Musician Lobby Terms Balanced Copyright "Disgusting" 319
An anonymous reader writes "While most of the attention at Thursday's Canadian copyright town hall was on the recording industry's strategy to pack the room and exclude alternate voices, the most controversial activity took place outside the hall. It has now been revealed that security guards threatened students and a Member of Parliament for distributing leaflets, and the American Federation of Musicians termed the MP's leaflet, which called for balanced copyright, 'disgusting' and demanded a retraction and apology. At this point, such an admission seems unlikely."
haha (Score:5, Insightful)
By describing "balanced copyright" as "disgusting, the musician's lobby has admitted publicly that current copyright law is unbalanced in their favor.
Re:haha (Score:5, Insightful)
By describing "balanced copyright" as "disgusting, the musician's lobby has admitted publicly that current copyright law is unbalanced in their favor.
It just means that they shouldn't be taken seriously. Nothing they say is meaningful, helpful or relevant to anything but their own copyright fetish.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's sure meaningful when it becomes law enough to have police permanantly confiscating your computer for 'testing'.
Re:haha (Score:5, Insightful)
"Balanced" does not mean "fair" or "right".
For example, one might term a new tax structure in which the government takes half of your income "balanced".
Re: (Score:2)
I think in this case it's clearly meant to mean fair. Balancing the needs of each party.
Now whether you agree this particular proposal *is* balanced is another matter.
Re:haha (Score:5, Informative)
"Balanced" does not mean "fair" or "right".
Here [cfs-fcee.ca] is the PDF of the leaflet in question. Judge for yourself.
I'm pro-copyright (though in favor of reducing copyright term length), and I find it perfectly reasonable.
Re:haha (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case it's pretty clear that they're talking about balancing the needs of the owners of copyrights, with the needs of those that use it and society in general.
Re:haha (Score:5, Insightful)
You speak with sarcasm, but you are absolutely correct.
Society does have a need for music, and for more music (and other works to be produced) society NEEDs that music to enter the public domain at some point. The same holds true for pharmaceutical drugs as well. That is why copyright and patent protection are for limited times.
You make the common mistake of confusing real property rights with monopoly rights granted through copyright and patents. and the point you are trying to make illustrates where this analogy breaks down. I wish we user the term Intellectual Monopoly instead of property. It is more accurate and less likely to lead people to making these poor analogies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:haha (Score:4, Insightful)
Another difference between Canada and the States is the deficit. What would the Americans taxes be like if they had not been running a deficit for the last decade or so?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Too bad your reference is old
Canada Debt is now less that 500B not 868B http://www.debtclock.ca/ [debtclock.ca]
US debt is now over 11T, not 8T http://www.usdebtclock.org/ [usdebtclock.org]
so your numbers are totally useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a reference for this 3% figure?
I'd rather have a government monopoly that is at least accountable to me as a tax payer rather than a corporate one that is only accountable to its shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
I can make up numbers as well. I can do better even, I can usually find studies to back my made up numbers, just so long as I ignore a few details like methods.
Re:haha (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh well, if we are playing the stats game. Here are a few more stats for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate [wikipedia.org]
Infant mortality (per 100000)
Canada 4.8 5.9
United States 6.3 7.8
Life expectancy
Canada 81.23
United States 78.11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems [wikipedia.org]
over all cancer mortality rate
Canada 148.2
US 160.5
And you can talk waiting lists as long as you want. Canada, the U.K. and many European countries may have waiting lists that force those with money to wait a bit longer, but they also ensure that those without get the same respect. In the US those without the means don't even get on the waiting list.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance#United_States [wikipedia.org]
I think the figure is more like 84% have some sort of coverage. Of the 16% without, only 37% have incomes greater than 50K. I'd bet almost 100% of those below $50k would like insurance if they could afford it, and I'd bet that even the majority above $50K would say the same thing. So your 97% figure is way our in left field.
You are also mistaken if you think that most people have a choice. 60% of Americans get their insurance through their employer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're earning over 50,000 (like me) you can afford to buy your own health insurance.
