snopes.com Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Non-UL Chat » Police Blotter » Is Copying a Crime? Well… (Page 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Is Copying a Crime? Well…
3rdshifter
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for 3rdshifter         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
If you ask me this is retarded i can understand being upset about not receiving compensation for your work however i believe it is pure greed fueling this. I mean really being paid everytime a song is performed or copied to a cd/mp3 player, etc. is a bit greedy. song writers should charge a fee for their song just like everyone else in the world charges for their service. let take an archetect who designs a house for a home builder he charges a fee to draw up a few plans then those plans are copied and used over and over on several houses and then when the house gets resold to the next owner he does not get his fee all over again. this goes for pretty much everything in the world today you pay for the service and then its yours to do with as you wish. you dont see artists require that when you sell their painting/sculpture/ piece of art that they again get a cut of the money. i have a theory charge what you want for your work after that its no longer yours whoever paid you bought all the rights to it as well. now as far as file shareing goes i can see both sides however again if i bought the cd and i chosse to make 100 copies 1 for each car or room in my home( i can dream cant i) i can do that i have caused no one any harm and i do remeber the movie industry griping about how the vcr was going to kill the movie industry the only thing vhs destroyed was beta. one last rant on copying movies when i buy a movie i am just buying that movie i am not authorizing anyone to sell advertiseing space prior to the movie which i cant fast forward through again i own the damn disk i bought it its now mine leave the dumb advertisements off of my property.
Posts: 26 | From: Turlock, CA | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Johnny Slick
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Johnny Slick   E-mail Johnny Slick   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
If you ask me this is retarded i can understand being upset about not receiving compensation for your work however i believe it is pure greed fueling this. I mean really being paid everytime a song is performed or copied to a cd/mp3 player, etc. is a bit greedy. song writers should charge a fee for their song just like everyone else in the world charges for their service. let take an archetect who designs a house for a home builder he charges a fee to draw up a few plans then those plans are copied and used over and over on several houses and then when the house gets resold to the next owner he does not get his fee all over again. this goes for pretty much everything in the world today you pay for the service and then its yours to do with as you wish. you dont see artists require that when you sell their painting/sculpture/ piece of art that they again get a cut of the money. i have a theory charge what you want for your work after that its no longer yours whoever paid you bought all the rights to it as well. now as far as file shareing goes i can see both sides however again if i bought the cd and i chosse to make 100 copies 1 for each car or room in my home( i can dream cant i) i can do that i have caused no one any harm and i do remeber the movie industry griping about how the vcr was going to kill the movie industry the only thing vhs destroyed was beta. one last rant on copying movies when i buy a movie i am just buying that movie i am not authorizing anyone to sell advertiseing space prior to the movie which i cant fast forward through again i own the damn disk i bought it its now mine leave the dumb advertisements off of my property.

--------------------
Give big space to the festive dog that makes sport in roadway. Avoid entanglement of dog with wheel spokes.

Posts: 4267 | From: Seattle | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
So who owns the rights to "Thriller," for example. Would/should it be everybody who bought it?

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
hoitoider
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for hoitoider   E-mail hoitoider   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Good one, Johnny. I think I'll use it for my next syndicated column that I'm getting paid $5,000 to write. After all, it is on *my* computer screen that *I* paid for. It only takes 3 seconds for me to copy & paste it so I don't see why I should compensate anyone for it.

--------------------
No man has a right in America to treat any other man "tolerantly" for tolerance is the assumption of superiority. -Wendell L. Willkie

Posts: 3833 | From: Virginia | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Hubert Cumberdale
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Hubert Cumberdale   E-mail Hubert Cumberdale   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I could have sworn that that FBI warning on home video used to just say copying or displaying for financial gain were against the law but now I see a line added that says even if there is no financial gain. Or am I just remembering wrong?
Posts: 835 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
snapdragonfly
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for snapdragonfly     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hubert, I remember it that way also and have noticed the new line too.

