Copyright troll Righthaven achieves spectacular "fair use" loss

page: 3
161
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger

I will just make several points not open to interpretation because they stand as law.

Those movies we rent and dvd's we buy? That page or two at the beginning of each that we zip past informs us that it is a crime to take any part of it and (sampling-youtube creations-etc, etc) and mis-represent it as "new" and make any money off what one creates. Thats all. But, can we use it? Sure. Can we pass that around? Of course. But what the meaning is we cannot take it or any part or parts of it, create something new, and represent it as ours. Thats it with that.

Im in agreement here. I dont mind having my stuff in discussion or even publication if the public wants. But if you SELL it and claim it as a whole with no credit as your own creation alone? Then that violates the copyright of the creator. Period.

The world is changing and its ok to discuss stuff and pass info and links around. Just give credit where its due...and if you sell it or make $$$ of of it? Credit it, contact the copyright owner and Im sure they'll be glad their works are getting out there farther than it could otherwise.

We need to change things so its less restrictive for the average bloggers to use. All info should be free...just not to change, modify or sell it....and claim it as a new"original" work.

So, let the info-flow!
edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger because: because


Er.. so if I get a PDF copy of your book and post it here as long as I give you credit it's alright?

LOL.. seems to be what you are saying..

I think this issue of News articles is fine because it's just that.. News.. not a whole printed book or other copyrighted material.

I also think the Judge was Pissed cus this company took advantage of copyright laws to make gain for itself in an unseemly way. I think he let his personal angst sway his opinion - I would have done the same - justice in this case was done.
edit on 27-3-2011 by JohnPhoenix because: errors




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Yeah thats good news, I dont like that kind of companys, that just do it because they can, its disgusting if you ask me. And they did it for the money pff.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


That is exactly what I meant. My former musical group is in the R & R Hall of Fame and tons of our stuff is posted everyday all over the world. Ive never divulged what group Im in because its irrelevant: hence MYSTERIOUSTRANGER. And Im keeping it that way. A few years back, we began to have YouTube n such shut things down and they do still when asked by us the trademark/copyright owners..

My point is exactly yours about the PDF. In a changing world with music, books and downloads and sharing...I believe its the way of the world in the future. In fact, its already happening.

In the last 2 years my book... being published worldwide form London England...went from hardcover-in-the-store plans to digital-internet release and availability. It changed just that fast.

It remains to be seen what will happen in the future...but thats why there even ARE laws about that.

So...yes...just please give me credit.

PS Recently, a YouTube video of us in concert was posted and yanked back off by someone other than us...because that show, that venue, that tv network had all the rights. Sometimes, even the groups or artists themselves have no right to copy, post or publish...themselves. Because we did not even have rights to THAT show of us, performing our hits, that we wrote.

edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger because: ?
edit on 06-10-2010 by mysterioustranger because: ???



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


But there is something a bit different about your situation.

You can comment on the situation as a creator, or member of a creators' group. Most often, copyright lawsuits seem to be for the benefit of the middleman (ostensibly.)

If you've followed the thread you will know that I do not advocate taking your work without paying for it, but I am honestly taken aback when I get the sense that it's not about art, expression, or the more lofty ideas of artistic endeavors.

I understand that this is (again ostensibly) a free market and the price you (or your agents) may determine, is whatever people may be willing to pay; and if not they simply 'opt out'. But at some point it appeared to have become strictly about the money; a trend which seems to be dissipating with the advent of the internet and the potential for open exchange (for those who just want their music heard.)

This is the never-ending debate that surfaces when it comes to the 'justice' that people seem to seek. I have always found it a little disingenuous because most of the same people are more than happy to hear their favorite sports star, or their favorite actor/celebrity, getting millions per performance.

I hope you never face any losses because of people distributing your work illegally, and I hope you can accept the sincerity with which most of us recognize that you deserve to be paid your asking price, whatever that may be.

YouTube and other such entities seem to operate with some kind of sanctioning from the industry, and they are vigilant for abuse, but I think that reported news 'events.' editorial commentary, political speech, and reporting of public information, should fall under a separate consideration since they are not, on the face of it, works of creative art (although there may be another way of looking at it altogether... for the conspiracy theorist
.)

I suppose it will all be worked out in time. Until then, I hope that judges are starting to perceive the public opinion (if it is correct) that unrealized profit is not the same thing as financial 'loss.' That "Fair Use" is a doctrine which is a corollary of free speech; and that it may be expedient to consider it otherwise, but in the end, it's about communicating with people.... not making people 'pay' to communicate their ideas.
edit on 28-3-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I appreciate and understand your view. The overall issue with music and video is one we face daily. If I call YouTube right now to remove something, and it involves our Registered Trademark (much and far different from a copyright)...they yank it off in minutes.

Trademark suits are far more involved, cut and dried and costly to the offenders. Thanks for understanding. Its a changing world.





 
161
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join