Just as you can afford to buy your own food, your own housing, your own car, et cetera. You don't need government assistance. We *choose* not to buy insurance for various reasons. Like being 20-something or 30-something and in good health and therefore not needing it. Or in my case, I consider insurance a scam. Why would I pay around $3000/year for insurance when it's cheaper to just give my doctor $200 per year in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or in my case, I consider insurance a scam. Why would I pay...
Because, you go and get your annual checkup, the doctor tells you have stage 3 metastatic seminoma, and you find yourself with no insurance company willing to pick you up because of a pre-existing condition. Suddenly, you are that burden on society that you are always bitching about.
I did have coverage though, quite a lot of coverage actually. But I still had to supplement my care with medicaid and medicare because my coverage ran out. For instance, one liter of the sysplatinum chemotherapy drug cost $5000.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Psst... cost of a private cervical smear test in the UK: £140 [spirehealthcare.com] (about US$ 230).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are times when NICE comes out with some insanely stupid policy but usually BBC News or the papers kick up about it and NICE changes policy. The worst idea they had to do with a drug that prevented blindness. Because of its expense you could only get the drug free on the NHS if you had only one eye. Unfortunatly if youy had two eyes you didn't get the drug free. The media storm that occured when one paitent lost an eye was larg
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We also have private hopsitals, I've even known people who had knee surgery in a private hospital paid for by the NHS because the NHS didn't have an open slot soon enough. If thr NHS won't treat you you can rely on your medical insurrance (if you have any) to get you treated. I have private healthca
Re: (Score:2)
Re:haha (Score:5, Informative)
Speaking as someone who actually uses the NHS, unlike you and Daniel Hannan, I'm really happy with my evil socialised healthcare and am a much healthier person thanks to it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
PROSTATE 5-YEAR CANCER SURVIVOR RATE...
That is one possible disease. If you look at the life expectancy you will find that a national health care system is actually better: Canada 81.23, UK 79.01, US 78.11. I really don't care which way the US goes on this (neither being a US citizen or living there) but don't start spreading misleading statistics and, in some cases, outright lies about OUR national healthcare systems.
Re:haha (Score:5, Insightful)
MEP Daniel Hannan said in early August, "The worst thing to be is elderly under the UK Health System..... you will be denied care and left starving in wards."
For some reason I'm reminded by the American Republican (or something) who railed against the Obama plan in a newspaper-article by saying "If Stephen Hawking had to rely on UK healthcare, he would be long dead by now!". The retard didn't realize that Hawking has been relying on UK healthcare for all his life....
It seems to me that the whole healthcare-discussion in USA is plagued by buzzwords and stupidity. Some people oppose it because it "socialism" and everything that is related to socialism is automatically bad. They never stop and think about the issue, they just see the S-word being thrown around and automatically oppose it with zero critical thinking.
Re:haha (Score:5, Insightful)
LMAO. There's a difference between being technically eligible, and being realistically able. When I changed my last job, I was told about COBRA coverage - not that I needed it but nonetheless. I was told that if my wife and I elected to use COBRA, our monthly insurance payment would be $1190.
I'm sure I'm not alone in pondering where someone laid off from their job is going to come up with $1190 a month for health insurance alone, but maybe you could enlighten me.
You mean the conservative politician who is so conservative that even his own party leader immediately tried to distance the party from him, saying that Hannan "has some rather eccentric points of view"?
Anecdotally, my grandmother in Scotland would disagree with him. She was transported by ambulance to hospital recently, and stayed 14 days, with a case of bronchitis / pneumonia. Whilst there they not only treated her for that, but said that since she was already in the facility, they would get her help to quit smoking, and also arranged a physical therapist to spend considerable time with her in regards to an ailing hip, and took diagnostic imagery 'in case in the future they might need to look at it in more detail'.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And while I am posting this message, here are some more stats to consider: UK HEALTHCARE WAITING TIMES 8 months - cataract surgery, 11 months- hip replacement, 12 months- knee replacement, 5 months - slipped disc, 5 months - hernia repair
Whereas here in the US, we've solved that problem by not tracking those statistics.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently it's much worse to be disabled. They have execution camps over there. Brilliant scientist, doesn't matter - you still get sent to the gas chamber.