--------------------
"Wolves, dragons and vampires, man. Draw the nut-bars like big ol' nut-bar magnets." ~evilrabbit

(snurched because one of my nutbar family members is all about wolves and another one is all about dragons...)(with apologies to surfcitydogdad)

Posts: 2397 | From: Texarkana, TX | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hubert Cumberdale:
I could have sworn that that FBI warning on home video used to just say copying or displaying for financial gain were against the law but now I see a line added that says even if there is no financial gain. Or am I just remembering wrong?

I don't recall any mention of financial gain on the warnings. Just unauthorized copying or redistribution was prohibited.

I, too, could be remembering incorrectly, though.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jay Temple
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jay Temple     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't remember how it used to be, but I watched something very recently and noticed the part about, "even if there is no financial gain."

--------------------
"Well, it looks we're on our own ... again."--Rev. Lovejoy

Posts: 3572 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Griffin at the Maul
Joyeux New Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Griffin at the Maul     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rubber Chicken:
[QUOTE]In answer to your question, in most cases, I believe the record companies hold the copyright. Michael Jackson bought the copyright for the entire Beatles catalogue from Sony, I believe -- and he bought it by outbidding none other than Paul McCartney. Is it lousy? Yeah, maybe. But did The Beatles knowingly agree to that arrangement and make a whole crapload of money from it? Obviously.

Beatles Music-a-chow
Not entirely true, and it was not purchased from Sony.

--------------------
Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?

Posts: 782 | From: Arlington, TX | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Christie
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Christie     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
quote:
Originally posted by Hubert Cumberdale:
I could have sworn that that FBI warning on home video used to just say copying or displaying for financial gain were against the law but now I see a line added that says even if there is no financial gain. Or am I just remembering wrong?

I don't recall any mention of financial gain on the warnings. Just unauthorized copying or redistribution was prohibited.

I, too, could be remembering incorrectly, though.

I've got a copy of The Little Mermaid in front of me that we purchased sometime before 1996. There is no mention of "copying or displaying for financial gain". The only financial info given is the amount of the fine you can liable for if you copy or distribute the film.

Maybe this line was added at some later point though?

--------------------
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr

Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
WildaBeast
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for WildaBeast   E-mail WildaBeast   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
let take an archetect who designs a house for a home builder he charges a fee to draw up a few plans then those plans are copied and used over and over on several houses
That brings up an interesting question. Is it possible to copyright a design? If an architect designs some "cookie cutter" house, and builder builds hundreds of these houses all over the country, does he get royalties for each one? In my opinion it seems fair that he should. For one, if his design is really popular he deserves to be compensated more than he would for a design that only got built once.

Another related question -- I'm sure car companies can and do register the names of their models as trademarks, but is there any sort of copyright protection for the overall design of the car itself? Would it be a violation of any copright or trademark laws if I were to build and sell a car that looks exactly like a Honda Accord, has exactly the same horsepower as a Honda Accord, and the exact same features as a Honda Accord, as long as I don't call it a Honda Accord? (This kind of brings to mind the SUNY electronics I've heard you can buy in Times Square) ETA: I have heard of "replica" cars before. Most I've heard of were of cars that have long been out of production, but it seems like I've heard of ones of high end sports cars like Ferraris as well.

--------------------
"Unseasonable is an odd word to begin with. It sounds like it's describing something that it's impossible to sprinkle pepper on." -- Nonny

Posts: 5483 | From: Just south of Folsom Prison, CA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
hoitoider
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for hoitoider   E-mail hoitoider   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WildaBeast:
quote:
let take an archetect who designs a house for a home builder he charges a fee to draw up a few plans then those plans are copied and used over and over on several houses
That brings up an interesting question. Is it possible to copyright a design?
It sure is.

Copyright Claims in Architectural Works

quote:
An original design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings, is subject to copyright protection as an “architectural work” under Section 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 USC, as amended on December 1, 1990. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design but does not include individual standard features or design elements that are functionally required.


