It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Newspaper Chain's New Business Plan: Copyright Suits

page: 4
73
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
It seems to me this fulfills at least two parts of their Nazi agenda:

1) Hit the little people with yet another way to defraud them of any remaining money they might still have.

2) Gives yet another pathetic excuse for them to introduce more senseless legilation to gradually control and reduce the exchange of information more and more.

3) Feeds into their ultimate wish to close down the internet.

They DO NOT want us to exchange information, especially about their criminal, heinous, depraved agenda. They are AFRAID of the way their crimes are being increasingly exposed. They are AFRAID of whistleblowers. They are AFRAID that people will break free of their mind control through intelligent and informed discussion.

SO they will look for any excuse to crack down on information technology, and silence the sheeple.




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I understand your point. But to some people it just seems that the revenue from record sales that goes to a recording artist is small potatoes, and the artists that are fighting against piracy are just being lapdogs for the big corporations. A band with good music is not going to go bankrupt because of record sales, they more than make up for it on tour. If a band is just a studio band with no touring, then obviously if the music is good enough it's better to purchase the higher quality sound instead of the watered down ripped version. The person you were responding to, I don't think so much that he's an idiot as you say, just has a different perspective on it than you do. We all have different views on things, if he wants to rip and download all he wants then let him, you can purchase everything you want and not download anything. What the record company doesnt make from such individuals, they'll make it from individuals like yourself.

You said - "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."

It is not a claim, it is my personal opinion, plus I said more than likely. True, not all are gonna be sub-standard, but from what I have experienced according to my tastes, many are sub-standard, but that's just my prespective.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam
The paper not issueing a take down notice is clearly not going to win this suit.


They're doing nothing more than "testing" a new "approach", a "new" business model, if you will. A pathetically obvious and lecherous one but somewhat "new" nonetheless.


Nothing short of being akin to seeking out all those companies producing, selling and/or offering for sale, o.e.m. or after market '57 Chevy parts, THEN going back to Chevy and purchasing the copyright to the same in order to file suit(s) against the aforementioned individuals and entities.

Apparently and Ultimately hoping that their "legal gamble" will pay off in "fear factor" settlements and payouts in order to avoid court costs and attorney(s) fees.

The Problem, if you will, is their lack of following somewhat long-since established procedural "requirements" for the same ... cease and desist, take-down orders/requests of the said "content" and/or "copyrighted" information.

Their Problem, in my opinion, and the overall demise of said lecherous "business" approach, will come into play when a few of the more "attorney-ed up" defendants successfully defend their "cases" and turn about with countersuits for costs, fees and perhaps even defamation of character all the while.

Personaly,
They Know they're going to be adjudicated against in Many of the more "high-profile" cases, but they're apparently willing to gamble the same, associated costs included, against those who either simply don't have the means and/or are unwilling to defend themselves ... feeling a "settlement" is their only way out.

THAT or they're merely taking this opportunity to exploit the Fair Use clause with the hope that they can capitalize off the same ... and all the while Hoping to establish a legal Precedence from a given ruling.


In the end, it would seemed a failed "business model" and/or "venture" from the start ... like trying to go back and purchase the copyright for "the wheel" ... only to later proceed to sue each and every manufacturer that utilized and/or incorporated the same in their design(s).

They're merely testing the waters, folks ... with the mere Hope that they can obtain a Sole ruling in their favor - Precedence.

Which, if they Can/Do I personally don't see it going any further than the first appellate court review encountered.




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I see this is happening elsewhere. GLP has some posts on attacts by Attributor Corp. which I see as the same story.

Like gun control, this must be fought with constant vigilance.

The day we lose the internet freedom of communication is the day we are slaves to the empire.

I can think of this as drawing a line in the sand.

0CD



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annie Mossity

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam
The paper not issueing a take down notice is clearly not going to win this suit.


Nothing short of being akin to seeking out all those companies producing, selling and/or offering for sale, o.e.m. or after market '57 Chevy parts, THEN going back to Chevy and purchasing the copyright to the same in order to file suit(s) against the aforementioned individuals and entities.