And before any of the lily-livered liberals ask for a source (don't any of you know how to use google?) it was on Fox News.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What would the American taxes be like if they were high enough that they weren't running a deficit for the last decade?
Up until this year Canada has been operating in the black.
Here is a chart for 2004, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit#National_budget_deficits_.282004.29 [wikipedia.org] note that the States deficit is about 25% where as Canada's is about -4%
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Balanced copyright" are just words. What some might consider fair or balanced, others will inevitably not.
It's not like the artists walked in and demanded that copyright be unfair.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that Mandelson can walk in and change government policy by diktat is worrying not just because of his agenda on copyright but because he isn't bloody well elected. It really scares me that while everybody's been complaining about the Big Brother state, surveillance and CCTV cameras, this dictator seems to have slipped in under the radar.
it doesn't matter what they think (Score:5, Insightful)
it doesn't matter what laws they pay to get passed
copyright has been treated as damage to the network and has been appropriately routed around
thousands of
industry lawyer goons
versus
millions of
1. technically superior,
2. media hungry and
3. POOR teenagers
the game is already over
it doesn't matter in the least what the law says, in any country
copyright has been rendered functionally defunct and unenforceable
Forces of Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the wants and needs of teenagers that is bringing the end of copyright. It's the simple forces of reality.
You know the song "Happy Birthday". It's copyrighted. The song itself is a mere 95 bytes in size. The data overheads involved in transmitting the file probably outweigh the file itself. Yet copyright law essentially tells us that Time Warner "owns" this song. That the act of copying it is a sacred right, reserved only for those whom the privilage is conferred upon by the rightful owner. The rightful owner of 95 bytes of data. An amount so small that no currency exists that can measure its worth.
But Happy Birthday represents only the purest and most absurd form of copyrighted work. As Moore's law has progressed, and continues progressing, and as our networks get faster and faster and disc space cheaper and cheaper, even music files 5MB in size have become trivial amounts of data. Soon even 50GB Blu Ray movies will be considered too paltry to be worth protecting. For some, they already are. This isn't a simply a consequence of people being too cheap. It's a consequence of the data being too cheap to buy.
People realise this. They're not stupid. They see how easy, accessible and trivial data is in our digital age. The internet is a deluge and trying to tell them that certain datas cannot be copied because they are under some sacred divination is like telling people in a thunderstorm that they cannot collect rain water(This is in fact done in certain places). You can pass such laws, but ultimately resonable people will not obey them. They will not obey the law, not because it is unjust, but because it is entirely irrational. In ten years time, claiming the latest 5MB pop song should be protected will be as ludicrous as claiming the same for "Happy Birthday".
As the realities of the digital of make the concept of copyright more and more irrational, I find it increasingly difficult to even find arguments justifying its continued existence. With the de facto perpetual copyright that has evolved, its irrational claims and the draconian measures used to enforce it, more and more I find myself viewing copyright as a system that will be inherently gamed by its proponents and which will, inevitably evolved to the absurd position we now find ourselves in. Frankly, I think copyright is akin to the system of direct democracy and propositions run in California. A noble goal, and even a worthwhile one in the beginning, but which in the end became a destructive farce and totally unworkable.
I'd like to hear some justifications for copyright that aren't 300 years old. While I see some benefit to the system, ultimately, I am like someone seeing the benefits of Prohibition while also seeing the great harm it has done to society, politics and the legal system. My current position is that copyright needs drastic reform and moreover, if that reform is impossible or unworkable then we need to scrap the system entirely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By that bytes == seriousness logic, violating the license of the entire Linux kernel is about as bad as violating the license of a CDs worth of mp3s.
However, I do agree you have a problem when the collected hits in history can fit on a USB stick.