--------------------
No man has a right in America to treat any other man "tolerantly" for tolerance is the assumption of superiority. -Wendell L. Willkie

Posts: 3833 | From: Virginia | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Zylly
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Zylly   E-mail Zylly   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Would it be a violation of any copright or trademark laws if I were to build and sell a car that looks exactly like a Honda Accord, has exactly the same horsepower as a Honda Accord, and the exact same features as a Honda Accord, as long as I don't call it a Honda Accord? (This kind of brings to mind the SUNY electronics I've heard you can buy in Times Square) ETA: I have heard of "replica" cars before. Most I've heard of were of cars that have long been out of production, but it seems like I've heard of ones of high end sports cars like Ferraris as well.
I think you can copyright/trademark a design, to a certain extent. I know that with the Transformers toyline--with the exception of the officially licenced through the car companies sub-line called Alternators--Hasbro cannot create any toys that transform into specific model vehicles without paying out for it.

--------------------
"The internet? Is that thing still around?"

Posts: 66 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
trialofmiles
Congo Your Own Way


Icon 1 posted      Profile for trialofmiles   E-mail trialofmiles   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Why did 3rdshifter and Johnny Slick post the same message?

Whoever's message that is, you need to learn how to organize your thoughts better. Best I can decipher, your main point is that musicians should be paid once for their work. That's something I've read before, and it gets stupider every time I read it. Intellectual property is a special kind of situation. It's not quite like a service (e.g. someone fixing your computer) in which a person is paid once, and it's not quite like a tangible good in which a person is paid for each item sold. It makes sense to use a system somewhere between the two.

hoitoider, I notice you replied with a sarcastic reply to part of the 3rdshifter/Johnny post.
quote:
I think I'll use it for my next syndicated column that I'm getting paid $5,000 to write. After all, it is on *my* computer screen that *I* paid for.
I not quite sure what part you're refuting, but 3rdshifter/Johnny's point about owning the playback device applied only DVDs with advertisments on them. That part I happen to agree with. A DVD player should not restrict navigation options to force advertisements on the person. This goes back to my point earlier about how even though copyright law says nothing about a person being required to sit through ads before watching a DVD, technology is making it possible, and we're losing our fair use rights.

--------------------
Good morning, fellow employee. You'll notice that I am now a model worker. We should continue this conversation later, during the designated break periods. Sincerely, Homer Simpson.

Posts: 371 | From: Connecticut | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ganzfeld
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 82 posted      Profile for Ganzfeld     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trialofmiles:
Why did 3rdshifter and Johnny Slick post the same message?

Was I the only one who got it? That was Johnny Slick's humorous answer to the thread title. (You've heard of waffles? Them shcmaffles.) Ah, hoitoider got it.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lainie
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lainie   E-mail Lainie   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trialofmiles:
Why did 3rdshifter and Johnny Slick post the same message?

I don't know what glitch caused the duplicate post, but I'm pretty sure the content was 3rdshifter's. I've seen Johnny fake incoherent postings before, but I don't think he could keep it up that long.

Of course, now that I've challenged him, he may try. . . [Big Grin]

--------------------
How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black

Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
WildaBeast
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for WildaBeast   E-mail WildaBeast   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hoitoider:
quote:
Originally posted by WildaBeast:
quote:
let take an archetect who designs a house for a home builder he charges a fee to draw up a few plans then those plans are copied and used over and over on several houses
That brings up an interesting question. Is it possible to copyright a design?
It sure is.

Copyright Claims in Architectural Works

quote:
An original design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings, is subject to copyright protection as an “architectural work” under Section 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 USC, as amended on December 1, 1990. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design but does not include individual standard features or design elements that are functionally required.

Does this mean an architect can collect royalties if a builder builds many homes from the same plans, or does it just prevent another architect from creating identical plans and passing them off as his own work?

quote:
Why did 3rdshifter and Johnny Slick post the same message?
Not everyone gets Johnny's sense of humor. The post was originally 3rdshifter's, and Johnny copied it. I believe the point was that if 3rdshifter doesn't believe copying is a crime, then he shouldn't mind Johnny copying his post and passing it off as his own.

