Newspaper Chain's New Business Plan: Copyright Suits

page: 3
73
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
It is actually really discusting how the intent and meaning of copyright has been perverted to suit the big businesses. Whole spirit of copyright has become so corrupt and now it is like a curse word.

Best of luck to ATS and nail these guys, nail them good.




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by aravoth
 


Look, it really is quite simple. To deny an artist (any artist, be it a major pop star or minor indie band) their right to charge whatever they see fit for their work is nothing but selfish and immoral. Wrap it up in whatever retrospective justifications you want, use all the flawed analogies you want, bottom line is that you are not the arbitrator of who should or shouldn't be paid for their labour. You are not doing mankind a favour by illegally downloading music so enough of the faux humanitarian rubbish please.

edit: I read yours and elcapitano75's post as the same author. Whilst some of my comments may not apply directly to your post, my point remains the same.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by john_bmth]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Do not post the contact numbers, addresses or emails of anyone involved in the lawsuit.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a fight that we are going to have to undertake and anything done here can be seen by them and used against us.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
Do not post the contact numbers, addresses or emails of anyone involved in the lawsuit.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a fight that we are going to have to undertake and anything done here can be seen by them and used against us.

Thanks.


Sorry about that Crakeur. All of that info was available in public domain. I will still enjoy filling their in boxes with porn and spam mail though =)

** Edit to add "I think I just puked in my mouth"

Long Live ATS!

~Druidae

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Druidae]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by darkmaninperth
 



So this is how they are going to shut the internet up....

Start charging and suing to show stuff that was printed already, in order for it to spread across the globe as fast.

He is one of them.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I see hundreds of copy and pasted articles - usually with no attribution and mods do NOT enforce "plagiarism" rules at ATS. The threads go on to get hundreds of stars, and not a single word of their own! One thread in particular had people who noticed the plagiarism and there were dozens upon dozens of thread replies denouncing such - and again - the mods REFUSED to enforce the rules after being alerted multiple times by many users.

TO: SO - You mentioned they post your emails? Bet they don't know that TOO is copyright infringement! An email is copyrighted by its writer the moment it is sent! Automatically! Go get 'em SO!

ATS policy is too liberal on the amount (2 paragraphs) of content that can be cited with attribution.

Copyrighted art and photograghs are on ATS media without attribution as well.

The paper not issueing a take down notice is clearly not going to win this suit.

===============================================



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
Do not post the contact numbers, addresses or emails of anyone involved in the lawsuit.

As I mentioned earlier, this is a fight that we are going to have to undertake and anything done here can be seen by them and used against us.

Thanks.


Thankfully ATS is a LLC; meaning that all of the individuals are protected legally from this.

And it in essence, is an attack on ATS itself and everyone here.

And it is an attack on free speech and free press, if there ever was one!

I have 100% faith that ATS will win.

Because if ATS loses this, it will set legal precedent that every one can sue every website ever made, for everything.

And then the Internet would crash and burn, and then the population would be SUPER MAD at the lawyers who created this mess and took away our wonderful Net.

So in the end it doesn't matter what happens. We will win no matter what.

GL ATS I know you guys will whoop em!



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


TAN being an LLC just means that, in the event that we lose, the members of the LLC (owners), cannot be held personally liable for any debts of the entity.

We, and our attorneys, are confident that we will be able to defend this action and we feel that we must prevail because, as you mentioned, it's an attack on the internet as a whole, as well as free speech and freedom of the press.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I own every piece of entertainment I have.

Enforcing copyright laws in violation of the fair use act strips any and all rights the end user has for using the content they rightfully purchased.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
EVERYONE Needs to post this on their personal blogs as well. Get it out on every page you can. This IS an assault of the free flow of information no matter what the apologists say.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth
Can you be sued for "loaning" out a CD? Recording a song off the radio? Are you allowed to play music from your MP3 collection at a barbecue full of people who have never heard that music before?


The arguments behind Intellectual Property do not hold water in the real world.


Actually a dentist office I know got reported because they had TV screens in the ceiling for clients to watch movies on during cleanings or dental work. You could pick a movie and watch it while you get your teeth done. They stopped allowing you to pick movies after they got a letter from a lawyer pointing out that they made watching the movies part of the process of dentistry and therefore they couldn't just goto walmart and buy movies they had to pay a licensing fee to show movies. I also know a bus company that stopped showing movies for a similar reason.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by exile1981

Originally posted by aravoth
Can you be sued for "loaning" out a CD? Recording a song off the radio? Are you allowed to play music from your MP3 collection at a barbecue full of people who have never heard that music before?


The arguments behind Intellectual Property do not hold water in the real world.


Actually a dentist office I know got reported because they had TV screens in the ceiling for clients to watch movies on during cleanings or dental work. You could pick a movie and watch it while you get your teeth done. They stopped allowing you to pick movies after they got a letter from a lawyer pointing out that they made watching the movies part of the process of dentistry and therefore they couldn't just goto walmart and buy movies they had to pay a licensing fee to show movies. I also know a bus company that stopped showing movies for a similar reason.

In either case, how someone can equate lending a CD to a friend with putting the CD in such a place that anyone with an internet connection can access it is beyond me.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I dont really see why they would bother with the lawsuit, in reality they probably get alot more hits to their sites because of sites like ATS, we, the users provide links to the actual website with all the facts, sure we put a clip of the source, and have discussions on topics, but in reality, most of us are checking out and reading the main articles, if anything sites like this, should be charging a fee to all the news sites for the amount of hits they are getting because of sites like this..