Re:Forces of Reality (Score:5, Informative)
It remains to be seen. One professor seems to think that the chain of proof that the Copyright was properly registered, etc. for Happy Birthday- and has a lot of proof to back up his claims. However, unless you press for disproving the claims, you'll have to accept that the Copyright Office DOES hold that Time Warner does, in fact, own the rights to that song until 2030 unless there's changes in the Copyright laws subsequent to this time. They got the rights through a complex series of transactions.
Saying that they don't own it doesn't get you off the hook. You'll need to go through over 200 documents worth of research, pay lawyers thousands of dollars, and prove to a Court that this is the case if you're guilty of performing it commercially and get caught at doing it.
That's the reality and absurdity of the current situation with that song and of Copyright in general. I agree we need Copyright. What I don't agree with is the current incarnation thereof.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you read your own link?
It's not really definitive evidence when the page itself says that it's possible that they don't own it. If you really want to understand the copyright status, you should
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
By this logic then the optimim level of copyright protection would be that which maximized the value of a piece of work. That would be perpetual copyright, with no fair use exceptions, and a very broad definition of derived work.
You only see it as "devaluation" because of where we are starting from. If we had no copyright at all and were trying to figure out what was the best level of copyright protection
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to think they don't matter, but their deceit has poisoned a lot of minds. They may yet manage to convince everyone that their ways are unworkable. A few of their supporters hope for a piece of their rent seeking action. Most are deluded into supporting what they think is the status quo even as the current system is steadily warped into a monstrosity, and because alternatives are equated to socialism or communism and they eat that up. 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Red scare sho
"Shamelessly buy votes?" (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you support a policy in line with a large segment of the people you represent, that's "shamelessly buy"ing votes?
Well, if so, than I wholeheartedly condemn the American Federation of Musician's shameless perversion of Democracy.
Re:"Shamelessly buy votes?" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same kind of logic that makes 30 copies of crappy pop songs worth over a million dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
It could have been worse. He could have pulled a Nancy Pelosi and called the protesters - "unCanadian"
Re:"Shamelessly buy votes?" (Score:5, Insightful)
In their world, politicians acting on voters wishes is 'buying votes', while lobbyists using the promise of campaign contributions to get favourable legislation passed is 'Democracy in Action'.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
The time has come to eschew abstractions in debate to the greatest extent possible, because they have been taken over by the liars and lobbyists.
Using concrete terms is more wordy, but much harder to distort.
Don't talk about "copyright" or "pirating", talk about "laws against making copies of songs or movies". It works in part because people think that "copyright|" means exactly one thing, and they know what that thing is. When you use more concrete language you actually INCREASE certain types of necessary ambiguity, and raise questions in people's heads like, "WHICH laws against making WHAT KIND of copies of songs or movies FOR WHAT PURPOSE?" To have an intelligent opinion on these matters you need to know the answers to those questions, and many people do not, but think they do because the comfortable abstraction "copyright" makes them feel they have a handle on the issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The funny thing is Olivia Chow, who supports fair and balanced copyright is a practicing artist herself.
Why is the opinion of a Canadian artist, and a politician who is actually representing the views of those she represents 'disgusting', while the opinion of a foreign lobby group is somehow acceptable?
Re:"Shamelessly buy votes?" (Score:5, Informative)
Just thought it was worth pointing out for the non Canadians here that Olivia Chow is married to Jack Layton, the leader of the federal NDP. The MP Mr. Willaert claims is openly departing from party policy is, in fact, married to the party's leader.
In the spirit of disclosure, I am a member of the Ontario NDP.
Re:"Shamelessly buy votes?" (Score:5, Funny)
So you think this might backfire? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
So if you support a policy in line with a large segment of the people you represent, that's "shamelessly buy"ing votes?
Come on, everyone knows the only proper moral way to buy votes is with; hookers, blow, and bags of cash with a big $ on them...
Re: (Score:2)
I'll tell you what's disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
What's really disgusting is that the RIAA/CRIA, in this case through their lapdogs in the AFM, are still firmly convinced that they speak for all musicians everywhere.