This paragraph reminded me of the recent lawsuit agains Men At Work, the Oz band who had the hit "Land Down Under". Some lawyer who owns the right to the folk song that the flutist allegedly copied the riff in question sees a big payday, nothing else. Excuse me, the song he supposedly copied - and only like a bar and a half is anything like it - is a classic song that young kids in THIS country learn - Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree. I remember it in music class 30 years ago. It's like filing suit against someone for paraphrasing the star-spangled banner or something. It's ridiculous. Men at work helped make Australia popular in the U.S. Them and that Crocodile Dundee guy. That's not a knife. THIS is a knife.

Wow, I kinda got off the topic, eh? But it's the same motivation, what I'm trying to say.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by AwakeinNM]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CASH69
Looks like another attempt to take away our freedom of speech,these people are probably working for the NWO. SCUMBAG'S!


I don't think they are working for the NWO or are trying to stifle free speech st all.

I think they are worshiping the greenback and couldn't give a stuff about the content.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
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.


Really? How did you come to that decision. That shouldn't be something that you decide, but the artists themselves.


What I strongly object to is idiots


Tut, tut, tut. Name calling. Only a moron would call someone an idiot.


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.


Really, I did? Did I say that? Jmmm. Let us review what I said:


Music. Should be free as it is advertising for the brand that is the artist. The smart artists now are making more from merchandising and touring according to anecdotal evidence.


(I did fix a typo)

You're right by Jove, I did! But I also mentioned that they then make their money from merchandising and touring. Where did I say that artists should not be paid?


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.


No.

Society decodes, not as in your case, the induhvidual.Originally it was a elected representative of the people who decided the laws regarding copyright. The internet has changed everything and it is now up to the record companies to adapt.

The laws will either be watered down or they will be ignored by the law enforcement comminuty as there are too many people doing it. A kind of revolution is happening and it s the smarter artists that are thriving.

Just one example of a law that is ignored, here in Australia, it is illegal for me to change a light bulb if I am not a fully qualified electrician. I changed a bulb in my toilet last night and am awaiting the tactical response unit to show up poste haste. Well, actually I'm not, but it is one of many examples of things that are illegal but are ignored.


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


You like to name call, don't you?

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?

If an artists wants to charge money for it, people will pay. Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead are a prime examples. They also give away their music for free. Why is that do you think?


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.


Couldn't agree with you more, but soon, those types of artist will soon be gone.


[edit on 23-7-2010 by john_bmth]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
There is a false commercialized presumption that made mankind believe should financial returns not be be given, then creative works will never be published or created.

This is a lie and false. Thoughout history of humanity, there are 2 kinds of capable humans who will create creative and unique works.

One kind is based upon the Narcassism philosophy. Their ego needs to be nourished, and thus the willingness to crack their cranium and come up with astounding works, even for free. It is their ego to be adulated that payment comes from.

Another kind are those of noble hearts who only wish to share their knowledge and creativeness with others for free. Progress and evolution is their payment in return.

But as times progress and fed with the greed culture, it becomes a right to be paid for such works, twisting and regressing only humanity.

Perform a test. Stop paying for creative works and see what happens. Chances are, creative works will still be created.


I think you've meant narcissism. By that statement alone you've pretty much let very clear that you don't understand a thing about art. Art is not creating by "cracking a cranium", in fact it has very little to actual thinking. One can crack their skull wide open and still won't be able to create the least impressive of the works.

Anyways...

Now....... pleeaase!

Stop paying for creative works and artists will eventually die. No food... dead. It's that simple.

Of course 'art' would still be created but not as a mean for make a living. So you would only get art or pseudo art from hobbyists and people that are comfortably living while scratching their balls. And hardly create anything with the least depth to it.

Besides there is a big fat line separating commercial art from "free art". If such thing as "free art" really exists.

And people don't realize that most of the guys we nowadays consider masters of the arts like Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Dali, Pollock and company didn't do all from the bottom of their hearts for free, they were actually commissioned to do their work or simply sold them for a price they've considered fair. It was their craft and their way to make a living.

More than fair, they were unique in their abilities and they should be re-compensate for that.

The ones who didn't make any profit from their arts either belonged to rich families or lived a living hell while on earth.

So stop being silly, no one painted the Sistine Chapel for free, Mozart, Beethoven and the likes didn't do music sole for the passion and praise. They all sold their scores and performances, it was their craft and their means of survival.

