Just a reminder:

Debating is lots of fun...but don't take it personally or make any personal attacks.

QueenOfTheFlock wrote:Why is it that we can regulate SO heavily and stand by this sharing of music but apparently not share the same ethics on a person's words. It's the same, is it not?

No, it's not. The citation of a passage of text is considered fair use. If you were to cite the entire novel, or to cite a passage and claim credit, you'd be violating copyright. God forbid if you copied a novel, took credit, and made money from it; I don't think it becomes any more flagrant.

Such with the automobile. One may be able to copyright the description of a car, or a concept of one, but the actuality, the building, the physical presence would be patented. And simply because you own the patent or copyright on a process or idea doesn't mean people aren't allowed to expound upon it with artistic license to create a derivative work. If that weren't allowed, I'd go ahead and copyright the letter "e" and make everyone pay me each time they used it.

I'v never been a real fan of the "laws of man", so the legal theft aspectz don't really bother me. I think file sharing iz great! I do, however, believe that the musicianz & record companies deserve something 4 their work. Suing a bunch o' peepz 4 tonz of $ 4 file sharing, tho, iz no solution... not 2 mention the invasion of privacy issues that r already overtaking this country!

Actually there are no concessions for copyrighting, trade marking or patenting an idea. "Concept" is a bit ambiguous. I mean... I guess you could Patent a 'concept' in that you would have to submit it writing. but still... you couldn't just patent a teleportation machine. and expect that no one else could build one. Nor could you just come up with an idea of a finished product and patent it. You have to actually detail your concepts on how the item would work.

All intellectual property law is intentionally murky. That is why people like the RIAA and Disney are bad. They are trying to make specific laws to protect themselves and the way they do business. They are not at all trying to protect the rights of individual copyright holders.

Adam, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the comments about RIAA trying to extend their self preservation to people who oppose it. this actually is one of the things that I don’t understand about the lawsuits. The RIAA is suing... *not* the copyright holders. I kind of feel like that would be like me suing on behalf of someone I saw get into an accident.

“Well your honor, I realize that this fine lady thought it would be better to not sue the other driver, but I honestly feel that I know what’s best. I mean... I’ve been driving longer than her, I’m bigger than her, and I have a lot more money, so I don’t think her views are really relevant in this case.”

TheStormstress wrote:I'v never been a real fan of the "laws of man", so the legal theft aspectz don't really bother me. I think file sharing iz great! I do, however, believe that the musicianz & record companies deserve something 4 their work. Suing a bunch o' peepz 4 tonz of $ 4 file sharing, tho, iz no solution... not 2 mention the invasion of privacy issues that r already overtaking this country!

Excellent, you live where? I need a new car. I'll leave you something I believe is adequate, rather then what you think is.

vertigo25 wrote:Adam, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the comments about RIAA trying to extend their self preservation to people who oppose it. this actually is one of the things that I don’t understand about the lawsuits. The RIAA is suing... *not* the copyright holders. I kind of feel like that would be like me suing on behalf of someone I saw get into an accident.

“Well your honor, I realize that this fine lady thought it would be better to not sue the other driver, but I honestly feel that I know what’s best. I mean... I’ve been driving longer than her, I’m bigger than her, and I have a lot more money, so I don’t think her views are really relevant in this case.”

I haven't heard of anyone but some of the smaller bands doing this who can't seem to get any serious radio play. That's the trouble wtih contracts. Also, depending on the contract, the label actually owns the entire bloody album, copyrights and all. Do you have any articles or information I could link to or look up in this regard?

Wanderer wrote:

TheStormstress wrote:I'v never been a real fan of the "laws of man", so the legal theft aspectz don't really bother me. I think file sharing iz great! I do, however, believe that the musicianz & record companies deserve something 4 their work. Suing a bunch o' peepz 4 tonz of $ 4 file sharing, tho, iz no solution... not 2 mention the invasion of privacy issues that r already overtaking this country!

Excellent, you live where? I need a new car. I'll leave you something I believe is adequate, rather then what you think is.

U'd better grow an awfully big pair first! It'z reeeaallly hard 2 wander when u'r suddenly without legz 2 carry u! "U gotta ask urself 1 question, 'Do I feel lucky?'. Well, punk, do u?"

The Stormstress wrote:

Wanderer wrote:

TheStormstress wrote:I'v never been a real fan of the "laws of man", so the legal theft aspectz don't really bother me. I think file sharing iz great! I do, however, believe that the musicianz & record companies deserve something 4 their work. Suing a bunch o' peepz 4 tonz of $ 4 file sharing, tho, iz no solution... not 2 mention the invasion of privacy issues that r already overtaking this country!

Excellent, you live where? I need a new car. I'll leave you something I believe is adequate, rather then what you think is.

U'd better grow an awfully big pair first! It'z reeeaallly hard 2 wander when u'r suddenly without legz 2 carry u! "U gotta ask urself 1 question, 'Do I feel lucky?'. Well, punk, do u?"

Laugh... no, I don't think I'm feeling that lucky. If my pair was that big it'd be difficult to walk... oh, wait it is...

Caustic wrote:And simply because you own the patent or copyright on a process or idea doesn't mean people aren't allowed to expound upon it with artistic license to create a derivative work.

Yes, and if a certain percentage of a work (I can't recall for the life of me the exact figure) is your own, you can effectively circumvent the copyrights altogether.

Hence, Linux from Minix. Or any number of other cases.

If that weren't allowed, I'd go ahead and copyright the letter "e" and make everyone pay me each time they used it.

That, or a few of the more popular guitar riffs... or notes, for that matter.

iblis wrote:That, or a few of the more popular guitar riffs... or notes, for that matter.

Metallica files a lawsuit over usage of E, F chord progression:
http://www1.scoopthis.com/411/met_uf/stc_met_uf_mtv.htm

okay, so it's a hoax... but it fits well with the topic.

in every rumor lies a hint of truth...... THEY REALLY DID TRY TO SUE OVER THAT..........
shit was even on CNN.


im going to start saying all of my bands music is E-music, riffs are e-riffs, edrums, ebass, evox, ekeys, ect.
That way i can sue everyone (even my own band) that ever hears it. then i can be cool like the RIAA......Right?

Caustic wrote:How many of the artists and labels you play are connected with the RIAA or even like the RIAA? I know that at one point, I asked a label head I like talking with what he thought of the RIAA, and the response was a swift and firm "Fuck the RIAA." Are you currently paying for artists and labels' songs who share similar sentiments? Because that's what kills me: the RIAA trying to extend its reach over people who hate them.

Actually, I have no idea ... except for the fact that it was well known that the late Mark Reynolds, of Red Flag, held with the side of the RIAA in the file-trading debate. Most everyone else I play, though, strongly feels as I do (at least on the internet webcasting issue) ... hearing music on internet radio SELLS CD'S! How can this be hurting anyone?