It ain't true. [exclaim.ca] Really. [canada.com]
Pirate Party (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.pirateparty.ca/ [pirateparty.ca] , and we now have a new website
He ought to respond and keep responding! (Score:2)
Apology? The MP should use his post to fight back and shame his accusers, or failing that at least turn the public against them. He has so much more power to influence than an ordinary citizen; it's really stupid to attack him like this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shame them? These people have no shame. Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing what they are doing.
Then again, the dinosaurs probably had no shame either.
There's still a big market for copyrighted material that people are willing to pay for - but the writing is on the wall - games already exceed movies in terms of total sales. People only have a certain budget for entertainment, and they're allocating it - and that means less for "old
How can the orginal article be slashdotted? (Score:3, Funny)
The article's about *Canada*. Who the heck is reading it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Flame-bait? Flame-bait? Maybe a failed attempt at self-deprecating humour, but flame-bait?
*sigh*.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That was funny, not flame bait. I'm Canadian and found it very funny.
And they wonder why we have no respect for them... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean seriously, when you pull stunts like this, barring even the other view from being fielded, how in the hell do you expect us to take you seriously? This kind of thing disgusts me. I'm actually for copyright and protections and the like, but every time they do this kind of thing I lose that much more of my support for their position as they are obviously not even trying to be reasonable.
As to the MP and students distributing the flier, good job. The other side has to be heard. Don't let these guys get away with this BS. And don't even think about apologizing. They are the ones that should be apologizing to you. They obviously aren't interested in real discussion.
Terms? (Score:2)
I had to read the title five times before I understood it. The use of "term" as a verb here is unusual, probably cruel and definitely punishment - for what, I do not know.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Learning from the folks down south (Score:3, Insightful)
Thursday's Canadian copyright town hall was on the recording industry's strategy to pack the room and exclude alternate voices
Hey, they're taking a page from the Republican play book. Packing town hall meetings with partisans to shout down opposing points of view. Then justify it by accusing the other side of doing the same thing, while steadfastly maintaining those are just "real" citizens voicing their opposition. Real citizens being bused in with box lunches from other districts, many of whom happen to work for companies with an interest in the debate, but who's really going to check?
Next they'll have talking heads on sympathetic cable news networks suggesting that Canada is being taken over by Socialists and "real patriots" should start showing up at meetings with guns.
And don't forget to mock the messenger if you're losing the debate. Anyone who doesn't see things your way is a traitor and a Nazi, call them ignorant, "moonbats" and "liberals". I'm not sure why that last one is a bad thing but it seems to play pretty well down here, so give it a shot. Maybe suggest anyone not adopting strict copyright interpretation is killing old people. If that doesn't work, accuse them of not supporting the military. Suggest that lax copyright will lead to "death panels" for musicians.
Got all that? You're off to good start up there, just have to get with the rest of the program.
Re:Learning from the folks down south (Score:5, Insightful)
Next they'll have talking heads on sympathetic cable news networks suggesting that Canada is being taken over by Socialists and "real patriots" should start showing up at meetings with guns
This is where the strategy breaks down, as we've had numerous socialist governments at the provincial level that have been variously disastrous (Ontario), middling-competent (BC) and really quite good (Manitoba.)
So "socialist" ain't the scare-word up here it is in the USA, although that's helped by Canadians being generally braver and more tolerant of diversity than Americans (see our gay marriage laws, for example.)
The difference is due to two things, I think: we have a long history of robust alternative political experimentation, so we tend to go, "Ok, another bunch of wingnuts... let's see what they have to bring to the table..." because we have lots of examples, particularly at the provincial level, of wingnuts not turning out to be any more dangerous/stupid/insane than the mainstream parties.
On the other hand, we have no imperial ambitions, and that means we aren't afraid to be seen to try and fail. This makes us more successful, in the long run, because it gives our political and economic system more freedom to experiment. Whereas the Americans know they'll be mocked around the world if they try anything and fail, which often leads them to simply not try, except in the area of military adventurism where even failure is so terrible and terrifying that there isn't a lot of mocking going on.
