Universal sues MySpace for copyright violations

TalkBack 41 of 79:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

The US government is a sympathizer- Please: You can link all you want, but it only applies if you agree to the blanket copyright. Then those laws kick in. Right now they would rather sue because they are not going to get much under those circumstances or anything at all. Might as well deprive them of a living. I would take them out if the infringed on my work.

No. Section 115 kicks in the moment you publish in the US. It does not kick in when you agree to blanket licensing.

I have posted the text of the statute and linked, directly to the statute on the US government web server, the statute yet you refuse to believe that is what the statute says. Logic would dictate that you believe that the US government has the correct statute posted on the US Government web servers.

Plus linking to all the freeloader sympathizers doesn't convince me at all on what prior business arangments were. It was some "has been" that felt he was screwed. A lot of that money went to the songwriter they never tell you about.

None of those were "freeloader" sympathizers. ZDNet even had an article on the subject- They pay the artist roughly a nickel per download.

Wrong on choice? Just walk away from a rotten deal dude. They wanted to be stars so bad that they signed it all away. Plus those dudes didn't write their own music. They are contracted employees while the songwriters are the real talent. Some of them were contract too. None can hold a tune. Talent? Plueeeeze!

They are able to draft these "deals" because they own the distribution channels. What has happened is many bands are promoting themselves on MySpace and ditching the labels. They are going indie becuase the indies get a 35%-50% per download, instead of 2.5%-5% from the labels, on the indie sites. They are walking away becuase a promotion channel has been created that the Labels don't control.

They are going after MySpace because of this and not the infringement. The real goal is to shut down an uncontrolled distribution channel for artist that would break the grip the labels have on the artist and not to stop copyright infringement, although some infringement is going on.

Groksters were nothing but infringers. Most of them are gone.

Grokster had many non-infringing works shared on it. In fact several artist filed briefs in defense of Grokster.

The RIAA are bastards but sometimes you have to be when the internet are full of infringers. The infringers will use any rational to justify it.

Sure the internet allows for copyright infringement- So does the copy machine, computers, typewriter, printing press, VCR, and heck you can infringe copyright with just pen and paper. Do I think the makers of these technologies should be held liable for the actions of the people who choose to infringe copyright- HECK NO! That is stupid. That's like saying the manufacture of rope should be held liable for someone using the rope to hang someone or the manufacture of steak knives should be held liable if someone stabs someone with a steak knife. It is a dangerous road to start down.

Pay the elected royalty collector and STFU

That is exactly what we are arguing for. Have the government set royalties and then if you want to post or download you pay the government the royalty. The government sees that it gets distributed.; Posted by: Edward Meyers Posted on: 11/19/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use