Newspaper Chain's New Business Plan: Copyright Suits

page: 5
73
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Karl Denninger over at the Market Ticker devoted one of his "tickers" to this issue this morning.

Assaults on Forums onlin-Market Ticker


While the suits against individual posters (bloggers or forum users) who violate copyrights are on their face defensible, going after forum owners is another matter entirely.
That's absolutely over the line, unless there's some colorable claim that the forum owner was notified by someone with standing or actual knowledge that a party at interest is or would be aggrieved in relationship to SPECIFIC, IDENTIFIED works and ignored the notice - and as far as I can tell from what's been posted thus far in the various areas, that's not the case.


Seems like there is a growing vulture class of lawyers and venture capital that exist only to buy up patents/copyrights and sue someone who actually produces something. A real big case that many might remember is the company that almost sued RIM (makers of Blackberry) out of existence a few years ago (currently they are at it again against other smartphone makers). Was that company making a product that competed with Blackberry? No, it's sole purpose for existence is to sue, settle, and pick another target. It's pretty evident that Righthaven is a newspaper version of the same thing.

Good luck on defending this case SO. Don't settle, there is more than ATS at stake, and it looks like you guys have a clear defense. It'd be great if something like this turned around to generate more traffic here.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by jefwane]




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by darkmaninperth
 


Sir: Its easy for people to say we artists should be happy the fee publicity. We are not.

Do YOU own any copyrights? I do. Over 300. All music, and they are on ITUNES etc.
Have you written any books? I have and they are copyrighted, and on Amazon.com. Also, nearly 60 articles and blogs.
Do you own any trademarks? I do, with over 40 years success as an Internationally known company.


Its disheartening to have my stuff hacked up into sections, cut and pasted here and there and out of context, and people create something new and off-topic.

And every one of my books or songs or that my name is used and copied from online, I lose $$$. That shouldnt matter to you though.

We copyrighted authors and song writers don't know where the future of ownership of intellecutal original ideas taken from the creators will end up. But I suspect...it'll be at your house.

Thanks for that......



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I must correct you on a point regarding your defence of artists and what they charge.

It is actually the RECORD LABELS that decide what is charged, and worse, how much the artist will receive. Record labels are parasites.

Record labels originally started to help promote an artist and get tapes and records as they were back in the old days published and on sale, but now it is just about the money. It started in the 70s when they realized it was more lucrative to sue people for copyright infringment.

Remember the argument that two-deck casette recorders would mean huge pirating of tape, and kill the industry? VHS would kill the movie world? Never happened did it?


Same arguments are being used today.

The record and music industries are dinosaurs. iTunes was a step in the right direction but it was loaded with DRM, and even though they claim to have removed it now, you don't get a choice of format and you can't convert it legally from Apple's proprietory format to MP3 for example.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   
I may have missed where this was covered, but unless they've recently changed it, fair use should really cover what we do at ATS. It has to be something more, like not attributing the work or something?



Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term fair use originated in the United States.

Source



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Yes and since we only quote the original source and link directly into it this lawsuit will be laughed out of the court. Unless this guy has the judge in his payroll. Lately because of internets fair use has become a big thing. Then there's those who go opposite way like youtube who don't tolerate fair use. Makes you wonder why some people thought, like Jarrah White has still his vids up.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
So my local on-line paper, that I quote from often, just added this by-line to all thier articles:

"Skagit Publishing material is protected by copyright and may not be reproduced or used in any way, including with a link, without express permission."


So now they are saying that the dozens of articles I have quoted and linked over the past two years where in violation of their copyrights?

WHAT??????

Do I need to go back and remove all of these snippets and links in all of my posts or risk legal action????

See how the fear spreads? I think that is what it is all about. Fear = control.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by westcoast
So my local on-line paper, that I quote from often, just added this by-line to all thier articles:

"Skagit Publishing material is protected by copyright and may not be reproduced or used in any way, including with a link, without express permission."


So now they are saying that the dozens of articles I have quoted and linked over the past two years where in violation of their copyrights?

WHAT??????

Do I need to go back and remove all of these snippets and links in all of my posts or risk legal action????

See how the fear spreads? I think that is what it is all about. Fear = control.



Honestly they can say whatever they want. "By reading this article your property and wealth is now transferred to us." etc etc...

Doesn't mean it will hold up in court.

Copying and pasting their entire article and including a link to their site, I can see that being wrong. But using a small excerpt and providing the source for it? Don't college students and professors do that in every paper they write?



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by westcoast
 


That's idiotic and it wouldn't hold in court. Maybe they're trying to get some settlements from poor people who are afraid of the court or something.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I wonder how much of these lawyer's and their client's material I could run through Copyscape and find they have plagiarized?

Guess we will all just have to do what we were taught in school..cite sources and paraphrase, paraphrase, paraphrase.

Also an idea on source citation. How about we all just stop entering sources as hyperlinks and enter them as text instead? Then they do not receive any SEO benefits from external links to their sites. Then watch their pageranks take a tumble.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:47 AM
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.


a local, church run daycare that serves less than 200 children received warning from a Disney lawer for playing Disney movies for the kids. It was a notice to cease the action, or pay a licensing fee to use their content.

So when kids were told they could bring a movie to watch on "Movie Day", they were told that they could not bring their Disney movies in because of the law suit threat.

When i heard of this, i quit buying Disney movies for my kids. The downside: Barney was popular, and the only thing i could substitute. BLECH! I have PTSD from that.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
A couple more things folks.

