Skip to comments.Copyright Vultures Are At It Again!
Posted on 01/18/2017 5:16:53 AM PST by expat_panama
The Copyright Industry, especially the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), and MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) have suppressed every form of innovation, and technology to protect their questionable rights. In the 80s, they sued to stop video recorders, but were thankfully held back by the Supreme Court in the famous Betamax case. The Media Industry forced manufacturers of blank cassettes, tapes, and CDs to pay a royalty...
...1998, the RIAA sued to stop the first portable Mp3 player, Diamond Rio, from being sold.
In 1999, they took down Napster...
...In 2014, the RIAA considered suing Google for even listing sites that people could use to rip media.
The RIAA previously found that for 98% of the music related searches they performed, pirate sites were listed on the first page of the search results...
...the enforcement system we operate under requires us to send a staggering number of piracy notices 100 million and counting to Google aloneand an equally staggering number of takedowns...
...media moguls are mafiosi in legal garb...
...Let the industry die off. It is a dinosaur in an age of mammals. It is a relic that has lots its usefulness like royalty, and aristocracy. We won't have to suffer industry stars telling us how enlightened they are, and how retro-stupid the public is.
For decades they have monopolized American and Western culture - often destroying our core values - and charged us for the privilege of their artistic rampage. We were stupid to put up with it. Now they are suing us. Let them die out. Let music and artistic creation return to the individual, as it was when the republic was born. Let the copyright attorneys find something useful to do.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I would not be surprised that Trump may ask for a modern copyright act designed specifically for today’s Internet-connected world, something that even the Digital Millenium Copyright Act never envisioned.
Piracy is patriotism.
Piracy makes you smart and sexy!
encourage others to do it!
teach them how!
Technology makes it easier to steal an artist’s property, so that makes it ok.
Everyone does it, so that makes it ok.
An honest person wouldn’t steal from someone else, would they?
If you’ve bought the music, you should be able to copy it to whatever media you wish to enjoy it on. Done it forever...
However, if the current copyright stifling continues, tech advancements will slow to a trickle, profiting only the lawyers of said media - and not the consumers.
What is the answer? Smarter minds than I would know better than I would.
“Technology makes it easier to steal an artists property, so that makes it ok.”
Nah, but technology makes the laws unenforceable. At that point, you can choose to pass new laws that you might be able to enforce, or throw up your hands and whine after nobody obeys the old ones anymore.
The industry has been operating for decades as if there was a third choice, of shoving the tech genie back in the bottle, but that is a choice that only exists in their imaginations.
Regardless of what you might think of their politics, and I agree that they’re reprehensible, their artistic creations are not created for free, they’re not slaves and they’re entitled to the profits from their work. The internet is a wonderful thing, but one aspect that’s just stupid is that so many seem to think that content should be completely “free.” Anyone with an IQ sufficient to remember to breathe knows that nothing is truly “free.”
Crazy leftists just love to change word definitions to make pushing their lies easier. Just a few years ago a gay marriage used to be a happily exicted union between a man an a woman. Now truth is lies and war is peace. The RIAA and the MPAA plunder and destroy --that used to be what pirates were known for but now it's their targets that are refereed to as "pirates'.
Hey I like arm waving and mindless blanket statements as much as the next guy but every once in a while we need to return to the Planet Earth and see how reality's been doing in our absence. The fact is that most artists just create and struggle to get their work out, and most copyright battles are done by and for the benifit of lawyers and the businesses that pay them.
[Yuck, you're right --too much seriousness is a drag] OK, I'm better than everyone because I believe in GOODNESS!!!
That is what you're saying, whether you realize it or not. Apparently you don't.
The first attempt at copyright.
The Licensing of the Press Act 1662 is an Act of the Parliament of England (14 Car. II. c. 33), long title “An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses.” It was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863.
The Act was originally limited to two years. The provisions as to importation of books, the appointment of licensers, and the number of printers and founders were practically re-enactments of the similar provisions in an order of the Star Chamber of 1637.
Printing presses were not to be set up without notice to the Stationers’ Company. A king’s messenger had power by warrant of the king or a secretary of state to enter and search for unlicensed presses and printing. Severe penalties by fine and imprisonment were denounced against offenders. The act was successively renewed up to 1679.
So while history doesn't exactly repeat itself it sure does rhyme a lot. New tech happens, the establishment passes laws to hobble it. That's neat! The reason I don't worry is becuase tech eventually wins out; it's what people want and it's what people do.
This is an excellent question and I think I can answer.
1) The property that they claim to own is not really property in that sense. If they are allowed to own a series of notes in the musical scale then no one else can use those notes without a court battle, which is what this is really all about. There was a copyright case that did not even involve any plagiarized notes, they just held that the offending song had the same “vibe”. Did you know that there are only 8 notes in the musical scale?
2) The ownership that they claim is not really ownership in the sense that you are thinking. They claim to own every use of it, every play of a song, everything that can possibly be imagined to have derived from it by a court battle, which is what this is really all about. If they sold you a hammer, they would own every building you ever built.
3) The constitutional principle is very clear and simple, creators must have some possibility of profiting or we lose the benefit of their creations. But there must be a limitation on that so that the children can learn and use the knowledge. Of course then the calendar could be consulted and there would be no court case and no lawyers would get paid, which is really really important in our society. Now it is the life of the composer plus 90 years and it is endlessly renewable by his heirs.
4) Originally the copyright was only a right to the COPY of the work not the use of it. The ignorance of the population about the principles of the constitution allows them to get away with this injustice. If you copy a song and pass it out to the congregation to sing, that was a violation. But if you project it on a screen with an opaque projector then no copy is being made. If you copy it on an acetate and project that to the crowd, that is a violation because you made a copy. See? We could do the same thing with digital information if we understood the constitution. (All this applies to patents btw.) A copy of the code on your computer could be used played used and enjoyed forever, but for the duration of the copyright, you cannot copy it. Of course, if there was no physical copy made of the work, then the whole case would dry up and no lawyers would get paid.
5) At this point all human conceptions are owned by someone, at least if you get a court to agree. Every work of art bears enough similarity to some existing copyright, that there is potentially no possibility of further creation, depending on what a court may decide, which is where it is at you know. You can escape if you imitate something already in the public domain, but soon anything derived from the domain will be different enough to be copyrighted by someone. Do you wonder why we keep seeing “remakes” of all the old movies? Now you know why.
There’s nothing new under the sun. Anyone with any unique information ALWAYS tries to maintain control of it, otherwise it loses value. Secrets cease to be when no longer kept.
No matter if it’s news, music, art, literature - whatever.
Hey, what is the name of this website? Too many of you wouldn’t know freedom if it brightened your entire life.
Did any of you even read the article? Or did you just reflexively say to yourself, “People who question 150-year copyrights are dope-smoking libs.”
Copyrights are a unique form of property. If you buy a car, only one person can drive the car at a time. So we have laws to protect your car from conversion by others. Copyrights are a little different, have you noticed? The proper extent of copyright protection is debatable, but why should it be 6x longer than patent protection? Any answers?
You buy some wallpaper, hang it, and then plan to throw a house party. But the artists who sold you the wallpaper didn’t expect you to show it to 25 people all on the same night. You’re cool if they send the marshal to shut down your party?
Good for you. I know artists that do better by just getting their work out. Meanwhile the RIAA and the MPAA are not artists, their marauding thugs and they've got to be stopped.