I bet if we stopped putting links and stuff related to those news articles i bet they would loose alot of hits each month... they should be happy they are getting extra exposure to their news sites.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Sounds like desperation.

In 5 years (if that), phone books will be gone. Newspapers might cling to life for a little longer. People don't use print media as their main source of news & information any more. Not if they have a smartphone or a computer.

I think one reason they are hanging on is because they have those really expensive presses that they are probably still paying for, and they know that they won't be able to raise nearly as much ad revenue if they went to an online-only presence. No one is going to pay print rates for a banner ad, sorry.

Media companies in general aren't very forward-thinking. They like their status quo when the money is flowing. Take Hollywood for example. Early on, they were hesitant to have anything to do with the internet. They saw it as a threat and still do in many respects. I had an idea about 15 years ago that was way ahead of its time. I won't go into details, but it used a system to combine theaters, rental, and merchandising together to maximize the revenue that a movie could generate. It would have required the theaters and studios to alter their business model. To this day, nothing even remotely like it is being employed. My idea still has potential, but Hollywood is so hesitant to change, I could never sell it in a million years because it steps on too many feet wearing status quo loafers..

Anyway, it's sad that lawyers have to shake down anyone they can to make their parasitic living. People usually just settle because they can't afford the legal fees to fight it. Cockroaches.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
This is the same mentality that Hollywood is using with their so called non-profitable movies. Harry Potter actors who signed back end deals for a part of the profits found out that although the movie grossed in the 600+ million dollar range that the movie made no money and actually went into the hole for like 160+ million. Creative bookkeeping and creative ways to mangle copyrighted material laws will, in the end, hoist these lunatics by their own petard! People will just stop buying and get pissed more and more

Zindo.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Well I'm a chronic copy & paster so guilty as charged for me I guess from what I understand of all this. Maybe someone should take my scissors and glue hahahahha.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
This one is for- john_bmth
have you ever heard of a Brittish band called Iron Maiden?
I've been to almost every show since I was old enough to go to concerts. One thing that the vocalist Bruce Dickinson often brings up is the greed of the corporate big shots at the top of record labels. He encourages the fans, telling us, if we want to record the live show to go right ahead, if we want to make copies of Iron Maiden's CD's and give them to our friends we are more than welcome to, after all he says, We make the music for you, our fans and if it wern't for you we would not exist, so our music is free for all. Steve Harris the Bass player and founder of the band has also stated more or less, that if a fan wnts to buy the albums but can only afford one, then he doesnt mind at all if he "illegaly" copies the rest.

I had a massive collection of original albums, it got stolen when my car was broken into, I rebuilt the collection, and yet again at another location my car was broken into and my collection was stolen, where is the law when I get ripped off? well I now only have downloaded music, since I already paid twice for the majority of it.

Sharing is caring, in any case, we are essentially PROMOTING be it artists, news companies movies or what have you, we should be getting paid for it if anything, but that would be selfish. Besides if the meterial is good enough, in the case of artists or movies, people will go for the original source, many times I've been to a movie and saw a crappy film, and was not satisfied, but i can't get my money back, but they already made my money for ripping me off of time and money that I will never get back. I think in those cases we the consumers reserve the right to preview the material before we buy. I get bootlegs and choose which ones are worthy to go to the cinema, and which ones are better left to wait for when they come out on DVD.

As far as ATS, I don't see how the copyrights were violated. Many have stated the obvious, this site increases traffic to their sites, and it is all for informational and educational use along with discussions on the topic. No violation PERIOD.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Majestic Lumen
 


As I said, justify it all you want, just because Band X says they're cool with it it doesn't give you the right to rip off other artists without their consent. Why is the concept of paying for someone's hard work so alien to you? What if I find someone of your vocation who works for free and actively encourages the use of their services? Does this mean I can demand you work for free also? It's stupid logic, no matter how you spin it it is not your right to decide who should and shouldn't be paid for their work.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by john_bmth]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by john_bmth]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Absolutely, you can have my music for free. I give away free music all the time when I perform at shows. People can buy my bands shirts or they are free to make their own. For real artists it's not about money, if I am gonna make money I make it at the door. It's about having a good time with the fans, screw the record companies which make the greater bulk of the album profits. Band X and X don't agree with free downloads then I'm not gonna buy it anyway, because their music is more than likely not up to par with the better quality music, which is why they have to squeeze every penny they can.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Majestic Lumen
 

I am well aware that a little piracy can certainly help an artist. In fact, small-scale piracy can revive a scene by introducing new blood and keeping things moving. What I strongly object to is idiots like the person I originally responded to who think it's their God-given right to pirate whatever the hell they like purely because in their heads they dont think musicians should be paid for their labours. I object to the ignorant justifications people give rationalize such beliefs. I don't care whether someone thinks music should be free because it's not their place to decide. I am fully against the notion that of all the professions in the world, musicians should be the ones to give their work for free because some fool thinks so. I bet the people who make such claims expect to get paid for their day job, so why should it be any different for musicians? I also disagree with the notion that any artist who doesn't want their music freely distributed to anyone with an internet connection is somehow a sub-standard artist. There is absolutely no basis for this claim whatsoever.


[edit on 23-7-2010 by john_bmth]





new topics
top topics
 
73
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join