tell 'em in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r14396566 en Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:31:35 EDT Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:31:35 EDT Re: tell 'em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14409529 SRFireside : Did you read my posts? Nowhere did I say you can go and market someone's songs on your own without some sort of agreement. You brought that one up. Where did I say a copyright holder HAS to give a license to somebody to market their work. I said those exclusive rights CAN be swayed by whatever licensing agreements they have made. In other words if I write an album's worth of songs and a record label wants to reproduce and sell that album they likely will want an exclusive licensing deal which makes them the sole distributor/seller/reproducer of that album. Once you sign that contract you have agreed to give up the right to let anybody else sell that album. Granted that's an overgeneralized scenario, however the point is the same.

I have made these statements:

- A copyright holder does not have exclusive rights to product copies. Look up fair use for that one.

- While a copyright holder has exclusive rights to their work there are many exceptions to those rights. Nobody has absolute control over a copyrighted work.

- Other parties can do various things with a copyrighted work as long as certain criteria are met. Nothing was specified in that claim. If you want clarification just say so, but don't assume something is implied when it's not said.

- A copyright holders level of control over sales and distribution of the material in question CAN be swayed by licensing agreements. No idea where you get HAVE TO RELINQUISH from that.

So again I say you haven't put anything on the table to debunk anything I have said. Not only that you claim I refuted my own remarks. WHERE?!? And another thing. I don't know where you get this marketing/remarketing/sales and distribution jazz from my posts. I never mentioned it. So again I say... where am I wrong? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14409529 Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:35:06 EDT Re: tell 'em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14408832 fiberguy : Let's start with your comment posted here. The owner of the intelectual property has full ownership of their product. They do not HAVE to give a license to someone else. They do NOT have to allow someone to use it and simply "pay them a fee" - you are completely incorrect. As to other points? You already refuted them yourself so why rehash that.

So tell me, if I tried to remarket a Madonna song, how far do you think I will get under your view of the laws? I am going out on a limb to say "not far at all" before I was ruined!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14408832 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:51:30 EDT Re: tell 'em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14401179 SRFireside : So what's your point? So far you haven't put anything on the table to debunk what I have said. I said the copyright owner doesn't have complete control over reproduction. That is true. I said there plenty of exceptions to a copyright holder's exclusive rights. That's true too. You say I have just a little right and a ton wrong. Like what? What have I said that shows this? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14401179 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:42:19 EDT Re: tell 'em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14400846 fiberguy : FYI: I understand copyright laws very clearly. My attorney advises me on it daily. It really does take an attorney or someone with first hand knowledge to really comprehend the laws. Reading the law is one thing, understanding it and interperating it is another. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14400846 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:57:23 EDT Re: tell 'em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399989 SRFireside : Nothing is made up. Simply read copyright law. Once you get past the single article on exclusive rights read the 17 or so articles that stipulate the exceptions to those rights. This includes fair use, reproduction by libraries and archives, effect of transfer by a particular copy, performance exemptions, secondary transmissions, ephemeral recordings, noncommercial broadcasting and so on.

Granted on the one point of reproduction and sales copyright law makes sure compensation is evident, however control over how it's marketed and sold can be swayed by whatever licensing agreements you make with the vendor (label, etc). So in part you are correct that the copyright holder can call the shots on reproduction in terms of mass unit sales, however that control is dependent on separate licensing deals. That's hardly a ton wrong. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399989 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:09:02 EDT Re: tell 'em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399466 fiberguy :
said by SRFireside See Profile :

Nope. They do not have exclusive rights to produce copies. They have the right to collect royalties when someone makes copies and sells them. Fair Use is just one stipulation in Copyright Law that negates the exclusive rights to duplication. Like I said before there are plenty of exceptions to those rights. Essentially the only true right the copyright holder has is to do whatever they want to with their work and nobody can stop them. However others can do various things to their work as long as they 1) give the appropriate credit, and 2) pay the royalties according to the copyright holder's prerogative (which could vary from the legal maximum to free).
Where are you getting this information from? Cracker jax? The owner DOES have and retain ownership and total control. If you want to distribute it, you can, so long as you get approval first. If you DON'T get approval from the owner first, you WILL wind up in court and you WILL pay more for violating copyright law. It then becomes up to the owner to explain how much money they lost, damages, and also, it get's worse because if you marketed the song or property incorrectly, did you damage their good name?

And what is the legal maximum? Now you are making things up. You have a little bit right here, but a ton wrong.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399466 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:03:32 EDT Re: tell 'em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399415 fiberguy :
said by JamesHutto See Profile :

Larceny :

The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner; theft.

That being said. If I were to use, umm... Limewire or some other p2p client to download a song, it wouldnt be stealing, larcent, theft, etc. File sharers do just that, share files. Nothing is stolen. PERIOD. For those calling it stealing, look up theft, stealing, larceny, etc. in a dictionary please. Better yet, look up your states laws on larceny.
Care to continue the story and not only tell part of it? What about YOUR intent? It DID hurt the music industry because instead of giving them the $$ for the song, you got a viable copy for free, no money, and no compensation for your COPY of the song to the owner.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14399415 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:59:25 EDT Re: tell 'em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14398662 SRFireside : Nope. They do not have exclusive rights to produce copies. They have the right to collect royalties when someone makes copies and sells them. Fair Use is just one stipulation in Copyright Law that negates the exclusive rights to duplication. Like I said before there are plenty of exceptions to those rights. Essentially the only true right the copyright holder has is to do whatever they want to with their work and nobody can stop them. However others can do various things to their work as long as they 1) give the appropriate credit, and 2) pay the royalties according to the copyright holder's prerogative (which could vary from the legal maximum to free). ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14398662 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:15:11 EDT Re: tell 'em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397303 bent : But they do have the exclusive right to produce copies of that work. File sharing is certainly producing copies of a copyrighted work.
--
I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397303 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:09:31 EDT Re: tell 'em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397024 SRFireside : There are also over a dozen articles in Copyright Law that define the exceptions to a copyright holder's exclusive rights. A copyright holder in now way has complete control over what happens to their work. What they do have are rights to be credited for their work and to be compensated when someone else makes money off their work.

And United States versus Dowling clearly defines copyright infringement as not theft, stealing or larceny. So no matter what side of you fence you are on in regards to file trading it is NEVER theft in the eyes of the law. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14397024 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:34:37 EDT Re: tell 'em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396903 bent : From »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright: "Several exclusive rights typically attach to the holder of a copyright:

* to produce copies of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies)
* to import or export the work
* to create derivative works
* to perform or display the work publicly
* to sell or assign these rights to others"

So even if it's not "stealing" by the strictest legal definition, it certainly is copyright infringement, and by the dictionary definition of theft:

: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent
NOTE: Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes.

Justify it any way you want. Theft is theft.
--
I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396903 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:18:36 EDT Re: tell 'em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396760 JamesHutto : Larceny :

The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner; theft.

That being said. If I were to use, umm... Limewire or some other p2p client to download a song, it wouldnt be stealing, larcent, theft, etc. File sharers do just that, share files. Nothing is stolen. PERIOD. For those calling it stealing, look up theft, stealing, larceny, etc. in a dictionary please. Better yet, look up your states laws on larceny.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396760 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:56:24 EDT tell 'em http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396566 anon : Hell hath no fury like a mom being sued!
(for alleged music piracy)
There are principles for standing up to bullies, thus the children of these moms will likely become lawyers :-)
hehe]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14396566 Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:31:07 EDT