In any case, attempts by Americans to influence Canadian policy have not been notably successful even with our most neo-conservative Federal government ever, and antics like these at the town hall meeting are only going to result in conditions that make it politically impossible for the Conservatives to table legislation that is seen to kowtow to American corporate interests.
Americans typically see Canadians as stoic and think we're passive. You see we're self-deprecating and think we lack confidence. You see we're polite and think we're weak. Then you come up against our hard limits and wonder what you were thinking.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Americans typically see Canadians as stoic and think we're passive. You see we're self-deprecating and think we lack confidence. You see we're polite and think we're weak. Then you come up against our hard limits and wonder what you were thinking.
As an Australian, this is what I've never been able to understand. America on the one hand appears continually as sociologically/culturally speaking, representing the proverbial mouth of Hell, and yet Canada is consistently depicted as the very paragon of civic re
Copyright and the big picture... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a fair amount to be said about the idea of copyright and copyright law. I'd like to take a moment to think about the idea of copyright and something that I always think about when dealing with the idea.
There are works in the public domain that nobody can claim copyright on. And some of them are still very popular today. I'll submit that they are popular not only because they are free as in beer but because they have stood the test of time and are just that good. And because of all of this that our society is a better place for it.
However imagine for a moment if all works were under a perpetual copyright type setup. A system that the **AA's wish. Would our society be better because of such a system? I seriously doubt it.
It's hard to quantify such ideas and as such the **AA's have had a pretty easy time in pushing their addenda. Being that it's easy to show that if Micky Mouse is released into the public domain that $X will be lost, or some such nonsense.
The destruction of copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
About 8 years ago, I warned industry types that the end result of their activities would be the destruction of copyright - not because I wanted it destroyed, but because the more hysterical and unbalanced their attempts to protect their legacy business models become, the stronger the inevitable reaction would become.
I was roundly jumped on for that opinion, but I have seen nothing the period since to make me change it. In fact, I think it's now like Communism during the 20 years after the suppression of the Prague Spring - it's already too late to reform it, and the only real question is how the end will come.
We need more reasonable copyright laws (Score:5, Funny)
I'm thinking, 10-20yrs of incarceration for flagrant violations for ripping a digital copy of a CD or DVD for personal use, 25-40 for sharing it, and financial damages in the millions of dollars per shared song or book. That should adequately provide a disincentive for the casual intellectual property thief. Obviously forfeiture of your entire estate and a lifetime of collections to prevent future economic misdeeds is the only adequate preventive measure.
For thieves of software and commercial theft, adding chemical castration should nip the problem in the bud.
And of course to claw back the rampant theft of content the content cooperatives like BSA, RIAA and MPAA should get a surcharge of 50% on all R/W media including hard drives - 75% for SD media that's more frequently infringing, and on all streaming communications like Internet, Cable TV, cellular phones and POTS. Clearly the passing of digital or analog data across international borders is likewise a circumvention of just management of artist's rights - a "jurisdiction hole" and must be prevented totally. An overriding "Supercopyright Body" should be instituted consisting of all of these constituencies.
To ensure fair distribution of content licensing all equipment that contains an amplifier, recorder or speaker should enjoy the surcharge as well. After all if you play music in your car with the windows down that's a public performance. Naturally for all of this equipment adequate licensing protective measures of DRM should be mandatory as well.
I'm sure we can count on the righteous defenders of artists' rights to distribute the take equitably after accounting overhead and costs.
Frankly (Score:5, Insightful)
The artists, the songwriters need to be the ONLY people represented there.
They are, after all, the people who create the music. RIAA and their ilk
need not be present at all. They are merely thugs who take the lion's share
of the money that should go to the artists directly.
Re:Frankly (Score:4, Insightful)
The other night I was a witness to flagrant copyright infringement. Nay, I even supported it.
