«

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

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.

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.
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,
They will work out a deal. 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.

On Dec 8, 8:53*pm, victor <redac...@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
> impossible wrote:
>
> > "victor" <redac...@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >news:hfkjv1$ue1$...
> >> impossible wrote:
>
> >>> "Nik Coughlin" <nrkn....@gmail.com> 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.
> 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,
> They will work out a deal. 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.

It is really funny that the entertainmenmt and software industries
keep lobbying governments for more and more draconian penalties
against alleged 'pirates' including individuals (who could be
imprisoned or bankrupted) whereas the industries play fast and loose
with IP rights and then get in teams of lawyers when called to
account. The executives responsible are never called personally to
account.

One only has to think of AT&T 'stealing' UNIX materials from
universities, Disney corporation playing fast and loose with Peter Pan
rights (especially claiming more rights than intended in the animated
film rights) and paying the trustees no more they can get away with
when called to account. And of course Bill Gates hauling source code
printouts out of dumsters.

peterwn wrote:
> On Dec 8, 8:53 pm, victor <redac...@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>> "victor" <redac...@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
>>> news:hfkjv1$ue1$...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>> "Nik Coughlin" <nrkn....@gmail.com> 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.
>> 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,
>> They will work out a deal. 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.
>
> It is really funny that the entertainmenmt and software industries
> keep lobbying governments for more and more draconian penalties
> against alleged 'pirates' including individuals (who could be
> imprisoned or bankrupted) whereas the industries play fast and loose
> with IP rights and then get in teams of lawyers when called to
> account. The executives responsible are never called personally to
> account.

I don't think they are getting to play fast and loose, the copyright
laws are there to define the framework that the content providers use to
negotiate with the content packagers and sellers.
The pending list system looks like it was some sort of bulk licensing
convention devised with complicit co operation by all parties. There is
a big whiff of manufactured indignation and PR spin about this whole
affair.


>
> One only has to think of AT&T 'stealing' UNIX materials from
> universities,

If one wanted to frame it in some kind of righteous dudes being
persecuted by the man hippy fantasy for PR spin purposes.


Disney corporation playing fast and loose with Peter Pan
> rights (especially claiming more rights than intended in the animated
> film rights) and paying the trustees no more they can get away with
> when called to account.

Ditto "Where there's a hit there's a writ" biz as usual.


And of course Bill Gates hauling source code
> printouts out of dumsters.

Pure serendipity, its rather ironic for anyone arguing for open source
to object.

2009-12-08 impossible <>:

> distributing original works.

There is no such thing as "original work"

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?

Gunnar Gren wrote:
> 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?


http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33.961...04205,0.005249

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg...d=8527&page=gr

Gunnar Gren wrote:
> 2009-12-08 impossible <>:
>
>> distributing original works.
>
> There is no such thing as "original work"

Especially not in jazz.

2009-12-10 victor <>:
> Gunnar Gren wrote:
>> 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?
>
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33.961...04205,0.005249
>
> http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg...d=8527&page=gr

What do you recon his going to do with the money?