| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 07:07:16
quote:
The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 32, from Minnesota, to pay for offering to share 24 specific songs online - a cost of $9,250 per song.
here
Do I understand they are protecting their rights? The music industry being the they/their in question. Yes and no ... I suppose there is something to be said for 'intellectual property' and this comes under it I daresay.
But surely once you have bought something, whatever that something is, it becomes yours? Or is it a matter of when you buy a song you are really only 'leasing' it with limited property rights over it? |
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| long time no see |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 12:31:44
Yes Duke
Clever Idea- If it works
that band knows its fans well,
so they say you pay what you want!
for the Recording.
Life In The Fast Lane. |
| The Duke of Uranus |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 12:28:33
quote:
Hopefully a buisness model will develop where the artist gets more of the money and less is taken by the music industry.
A business model where, perhaps, the artist controls the distribution?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7021743.stm |
| moon23 |
Posted - 08/10/2007 : 11:13:15
Hopefully a buisness model will develop where the artist gets more of the money and less is taken by the music industry. |
| camelot |
Posted - 06/10/2007 : 02:06:35
Arrrrgg...this keeps coming up in the software license area as well. It is so easy to blast the big business guys in music and software for picking on little old us; but if you think of the individual author of a piece of music, art, literature, software program, etc. you can see a certain logic behind protection from mass uncompensated distribution. The problem is that the big music and big software industries are very hard to feel sorry for… myself included, and I am earning a living because of the latter. I think we have a case of technology making existing law obsolete, or at least incomplete.
Some of you oldsters can probably remember the furor over the first VCRs, cassette tapes, et al. I personally remember the big issue of program disc sharing (especially game software). We thought nothing of handing a pal a copy if we felt it was a good game. Then the game companies tried “copy protection” on their game discs to prevent unauthorized use…a joke that still exists today on CDs and DVDs and only served to irritate legitimate users of the software. Breaking “copy protection” was viewed as the equivalent of doing the New York Times crossword puzzle in less time than your cohorts. And we did it…quickly and efficiently.
Then later when I was hired out of college by the "non-IBM/Intel/Microsoft" computer company I had a chance to meet with some of the early game designers, producers, and artists. They changed my mind. They really needed the compensation to create new entertainment or no one would advance the funds needed for the development. So I did a complete flip and recommended that people buy the software and not copy it to promote new development. I still feel that way about music, art, programming, literature. After all, I might still write the great American Novel and use the $$$$$ for the Olympics in London....  |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 17:47:25
I see, so what you are actually buying is the disc and the music is just incidental. |
| gcrkfrd |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 17:07:02
Have decided, that is reason why Creatures from Outer Space, wait so long,to play back old radio shows. They do not want to infringe, on Copyright. |
| Control Panel |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 12:40:12
If you buy a disc and listen to it, you have heard it, and then if you give it to somebody else, it can be heard again but you cannot then hear it. But with a download copied you get to keep it and somebody else also has it. So with passing on downloads you become a de facto manufacturer and that riles the original manufacturer. |
| long time no see |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 09:03:35
It is not Full Ownership (like you understand it to be)
its a Music Download - Under Special Conditions.
All these Download Sites "Warn" users,
She is Guilty and lucky to not be paying more.
I think they can do the same here in the UK. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 08:55:59
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see
They keep doing this
because - some are still not aware of "what" is Legal.
And of course it was all the Share aspect of this case.
You buy music - but you do not have rights to give it to others, online, under USA Music Law.
So ... effectively, under USA Law pertaining to the ownership of music you have purchased you are only 'leasing' it? |
| long time no see |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 08:43:11
They keep doing this
because - some are still not aware of "what" is Legal.
And of course it was all the Share aspect of this case.
You buy music - but you do not have rights to give it to others, online, under USA Music Law.
It would be good to see a new Case in the UK
from a Rich Household, as well.
|