--------------------
"Unseasonable is an odd word to begin with. It sounds like it's describing something that it's impossible to sprinkle pepper on." -- Nonny

Posts: 5483 | From: Just south of Folsom Prison, CA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WildaBeast:
Does this mean an architect can collect royalties if a builder builds many homes from the same plans, or does it just prevent another architect from creating identical plans and passing them off as his own work?

My guess would be that it would prevent the latter and possibly allow the former, depending on the contract. Just like an author can sell a book to a publisher outright or license it for royalties, an architecht can probably do the same. So if the architecht was working for a home builder, it would probably be a one time fee for unlimited homes so the home builder wouldn't have to pay royalties. But if you hired an architecht, you'd have the right to build one house and would have to pay for a second house.

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Wolf333
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wolf333     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
This isn't specifically dealing with the OP, but it does tie in nicely.

http://www.kensei-news.com/cgi-bin/bizdev/exec/view.cgi/29/23374

The RIAA was basing it's claim on units SHIPPED, not units sold. Also, they were only counting the units shipped by RIAA members.

To be fair, that above link is from 2004. 2005 did see a decrease in album sales of about 2.3% (thats cd sales and legal ablum downloads). Individual track sales are up 148%, but that's still less than 5% or overall sales.

Are illegal downloads hurting the music industry? Yes, I believe that they are. But, the RIAA is trying to fix the problem in completely the wrong way. Look at that huge increase in track downloads. The sigle was thought to be a thing of the past; and it was when you were being charged $6 for what amounted to 3 or 4 versins of the same song and maybe 1 leftover track. But $.99 for one good song? It doesn't seem too bad.

Another aspect is that music sales are broadening; by that I mean that in the past the top 40 albums completely dominated the sales by a HUGE margin, but due to easy access to information online, the sales are slowly creeping further down the charts. Independant label sales have also been declining over the past 5 years, but not nearly at the rate of the majors. Despite the decreases in sales, indies have actually seen an increase in market share.

IMHO, the indies are doing so well (or at least losing less than the majors) is because the indies are ran by people who just really like music, and found a way to make money from it. Music lover's first, business people second. This article explains it fairly well.

IF the major labels wish to overcome this, they simply need to change the way they do business. Badgering their customer base with lawsuits, price fixing, payolla and lying is not the way to do it. An 148% increase in legal downloads shows that people are willing to pay for music. It just isn't the music that the RIAA wants us to buy.

--------------------
"We take evil really seriously"

Posts: 175 | From: Tokyo, Japan | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Wolf333, I think book sales are calculated similarly: by the number of units shipped as opposed to the number actually sold from retail outlets.

And I didn't get from your post why you think RIAA's way of "fixing the problem" is the wrong way.

And most successful indies still partner with majors in order to take advantage of the majors' well-established distribution. The film industry works the same way, as well.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Seaboe Muffinchucker
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 206 posted      Profile for Seaboe Muffinchucker     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
Wolf333, I think book sales are calculated similarly: by the number of units shipped as opposed to the number actually sold from retail outlets.

How well a book sells is determined by its sell-through percentage. That is the inverse of number of units returned divided by the number of units shipped. A book with a sell-through of 60% is considered to have done quite well.

Seaboe

--------------------
Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me

Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Wolf333
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wolf333     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by snopes:
quote:
With hardcover books selling for $25+ per copy and paperbacks just under $8, the library is the only place where a poor person can have access to literature.
You're kidding, right? You can go into virtually any used book store and stock up on tons of literature for 25 to 50 cents a copy; maybe a buck or two for nicer hardbacks. I'm pretty sure there's no constitutional right to own brand new books.

quote:
Do you also want to do away with public schools because they take away from the profitability of private education?
I'm also pretty sure that teachers are paid for their work, whether they ply their trade in public schools or private ones.

- snopes

There are two problems with this argument -

1. If I buy a used book, the copyright owner still receives no royalties. Getting it from a library grants the author no more or less than buying it used.
2. Not everyone has access to good used book stores. Not everyone has internet access or public transportation.

