. Full stop.
>
>>>
>>>> They will work out a deal.
>>>
>>> It's called a legal settlement. The record companies will agree to
>>> pay damages fo infringing copyright -- but less than the the amoun t
>>> they would be expected to pay if the case been to jury. Most ofd the
>>> internet pirates who have been caught have opted for a similar
>>> resolution of their cases.
>>>
>>>> Its a bit of a hyperbolic beatup from copyright lobbyist Michael
>>>> Geists blog.
>>>> Its funny to see the copyfighters indulging in the same shonky moral
>>>> equivocation as the industry shills.
>>>
>>> Theft is theft.
>>
>> And what the record companies did was actually theft.
>> As opposed to copyright infringement by file copiers.
>
> Copyright infringement, as this case clearly demonstrates, is theft. The
> copyright holder has the **exclusive right** to determine whether, how,
> and under what terms their works are copied/distributed. Anyone who
> violates that right is subject to both compensatory and puntative damages.

It's not theft at all, it's contract violation.

2009-12-10 impossible <>:
>
> "Gunnar Gren" <> wrote in message
> news:4b203119$0$8233$ ...
>> 2009-12-08 impossible <>:
>>>
>>> Copyright infringement isn't kid stuff anymore. Corporations, like
>>> individuals, need the permission of copyright holders before copying and
>>> distributing original works. It's just too bad that artists like the Chet
>>> Baker (or in his case, his estate) can't collect damages from individual
>>> pirates the way they can from corporations. Same crime.
>>
>> There is no such thing as "original work"
>
> http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/Page____7290.aspx
>
> "The term "copyright" refers to a bundle of exclusive rights conferred by
> the Copyright Act 1994 ("the Act") in relation to original works. These
> rights allow copyright owners to control certain activities relating to the
> use and dissemination of copyright works."

And.....
There still is no such thing as "orignal" work.

Den 2009-12-10 skrev impossible <>:
>
> "Gunnar Gren" <> wrote in message
> news:4b203201$0$8233$ ...
>> 2009-12-08 impossible <>:
>>>
>>> Did internet pirates compensate Chet Baker for the copies they
>>> downloaded.
>>
>> Where do one get hold of this Chet Baker guy so one can pay him?
>
> Chet Baker is dead, so you would need to contact the executors of hius
> estate.

Why?

2009-12-10 impossible <>:
>
> Theft is theft.
>
Yes, but you are not discussing theft.

In message <4b241c65$0$8227$>, Gunnar Gren
wrote:

>> Theft is theft.
>>
> Yes, but you are not discussing theft.

Theft is a criminal, not a civil matter. Copyright infringement (in the form
of casual file sharing) is a civil, not a criminal, offence. Therefore it
cannot be “theft�. QED.

Den 2009-12-13 skrev Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>:
> In message <4b241c65$0$8227$>, Gunnar Gren
> wrote:
>
>>> Theft is theft.
>>>
>> Yes, but you are not discussing theft.
>
> Theft is a criminal, not a civil matter.
> Copyright infringement (in the form
> of casual file sharing) is a civil, not a criminal, offence. Therefore it
> cannot be ???theft???. QED.

That's a fact. But there is elements that want to set imaterial matters
the same as material, wich it isn't and will never be.