People need to live, and pay for stuff. Their abilities must have a value and be recognized in way that enable them to sustain their physical necessities as well. So cut that 12 year old non-sense.

The only persons in position to say how a work should cost or how it should be market or sold and in which conditions are the authors. If they decide to handle that function to big evil corporation is their problem not yours.

The only think that is up to consumers is "I like" and "I don't like". And if you like and respect the author nothing more fair than paying him so he/she can keep providing you with stuff you like to consume in one way or the other.

Art is a business in one way or the other since the day the first monkey printed his hand in a cave.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
I want to add that, while we, obviously, disagree with the actions taken by the RJ and their partners in this suit, we would like the members to refrain from using this forum to badmouth the folks suing us. The last thing we need is to add to the suit.

The idea that these guys are using software to troll the internet, seeking out links to their own site and then suing anyone who is attempting to drive traffic back to their site is odd, given that linking from a site with higher traffic should result in an increase in traffic on their site. This is made all the more odd when you actually go to their site and see that they offer you tips on posting links to facebook. I guess Facebook's users posting links and snippets is cool but ours isn't.

This is, in a sense, an attempt at stifling freedom of speech and freedom of the press.


Would like to point out that Bush introduced legislation allowing serial litigants or frivolous litigation to be blocked from civil action.

I would recommend applying to this avenue of thought as part of a counter marketing campaign against this litigant. PR is what it is all about - and if you can highlight this person for what they obviously are - a serial and frivolous litigant - then we will all benefit.

Our courts are certainly not a revenue stream - he has clearly and unambiguously stated that this is his intention - and this has been specifically and intentionally legislated against. Please use your finance, opportunity and privileged media position to strike one for the common people.

I apologize if this post somehow contravenes posting regulations or your legal strategy.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   

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


I would take issue with you on 2 paragraphs. In connection with this very subject the Los Angeles Time in it's article 'Las Vegas Review-Journal bares its claws' dated June 9th, 2010 by James Rainey said:


Two Web journalists who Twittered me on Tuesday independently offered the same rule of thumb —- don't republish more than three paragraphs. Always name your source. Always link to the original.


Link to LA Times article

I would imagine that web journalists would probably know what they are saying.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
There is nothing new under the sun, it is said.

As I am in the music business, I can vouch there are sub-business of labels that entirely spend their time on chasing media personalities who "leak".
These entities make more money on throwing law-suits than the sales of the primary company.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by thomas_
 


Thanks for your response.

1. Your futile attempts to put me down by 'child sizing' my words speaks volumes of your fear that what I say would be accepted by others, showing up instead your infantile school yard mind

2. Your logic of an artist being 're-compensated' ( your own words) shows up your greedy soul.

No one will argue that a worker SHOULD NOT be paid. He had been paid,in exchange for his works to another. Your use of Da Vinci or a movie producer holds no water or logic, because NO ONE can ever reproduced such art again. The concept is possible, but an exact duplicate of the Mona Lisa?

So what is being copyrighted here? Mona Lisa or its concept? Mona Lisa will never be duplicated in exact detail, and its concept of using colors and brush strokes, if copyrighted, means no one else will be allowed to use such methods to improve or progress.

I take issue on your 'pseudo art' aspersions on hobbyists. Perhaps you may be a lousy artist in your free time, but that does not mean every human is like you, capable only of scratching balls art ( your own words).

It is people like you that plays up the greed factor and cause creative people to reconsider contributing to society, to not only be paid, but to be paid continually and deny others the right to use their works to improve and progress humanity further, the way our ancient forefathers had done. This is the crux of the copyright issue.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
One line WILL describe this person and his endeavours.

BOTTOM FEEDER.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by thomas_
 

So what is being copyrighted here? Mona Lisa or its concept? Mona Lisa will never be duplicated in exact detail, and its concept of using colors and brush strokes, if copyrighted, means no one else will be allowed to use such methods to improve or progress.