--------------------
"We take evil really seriously"

Posts: 175 | From: Tokyo, Japan | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Wolf333
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wolf333     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AnglRdr:
Wolf333, I think book sales are calculated similarly: by the number of units shipped as opposed to the number actually sold from retail outlets.

And I didn't get from your post why you think RIAA's way of "fixing the problem" is the wrong way.

And most successful indies still partner with majors in order to take advantage of the majors' well-established distribution. The film industry works the same way, as well.

Well, they are supposed to work the same. You ship 9000, get 1000 back, that means you sold 8000. Simple, right? What if you ship 8500 and get 500 back? Still sold 8000, right? The RIAA wasn't counting it that way. They were counting only the units shipped (not units sold). By their acounting, if they shipped 9000 one year and had 1000 returns, it was a better year than if they shipped 8500 and got 1 back the following year. They were, in effect, saying that 9000 shipments with 8000 sales was better than 8500 shipments with 8499 sales. Creative accounting... lying.
Indies will partner for distribution rights, but that does not always mean a major label, or even a music label. Have you ever purchased a bargain cd that had a hole punched through the bar code? That's because the distributer had an overstock, not the label. Only the huge labels such as Sony BMG have their own production and distrobution networks. An indie can get production and distro without ever contacting a major. One example given in this thread was the Offspring... they went gold before they ever signed to a major, and then it was only for worldwide distro.
And even if you want worldwide distro, you don't need a major. I can buy cds from Dischord here in Japan, or in the Uk easily, for the sme price or less than a UK or Japanese band, and dischord still makes money.
The Major label model depends on you hearing a certain song on the radio, in a movie etc and buying that album. That is no longer happening. Now, people are just buying that song.
As for why the RIAA strategy is not working... suing their customers doesn't seem odd to you?
They've sued people without internet conections
They've sued people that don't even own computers. They've sued people thst have "shared folders" on their hard drive... nothing in that folder, just having a shared folder (which most of the folks on this board probably have)
And the biggest evidence that the strategy of alienating your customers isn't working? 16000 lawsuits, and cd sales are still down. Lower than ever since 1991.

--------------------
"We take evil really seriously"

Posts: 175 | From: Tokyo, Japan | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I pretty clearly said *most* successful indies. I deliberately did not say "all," because that would be wrong.

And RIAA doesn't actually have any customers who aren't musicians or songwriters. It is a union, of sorts. Here's some information you need.

I am very much in favor of the work RIAA does. As I have stated on this board many times before, my family's livelyhood is dependent upon intellectual property rights being adhered to.

[ETA: Both Epitaph and Sony, both labels Offspring has recorded on, are RIAA members. Oh Boy, my personal favorite indie, is also a RIAA member. Independent or major has no bearing on a label's RIAA membership, if you are insinuating that.]

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Wolf333
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Wolf333     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
AnglRdr,
If i implied that no indies are members of the RIAA,that all members of the RIAA are bad or that all of the work of the RIAA is bad, i apologise.
The RIAA is more like a trade union... right now the site is down, but there are over 1000 members, all record labels. Not musicians and song writers, record lables.
THE RIAA does do some good works. They were active in the 80's during the whole PMRC thing, standing up for artists freedom of speach. On that point, I agree with them.
At the same time, it was the RIAA that pushed for the DMCA, and on this point they are wrong. The lawsuits that I mentioned were brought on by RIAA members, using RIAA lawyers.

--------------------
"We take evil really seriously"

Posts: 175 | From: Tokyo, Japan | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
RIAA doesn't represent individuals, though "Garth Brooks," for example, is listed as a member. It is actually his record label; apologies for being confusing about that. BMI and ASCAP represent individuals. Since many musicians have contracts through record labels, though, RIAA's work helps ensure that appropriate royalties get paid to the record labels (even indie ones), and then that money gets to the artists as their contracts dictate.

There are parts of the DMCA that are in need of revising, but I will always defend the intellectual property rights of copyright owners from theft.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2