I was at a small restaurant, and there was this guy strumming an electric guitar, playing all these "Golden Oldies" (I am 40+) from the 60's to the 80's. The guy was a terrible singer, but he could play the guitar reasonably well. My girlfriend and I started singing along (we are pretty damned good singers) to some of the classics (like Beatles songs we knew) - it was that kind of relaxed tiny restaurant. We got applause.
We ended up having a great time. I tipped the guy the equivalent of about $20.
However according to RIAA world view, this person should probably be in jail for not only singing songs that weren't "his" but actually trying to earn a living from it. And I should be in jail for supporting his illegal activities and singing along. In fact, this probably constituted a "public performance". You know, the world according to the RIAA would kind of suck.
Name me ONE FUCKING ARTIST who started out with 100% original music. Everyone plays the songs they like, or the songs they heard, while they're learning to play. EVERYONE. Without explicit written permission from the copyright holder. The RIAA hypocrites represent the worst in human greed and, to quote Pink Floyd: "And if I had my own way, I'd have all of you SHOT!".
Actually (Score:3, Insightful)
When I was learning to play the saxophone and later , guitar,
I would purchase sheet music for the songs I wanted to learn.
I assumed that my purchase of the music, essentially allowed
me to play that music. Not for profit, but to learn.
School bands, the orchestral and marching bands, all did the
same thing until Xerography became commonplace. Now I suspect
they buy ONE copy and burn as many copies as they need.
That would be a copyright violation, easily.
Re:Actually (Score:5, Informative)
School bands, the orchestral and marching bands, all did the same thing until Xerography became commonplace. Now I suspect they buy ONE copy and burn as many copies as they need.
That would be a copyright violation, easily.
Some do that. Most of them actually purchase the music because the RIAA and similar groups have enormous fines for not having the originals. There are 800 numbers you can call to report suspected piracy and they will come out unannounced and search the school's music library to make sure they have purchased originals for all of their music.
Since kids tend to damage or lose the originals many directors keep them in their library and only hand out the photocopies -- which is entirely legal.
A side effect of this is why school music programs are always broke. They have to spend a lot of money on the music alone, and whatever is left over goes to instruments, uniforms, and eventually the students. IMO this is good example of everything that is wrong with the industry. Schools should get this stuff for free so they can spend the money on education and not have to worry about copyright.
Re:Actually (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about actual performances but using it for direct educational purposes is one of the strongest fair use protections
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are absolutely correct.Unfortunately in Canada we don't have fair use, only the much more limited fair dealings. which does not cover education uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except in areas where the band actually makes a profit (all of our concerts were free at the time and open to the public, no profit was made except during marching band season) how is this not all covered under fair use?
Because your music director chose to perform works first published on or after January 1, 1923 (in the United States), or works whose author was still alive or had died less than 70 years ago (in most other countries).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because your music director chose to perform works first published on or after January 1, 1923 (in the United States), or works whose author was still alive or had died less than 70 years ago (in most other countries).
Nice try tepples, but you are confusing fair use [wikipedia.org] with public domain [wikipedia.org].
which, of course, is fucking absurd (Score:3)
5 years, tops
its OUR culture. WE grant artists a right to make money off of their works for a sensible period of time
but if DISTRIBUTORS (not artists) have warped the system with financial influence to the point where these ridiculous lengths of time are now the terms of copyright law, then copyright law deseves nothing but disrespect and outright hostility
of course, i am just one random asshole on the internet who doesn't matter and so who cares what i respect or don't respect
except the current status quo
Re: (Score:2)
I thought "educational use" was allowed as fair use?
Re:Actually (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought "educational use" was allowed as fair use?
Fair Use has been dead for awhile now...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually. Most of the schools around here have killed their music programs because it's so expensive to buy sheet music now. There's the odd middle school(and a few highschools and I'm in a city with 5 highschools) with a small program that has a freaking waiting list for kids. But yeah, it's too expensive just for the music. 15 years ago when I was in highschool the most expensive thing was instrument maintenance and we bought all the sheet music back than too.
