Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
 ·Millenicom
| The copyright police are use to getting what they want.  What the copyright control agencies want is plenty of coverage by the media, of some college student loosing a case and having a judgement placed against them by a copyright control agency for some enormous sum of money. The purpose is to put the fear of prosecution in everyone's mind. It does not really make any difference if the victim is guilty. It is the thought that counts.
The copyright police are use to getting what they want without proof because of the way our civil legal system works. They can force victims of their fraudulent claims to pay because the cost to defend such a lawsuit is beyond the economic resources of most citizens.
The exception is persons that are very wealthy. When a copyright control agency learns that their victim has deep pockets and might file an expensive counter suit they quickly withdraw their lawsuit.
On the other end of the spectrum is the very poor. People that do not have the money to pay the copyright control agencies demands. If a victim like Jammie Thomas can obtain the services of a lawyer Pro Bono (for free) the copyright control agency can find themselves in deep trouble. If the copyright control agency loses the lawsuit, the lawyer can demand compensation from the copyright control agency for their time defending the victim. That is why the copyright control agency in Jammie Thomas case has dug their heels in.
The middle class victim winds up paying the extortion demanded by the copyright control agency to avoid paying a lawyer tens of thousands of dollars to defend them. If a defendant does not respond to the lawsuit the judge will automatically find for the plaintiff.
In the past the victims of most of these shake downs were small businesses. The basis for many of the copyright control agencies demands were:
* Playing copyrighted songs over music on hold systems without paying a license fee. Violation: Rebroadcasting
* Playing background music over public address systems without paying a license fee. Violation: Rebroadcasting
* Restaurant employees Singing Happy Birthday To You to a guest without paying a license fee. Violation: Performance of song without a license.
* The Girl Scouts singing copyrighted songs around their campfires. Violation: Performance without paying a license fee. Legal Action brought by ASCAP in 1996.
Do not expect to see any changes to the laws soon. Crooked politicians love to have celebrities including musicians and actors on the Dias with them during their political campaigns. |
|
 Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
1 edit | In the UK, there is a group called the Performing Rights
Society (PRS) that goes after people playing music out
loud, claiming they need a license to do so.
There have been a number of cases involving them, such as
one involving a children's home not being allowed to sing
Christmas carols.
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
|
|
| reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt:* Playing copyrighted songs over music on hold systems without paying a license fee. Violation: Rebroadcasting * Playing background music over public address systems without paying a license fee. Violation: Rebroadcasting * Restaurant employees Singing Happy Birthday To You to a guest without paying a license fee. Violation: Performance of song without a license. * The Girl Scouts singing copyrighted songs around their campfires. Violation: Performance without paying a license fee. Legal Action brought by ASCAP in 1996. Do not expect to see any changes to the laws soon. Crooked politicians love to have celebrities including musicians and actors on the Dias with them during their political campaigns. Those are all examples of royalty payment agencies like ASCAP biting on the heels of any business that makes money and happens to play copyrighted music somewhere. It's a totally different animal than the lawsuits the record labels and the RIAA are pursuing. Sure it's a problem, but another problem entirely. |
|
|
|
 mrchrisOut and aroundPremium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Which those forms of harassment should cease immediately....not like they are losing money for public listening as long as it's not a full album worth of music...fucking idiots and their scum lawyers. |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Millenicom
| reply to SRFireside
 The point I was trying to make is that the Copyright Control Agencies are using the same technique to shake down ordinary citizens whether innocent or guilty that they have used in the past to shake down businesses. Businesses can write off legal fees or settlements, college students cannot write off those costs. Imagine receiving a demand letter asking for payment of thousands of dollars from the RIAA for making available copyrighted songs. Why? Because the ISP gave the RIAA your name and address as being the subscriber assigned an IP address that was being used to share copyrighted music. If the matter is investigated and it is determined that the ISP gave the RIAA the wrong name and address for the person that was making available copyrighted songs who pays the wrongly accused's legal costs? |
|