impossible wrote:
>
> "Gunnar Gren" <> wrote in message
> news:4b24280e$0$8229$ ...
>> Den 2009-12-13 skrev Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <_zealand>:
>>> In message <4b241c65$0$8227$>, Gunnar Gren
>>> wrote:
>>>
>> "impossible" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>>
>>> "victor" <> wrote in message
>>> news:hfl0lb$903$...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "victor" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hfkjv1$ue1$...
>>>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hfk48c$21u$...
>>>>>>>> Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs,
>>>>>>>> may owe
>>>>>>>> $60 billion in damages
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/07...rd-labels.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Copyright infringement isn't kid stuff anymore. Corporations, like
>>>>>>> individuals, need the permission of copyright holders before copying
>>>>>>> and distributing original works. It's just too bad that artists like
>>>>>>> the Chet Baker (or in his case, his estate) can't collect
>>>>>>> damages from
>>>>>>> individual pirates the way they can from corporations. Same crime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not the same at all
>>>>>> In these cases the labels have sold the cds and pocketed the income
>>>>>> without paying the royalty share they agreed to.
>>>>>> Its more like counterfeiting which is the reason the copyright law
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> set up, and the area in which it can be used effectively, its useless
>>>>>> against filesharing end users who don't sell anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Existing law is useless to prevent copyright infringement by
>>>>> individual
>>>>> pirates -- that doesn't make internet piracy any less a crime. Did
>>>>> internet pirates compensate Chet Baker for the copies they
>>>>> downloaded and
>>>>> distributed without his permission. No -- same thieving,
>>>>> self-interested
>>>>> behavior as the corporations. Wake up!
>>>>
>>>> Chet Baker was long dead when the internet arrived, his estate is the
>>>> arbitrary leader of the class action.
>>>
>>> Chet Baker's estate is hardly the "arbitrary leader of the class
>>> action".
>>> Chet Baker's estate owns the property rights to Chet Baker' songs.
>>>
>>>> There is no dispute here about the labels right to distribute the
>>>> content
>>>> on compilations, its about their accumulation of pending royalties
>>>> which
>>>> have remained unpaid like Mikey Havocs parking fines,
>>>
>>> Dead wrong. The record companies had **no right** to distribute
>>> compilations
>>> that included Chet Baker's songs without the permission of Chet Baker
>>> (or
>>> now his estate). As is common in the record business, permission to
>>> distribute would have been given if the record companies had chosen
>>> to pay
>>> the appropriate per copy royalites, but they did not do this. This is
>>> exactly what internet pirates do when they decide to download music
>>> without
>>> the copyright holder's permission. They could easily obtaion
>>> permission by
>>> paying a per copy fee, but they choose to steal the works instead.
>>>
>>>> They will work out a deal.
>>>
>>> It's called a legal settlement. The record companies will agree to pay
>>> damages fo infringing copyright -- but less than the the amoun t they
>>> would
>>> be expected to pay if the case been to jury. Most ofd the internet
>>> pirates
>>> who have been caught have opted for a similar resolution of their cases.
>>>
>>>> Its a bit of a hyperbolic beatup from copyright lobbyist Michael Geists
>>>> blog.
>>>> Its funny to see the copyfighters indulging in the same shonky moral
>>>> equivocation as the industry shills.
>>>
>>> Theft is theft.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, but you are not discussing theft.
>>>
>
> Theft of intellectual property is theft.
>

Its not possible for them to steal the copyright content, since they
have already been assigned copyright permission on account.
Non payment of royalties by record labels is bad debt.
Actions for recovery of debts don't usually refer to the debtors as
thieves, and recovery is usually a civil matter, not criminal.

impossible wrote:
>
> "victor" <> wrote in message
> news:hg1m2p$arv$...
<snippity>

>>
>> Its not possible for them to steal the copyright content, since they
>> have already been assigned copyright permission on account.
>
> No. Copyright permission was only pending, not assigned. Assignment was
> contingent on paying royalties. The record companies illegally took
> advantage of the copyright holder just as individual internet pirates do
> every day. Neither had permission to copy or distribute the copyrighted
> works
>
>> Non payment of royalties by record labels is bad debt.
>
> No, if they copied the songs without permission of the copyright holder,
> then they infringed on the exclusive property rights of the copyright
> holder. No different from any other form of thieving.
>
>> Actions for recovery of debts don't usually refer to the debtors as
>> thieves, and recovery is usually a civil matter, not criminal.
>
> But copyright infringement is a crime.
>


This case is in Canada.
Its a civil case, no one has been arrested and charged with a crime, the
state is not prosecuting anyone, the civil action is to recover debt.

Michael Geist's blog post which is the sole source quoted in all the
breathless OMG 60 BILLION DOLLARS !!11!!! reposting really looks like a
beatup.

The pending list is apparently a legitimate arrangement between the
labels and the collecting societies.


http://www.barrysookman.com/2009/12/...record-labels/

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:54:35 -0600, impossible wrote:

> Who cares about the blog? Facts are facts -- the record companies stole
> from Chet Baker just as internet pirates do every day.

The USian record companies are pirates ripping off the musicians as much as if not more than any
*other* pirate.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"