Copyright protects the piece of art. It's not a copyrighted concept or method. Copyright protects the finished piece so that it cannot be copied in a manner that can replace/compete with the original piece.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
If any media outlet (or someone they sell a copyright to for the purpose of the following) sues someone for sharing the content they released to the public, I will never use that media outlet again, for anything. Suing people for sharing free information will end up crippling the media industry and could finally be the push our society needs that destroys mainstream media and its polarized, divisive propaganda.

edit: to include the content in parenthesis.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by againuntodust]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I think they probably made a mistake going after ATS like this.

I've seen ATS mods numerous times cut down posts that used too much of the original article, that to me indicates that ATS takes this kind of thing seriously, although due to the size of the site, they can't see everything. That's OK though under Safe Harbor rules I think, as long as they are making a clear effort.
According to a poster 'Tickerguy' on Wired, ATS is registered with the copyright office.
ATS has a DMCA policy
ATS has rules in place in their T&C on not copying too much of the original article.
The article in question was posted by a user.

All this means that the normal way to deal with this kind of problem is a DMCA takedown notice. That's a very simple system, and I have every reason to believe ATS would have complied with it and removed the post in question.

If the judge agrees with these points, then I think the lawyer has nothing to go on, and may even get a wrist slap from the judge for using the wrong methods to deal with this problem.

[edit on 24/7/2010 by harpsounds]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
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.
[edit on 23-7-2010 by john_bmth]


Yes, you can demand whatever you like.
That is, unless you actually want to sell it.
In that case you need to look at the market, what the consumer is actually willing to pay for your product.
If the producer of any good was able to set the price, all goods would cost "Everything you own"



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Double post

... and might as well use it:
@_thomas
Funny you should mention Mozart.
He died before copyright laws existed in continental europe
Lets see:
childhood: touring europes courts, performing for money.
As an adult he was employed as a conductor.
Oh, yes, his last 10 years he spent as a piano teacher.

His income (almost) exclusively came from performing and teaching.


[edit on 24-7-2010 by debunky]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
This Righthaven guy sounds like a right power (and money) hungry lunatic.
I hope someone can knock him down a peg or two. I'd especially hope it's ATS and the above network that does it.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Gossip maybe as old as humanity, no government has EVER suppressed it and not fallen into disrepute and disrespect, if they were smart they would start reading the blogs and dig UP real news and run it up their respective flagpoles rather than quoting PR publication press releases and Government talking points.....suing blogs now that's what I call PROPAGANDA, they have studied Edward Bernays well, besides anyone can mouth off that doesn't make it news anless like the Obama administration you can make RASH decisions and be made to look like a fool by overreacting whenever something seems wrong to them.

The more stuff like this recent reaction by the Agricultural Dept and the more these people look like they don't have a clue about what to do with all their power, they don't have the kind of experience even an outsider and observers such as ourselves might be able to offer, they look at teh internet not a s tool to USE but as a tool to stop....THEY ARE THE HORSE AND BUGGY GENERATION TRYING TO SUE THE AUTOMOBILE OUT OF EXISTENCE.

Also a question to the debaters out here....Would you advocate charging money for use of words? Are words really any differant than sounds, in some sense they are the same. The more you restrict a symbol through a price structure the less relevant it becomes, music locked up behind a wall becomes unknown and irrelevant, the same with pictures, etc. You might as well start a secret society cause in some sense when you restrict it, you are creating a divsion between those with moeny and those without, you might as well tell the poor in the thrid world they will never imagine anything other than the poverty they live cause they should pay for information, etc. Imagine everytime you use the toilet you have to pay a tolilet fee, an air fee.....that will be where this will go, like or not, those are the consequences of total control....then the music will have to go through censorship boards, you might as well join the Catholic church during the reformation, in a sense why would anyone see the benefit in shutting down heretical thoughts, or fining, taxing, jailing, etc. The whole thing maybe nothing more than a racket, a fraud, a scam.....if you offer your ideas in a quickly copyable format then you should expect it to be everywhere, if not then don't offer it, just perform live....of course now the government wants to sick the IRS on you for living that way as well, I have heard many a friend complain about scrutiny over oversease tour profits and the government sometimes double taxing on the assumption of concealed assets, they are watching the band websites to make sure you comply. If the church wins(government) nobody wins, complaining about low cd sales or low downloads will be the least of your worries.



[edit on 25-7-2010 by bubbabuddha]



new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join