Piracy on a grand scale

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Nik Coughlin, Dec 7, 2009.

  1. Nik Coughlin

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    Nik Coughlin, Dec 7, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nik Coughlin

    victor Guest

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    > news:hfk48c$21u$-september.org...
    >> Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs, may owe
    >> $60 billion in damages
    >>
    >> http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/07/major-record-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.
     
    victor, Dec 8, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nik Coughlin

    victor Guest

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > news:hfkjv1$ue1$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hfk48c$21u$-september.org...
    >>>> Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs, may
    >>>> owe $60 billion in damages
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/07/major-record-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.
     
    victor, Dec 8, 2009
    #3
  4. Nik Coughlin

    peterwn Guest

    On Dec 8, 8:53 pm, victor <> wrote:
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    > > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > >news:hfkjv1$ue1$-september.org...
    > >> impossible wrote:

    >
    > >>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    > >>>news:hfk48c$21u$-september.org...
    > >>>> Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs, may
    > >>>> owe $60 billion in damages

    >
    > >>>>http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/07/major-record-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, Dec 8, 2009
    #4
  5. Nik Coughlin

    victor Guest

    peterwn wrote:
    > On Dec 8, 8:53 pm, victor <> wrote:
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>
    >>> "victor" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hfkjv1$ue1$-september.org...
    >>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hfk48c$21u$-september.org...
    >>>>>> Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs, may
    >>>>>> owe $60 billion in damages
    >>>>>> http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/07/major-record-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.
     
    victor, Dec 9, 2009
    #5
  6. Nik Coughlin

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    2009-12-08 impossible <>:

    > distributing original works.


    There is no such thing as "original work"
     
    Gunnar Gren, Dec 9, 2009
    #6
  7. Nik Coughlin

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    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, Dec 9, 2009
    #7
  8. Nik Coughlin

    victor Guest

    victor, Dec 10, 2009
    #8
  9. Nik Coughlin

    victor Guest

    Gunnar Gren wrote:
    > 2009-12-08 impossible <>:
    >
    >> distributing original works.

    >
    > There is no such thing as "original work"


    Especially not in jazz.
     
    victor, Dec 10, 2009
    #9
  10. Nik Coughlin

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    Gunnar Gren, Dec 10, 2009
    #10
  11. Nik Coughlin

    victor Guest

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > news:hfl0lb$903$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "victor" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hfkjv1$ue1$-september.org...
    >>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hfk48c$21u$-september.org...
    >>>>>> Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs, may
    >>>>>> owe $60 billion in damages
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/07/major-record-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.
     
    victor, Dec 10, 2009
    #11
  12. Nik Coughlin

    Sailor Sam Guest

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > news:hfruv9$dnk$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "victor" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hfl0lb$903$-september.org...
    >>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "victor" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hfkjv1$ue1$-september.org...
    >>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:hfk48c$21u$-september.org...
    >>>>>>>> Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs,
    >>>>>>>> may owe $60 billion in damages
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/07/major-record-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.
     
    Sailor Sam, Dec 11, 2009
    #12
  13. Nik Coughlin

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    2009-12-10 impossible <>:
    >
    > "Gunnar Gren" <> wrote in message
    > news:4b203119$0$8233$4all.se...
    >> 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.
     
    Gunnar Gren, Dec 12, 2009
    #13
  14. Nik Coughlin

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    Den 2009-12-10 skrev impossible <>:
    >
    > "Gunnar Gren" <> wrote in message
    > news:4b203201$0$8233$4all.se...
    >> 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?
     
    Gunnar Gren, Dec 12, 2009
    #14
  15. Nik Coughlin

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    2009-12-10 impossible <>:
    >
    > Theft is theft.
    >

    Yes, but you are not discussing theft.
     
    Gunnar Gren, Dec 12, 2009
    #15
  16. In message <4b241c65$0$8227$4all.se>, 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 “theftâ€. QED.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 12, 2009
    #16
  17. Nik Coughlin

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    Den 2009-12-13 skrev Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>:
    > In message <4b241c65$0$8227$4all.se>, 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.
     
    Gunnar Gren, Dec 12, 2009
    #17
  18. Nik Coughlin

    victor Guest

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Gunnar Gren" <> wrote in message
    > news:4b24280e$0$8229$4all.se...
    >> Den 2009-12-13 skrev Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >> <_zealand>:
    >>> In message <4b241c65$0$8227$4all.se>, Gunnar Gren
    >>> wrote:
    >>>

    >> "impossible" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> "victor" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hfl0lb$903$-september.org...
    >>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "victor" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:hfkjv1$ue1$-september.org...
    >>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:hfk48c$21u$-september.org...
    >>>>>>>> Major record labels rip off 300,000 songs for compilation CDs,
    >>>>>>>> may owe
    >>>>>>>> $60 billion in damages
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/07/major-record-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.
     
    victor, Dec 13, 2009
    #18
  19. Nik Coughlin

    victor Guest

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > news:hg1m2p$arv$-september.org...

    <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/2009/12/08/geist-inflates-pending-lists-claim-to-vilify-record-labels/
     
    victor, Dec 13, 2009
    #19
  20. Nik Coughlin

    Carnations Guest

    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"
     
    Carnations, Dec 13, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. thrill5
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    882
    stephen
    Mar 26, 2005
  2. Roberto Giana

    Large-Scale Dial-Out

    Roberto Giana, Oct 16, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,737
    Roberto Giana
    Oct 19, 2005
  3. Disillusioned_01

    Does .net Scale up ?

    Disillusioned_01, Dec 7, 2003, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,202
    disillusioned_01
    Dec 9, 2003
  4. Guest

    scale?

    Guest, Oct 31, 2004, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    772
    Consultant
    Nov 1, 2004
  5. Kind of Blue2
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    430
    Curt Bousquet
    Feb 8, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page