Just post the source-link when you quote from articles.

You absolutely can be sued successfully for copying a song off the radio, cd or tape, or a movie...if you SELL it.

Fair use leaves you somewhat protected. I cant sue you for passing it around for friends.

Besides. At $200 an hour for our attornies...you probably dont have anything $$$ he could get outta you or the average person anyway.

Just always CREDIT the link, source or links, and never SELL what you do copy or create from it.


[edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Do YOU own any copyrights?


Yes, some old C64 games from the late 80's.


I do. Over 300. All music, and they are on ITUNES etc.
Have you written any books? I have and they are copyrighted, and on Amazon.com. Also, nearly 60 articles and blogs.
Do you own any trademarks? I do, with over 40 years success as an Internationally known company.


Bully for you.


Its disheartening to have my stuff hacked up into sections, cut and pasted here and there and out of context, and people create something new and off-topic.


I would be flattered. But I'm not a $$$ person.



And every one of my books or songs or that my name is used and copied from online, I lose $$$. That shouldnt matter to you though.

We copyrighted authors and song writers don't know where the future of ownership of intellecutal original ideas taken from the creators will end up. But I suspect...it'll be at your house.

Thanks for that......


You're welcome. But the fact of the matter is, you need to change yout business model, much the same way for lawyers have. I'm sure the owners of drive in movie theaters never thought there business model would die.

People who embrace the new business models are are thriving, people who aren't are starveling.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by darkmaninperth
 


Who I am, what my books are named and what international recording musical group I belong to is irrelevant here, as it is pointless, and would deride my intent by boasting, so I will not. We are in fact in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and numerous Rock and Roll Encyclopedias, including one of Billboards Top 100 Groups of all time. But, I will expound farther.

If you, your son or daughter, sister or brother, best friend or neighbor now composes a song, poem, story, book etc...they no longer own it. If it reaches the masses...which is the pont anyway...its gone forever. Oxymoron? True. Create it and get it out there...and fair use give its away.

No more making income from an original work, because you just cant chase everyone in the world. And since the industry SELLS those electronics to anyone who wants to copy, upload, share etc around the world ad-infinitum...people will still believe...and to some extent they are correct...that if they bought it or have it in their possesion...its ok to copy, share, upload, download free etc.

Once upon a time, it was recommended that one copyrights what they compose to protect them. But that is out the window now. Its not known where the industry will go. You sure cant expect to sell CD's or books in a bookstore, because thats pretty well gone forever. If its out, people will pass things aorund for free.

And our business model is the Status Quo for now. Im on ITUNES and AMAZON.COM and a few others, and book reviews are good, sales are not. They are passing it around reader to reader and musician to musician.
It is a changing world and we all have to change with it. For sure though, if you claim to be a composer or originator of any certain work or works...put it out there in public, and basically anyone can claim it by putting their name in place of yours.

The copyrights now are getting barely..and I mean BARELY..enforcable.
Our trademark has YouTube shutting down anyone who comes up with something of ours, but thats not good either. It just never ends.
I guess as the world changes we just have to expect to change with it.

PS: The new book coming out by Christmas from the UK took us an $11,000 American Dollar investment with legal releases and things.
We will never recover that money.........



[edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger]

[edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
This has been going on a long time.
In the back woods of Oregon lies a small diner. It was run by locals for locals and rarely ever saw "outsiders" as we all lived roughly an hr from a town on the "old highway"
As It happened, I'll call her Sally has an autistic and blind brother who is gifted as a pianist. He is beloved in the community and everyone was delighted when he would come in on friday and saturday and quietly play an old upright. He covered the old stuff and did not sing( though we often did).
Well the news got wind of our blessing and did a story.
It took less than 4weeks for the owner to be contacted and told they would need to pay ,I believe it was 800$ to "license" the music her brother played in public. We are not talking abut stealing new music, we are talking a retarded man playin oldies in a remote cafe`. Yeah it hurt our beloved musician, it hurt all of us who care for him and the simple joy he got from his skill and some ass licking bureaucrat filed his report.
The piano remains with a sign telling the story even now that the diner is closed.
Piracy is one thing and what went on in the diner is quite another that they were considered the same is not just disgusting it was a wake up to all of us who fought for our friend
N.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by N.of norml
 


Well Dear N. of norml, God Bless you and yours. Its true that it is something we didnt see coming. We (the industry) made things convenient and easy to copy and take with you, then the attitude was "if you play or use our stuff...pay us". I know most of the average folks dont understand, and Im fine with that.

Its just that, now something is "released' and its out there. And when us copyright holders want to access our rights, we are finding we cant. Oh we can sue for sure, but "little Johnny and Billy Jean and Dave the DJ" make it hard to get any satisfaction. It just costs too much to pursue, and the violators usually dont have anything to collect. Thats not stopping companies and rights-holders from trying to.

My idea? Its just a thought, and probably it wont happen, but I see day when all one can claim is the 'originator-copyright" showing one-time that you were the one who created the work. That still achieves nothing and you can still not expect any revenue for it. It will just give you 1st -composer-creator-originator credit. And even then...you still cant enforce that.

Composers and writers will just have to do it for the fun of it, not any $$$ gain or profit...and certainly its probably true, you will still lose credit for originating it. We saw tech advances coming, but not the situations created by them.

God Bless MS





new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join