Nah these bastards are fuckin' us over bec
Re:Actually (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Frankly (Score:5, Funny)
Would you please be so kind to supply us with the address of the quoted establishment, as well as any detail you can remember about that particular performer? We ostensibly thank you for your help and to show it we decided to make you an exclusive offer: seeing as you seem to enjoy Pink Floyd, we will send you the limited edition box set "Oh, By the Way" entirely for free. Just send us your name and address and we will dispatch it as soon as possible.
Thank you very much for you collaboration, once more.
Kind Regards,
RIAA Associate representative
Re:Frankly (Score:4, Funny)
to quote Pink Floyd: "And if I had my own way, I'd have all of you SHOT!".
There's some copyright infringement right there.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
fair use/dealings
Re:Frankly (Score:4, Insightful)
It might be fair use, but as fair use is not clearly codified we don't really know.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't Worry (Score:2, Funny)
The RIAA hypocrites represent the worst in human greed and, to quote Pink Floyd: "And if I had my own way, I'd have all of you SHOT!".
The RIAA is just a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What did you give him? A lid?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Frankly (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope. There's a famous historical anecdote about this very issue.
Mozart had to worry about excommunication as punishment for his piracy at the time. If the RIAA were functioning in Mozart's time as it is today (100+ year copyrights), he would have been prosecuted.
Source: http://www.music-with-ease.com/mozart.html
Re:Frankly (Score:5, Insightful)
That was Beethoven, and for only part of his life.
Could you at least check facts you're not sure of?
Re:Frankly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Frankly (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry no. While he did start writing his own music at a very early age, he did indeed get his first music lesson playing others music. And Mozart lived before all copyright laws so he often found that after one of his new pieces was played in concert, the town down the road was performing his music the next week and he didn't see a cent.
A want copyright laws that allow artists to earn a fair living. I want fair use spelled out. I want a limited copyright term, say 20 years. I want NO DMR.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A want copyright laws that allow artists to earn a fair living. I want fair use spelled out. I want a limited copyright term, say 20 years. I want NO DMR.
I want NO DRM.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Name me ONE FUCKING ARTIST who started out with 100% original music
W. A. Mozart?
Mozart certainly started composing young, but he learned playing the works of others. Mozart is also an intriguing choice since he is an interesting early case of "music piracy": using he remarkable memory and musical talent he transcribed Miserere [wikipedia.org] from memory after listening to it once (he did go back a second time to correct errors. At the time the piece was notable as having no transcriptions (of the very few floating around) that captured the beauty of of the annual performance at the Sistine chapel. Mo
Five people (Score:4, Informative)
It's certainly not illegal to buy sheet music of one's favorite rock artists, and sing and practice said music in the privacy of one's home
Only if your group or family has less than 6 (or $LOCAL_LEGAL_MAX) people in it. Most countries have a legal limit for audience size above which the performance is defined as public. This limit is usually below the size of an above average family. While I'm not sure that a jury would find you guilty of a public performance and even the recording industry would not likely press charges due to public backlash technically you are breaking the letter of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
The artists, the songwriters and the (tax)payers. Both those to whom the money is given, and those from who the money is taken through the state action should be represented. The former to explain why economic resources should be diverted to them instead of all the other possible expenditures, and those paying for it to decide whether it's a reasonable expenditure.
Unfortunately it appears that few politicians can serve the paying parties interest in this case as most appear to believe the money diverted thr
Re:What was in the Leaflet? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well she is an NDPer no accounting for taste. *ba-dash*
Re: (Score:2)
The attack was caused by Olivia Chow handing out an interview I did with EXCLAIM Magazine [exclaim.ca] on how copyright changes could benefit independent Canadian bands.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright terms might best be limited based on the type, use and/or purpose of the materials. For example, I wouldn't have a problem with books and printed material having longer terms than recorded music and video while recorded materials are longer than software copyright.
I find it interesting that binary compiled software is eligible for copyright protection at all. It is closer to being a "device" than recorded or printed material. (no, I am not arguing in favor of software patents either) If we wer