Woman to play $80,000 per illegal download = nearly 2 mil

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One need not profit from infringement to be financially liable.

You posted that before, I get it, but shokran.

I don't agree with it and was more questioning why someone should be entitled to anything when they can't prove they have lost something. That seems like court approved extortion to me.

Though you would be right to point out that something can only be extortion if it falls under specific legal definitions of what extortion is. 😉

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Actually, you can't.

actually, you can, it is the same logic as playing a cover song live but not being able to put it on an album without the artist's consent.

Artist alley at most comic book conventions relies heavily on the fact that the original product can be sold, yet reproductions cannot. I guess I'm no legal expert on it, but the case of Ween Radio (which can only play live versions of their own songs because the record company owns the rights) sort of supports this, and artists who were drawing on Artist Alley explained it to me, and they are the ones who have to jump through legal loopholes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you reproduce their exact formulas by taking said formula from them, yes I think they can.

any "reproduction" occurring in filesharing is done at the recipient's side. The material is being made available for others to reproduce. The person hosting the file is NOT reproducing anything.

It might be comparable to owning a cigarette factory, having all the things set up for someone to come in and make cigarettes, letting them do so, yet not charging anything. However, I'd say the lack of any material "production" during filesharing makes it less applicable.

I guess just to clarify, I'm not arguing against copyrights or anything. Artists should have control of their work. It's more that the laws are, like, really dumb right now.

Originally posted by inimalist
any "reproduction" occurring in filesharing is done at the recipient's side. The material is being made available for others to reproduce. The person hosting the file is NOT reproducing anything.

It might be comparable to owning a cigarette factory, having all the things set up for someone to come in and make cigarettes, letting them do so, yet not charging anything. However, I'd say the lack of any material "production" during filesharing makes it less applicable.

Except that in this case you built the factory using stolen blueprints, it's hardly the same thing.

Originally posted by inimalist
I guess just to clarify, I'm not arguing against copyrights or anything. Artists should have control of their work. It's more that the laws are, like, really dumb right now.

What should copyrights protect, then? If they don't protect the right to only have certain people copy your stuff what use are they?

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, you can, it is the same logic as playing a cover song live but not being able to put it on an album without the artist's consent.

Artist alley at most comic book conventions relies heavily on the fact that the original product can be sold, yet reproductions cannot. I guess I'm no legal expert on it, but the case of Ween Radio (which can only play live versions of their own songs because the record company owns the rights) sort of supports this, and artists who were drawing on Artist Alley explained it to me, and they are the ones who have to jump through legal loopholes.

I don't care what an artist at a comic book convention told you, I am a Copyright Specialist / Rights Management Coordinator, and I'm telling you that it's illegal.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I don't care what an artist at a comic book convention told you, I am a Copyright Specialist / Rights Management Coordinator, and I'm telling you that it's illegal.

can you explain it in the context of a musical band vs an artist then?

Originally posted by inimalist
can you explain it in the context of a musical band vs an artist then?

Just as the author of a graphic or pictorial work maintains the sole right to prepare derivatives, the author of a musical work maintains the sole right to public performance.

This means that an illustrator cannot prepare illustrations of a character that is not his work of authorship, and a musician cannot perform a song that is not his work of authorship.

This type of infringement is common, because most authors do not know that it is taking place; many authors do not know their rights; and some authors simply do not care to prosecute.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Just as the author of a graphic or pictorial work maintains the sole right to prepare derivatives, the author of a musical work maintains the sole right to public performance.

This means that an illustrator cannot prepare illustrations of a character that is not his work of authorship, and a musician cannot perform a song that is not his work of authorship.

This type of infringement is common, because most authors do not know that it is taking place; many authors do not know their rights; and some authors simply do not care to prosecute.

alright, how does this work then:

The case of Ween radio. Ween, a band, wants to let people listen to their music online, but, I guess as I understand it, their label didn't want this. This forced Ween to use the live version of their work, which they own the distribution rights to.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that in this case you built the factory using stolen blueprints, it's hardly the same thing.

What should copyrights protect, then? If they don't protect the right to only have certain people copy your stuff what use are they?

lol

I'm actually in favor of copyright laws protecting people against downloading. Whether it is or should be legal really isn't my issue. I think the way it is illegal is weird, and I would say there should probably be a little more leniency in the system than exists now, but on a whole, I'm a fan of people being in control of their own intellectual property.

For instance, I don't feel it is a "distribution" violation, in the same way that a bootlegger makes a profit from selling merchandise that is often packaged as the original.

I'm more questioning the legitimacy of a verdict that is requiring someone to pay for damages that it would be impossible to calculate. It would be like the courts reading tea leaves to pass sentences.

Originally posted by inimalist
alright, how does this work then:

The case of Ween radio. Ween, a band, wants to let people listen to their music online, but, I guess as I understand it, their label didn't want this. This forced Ween to use the live version of their work, which they own the distribution rights to.

The band maintains the right to publicly perform its works of authorship, but the label maintains the right to distribute the studio recordings; that's how.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The band maintains the right to publicly perform its works of authorship, but the label maintains the right to distribute the studio recordings; that's how.

however, in this case, the songs themselves are the property of the company, regardless of authorship, are they not?

like, if I wrote a song and sold it to Tim McGraw, I wouldn't be allowed to go out and perform it would I?

1. Adam Poe, great to see you back around these parts. I've been workin' hard and my abs are starting to come back. One of these days, I'll be as sexy as you are. 😄

2. On topic, where do song covers come into play? Does the band covering songs have to get permission to play a cover? I ask because my coworker has done a shitload of covers and is trying to become published with his own works.....could he get into trouble for turning in a cover with his "prototype" album to the record label?

Originally posted by inimalist
however, in this case, the songs themselves are the property of the company, regardless of authorship, are they not?

Musical works are the property of the author.

Originally posted by inimalist
, if I wrote a song and sold it to Tim McGraw, I wouldn't be allowed to go out and perform it would I?

No.

Originally posted by dadudemon
On topic, where do song covers come into play? Does the band covering songs have to get permission to play a cover?

Technically, yes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I ask because my coworker has done a shitload of covers and is trying to become published with his own works.....could he get into trouble for turning in a cover with his "prototype" album to the record label?

Potentially, yes.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Musical works are the property of the author.

ok, but that isn't always true

Record labels buy the rights to the music produced on their label, wouldn't that make the song the property of the label and not the artist?

Sort of like how MJ was able to outbid McCartney for old Beatles songs, thus giving him the rights to its distribution.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but that isn't always true

Record labels buy the rights to the music produced on their label, wouldn't that make the song the property of the label and not the artist?

Sort of like how MJ was able to outbid McCartney for old Beatles songs, thus giving him the rights to its distribution.

That depends. Is the performer the author? Is the corporation the author? Is the corporation a joint author? Does the contract of the author assign certain exclusive rights to the corporation? A determination cannot be made without more information.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That depends. Is the performer the author? Is the corporation the author? Is the corporation a joint author? Does the contract of the author assign certain exclusive rights to the corporation? A determination cannot be made without more information.

alright, makes sense

Bottom line: the music industry sucks.

Someone who ripped someone off is getting ripped off.

Shame.

World keeps spinnin'.

-AC