If you sell your used iPad, you may be a copyright criminal, says U.S. Supreme Court

reply to post by Qumulys


The title of this thread alone is deceitful and that deceit is used to attack a Supreme Court who has been alarmingly maligned by a highly corporatized main stream media, particularly in the matter of Citizens United where that corporatized media has engaged in the very same sort of deceit that the O.P. has in this thread. The Supreme Court remains the last bastion of defense for the People and at this time is the only branch of government that even dares to stand in defense of the People and their rights. They do not deserve the slanderous and libelous - such as the O.P.'s title - remarks and deserve not only defense, but at this point zealous defense.

Thus far, in this thread, I seem to remain alone in defending that Court. Not you, nor anyone else is defending a Court that has consistently held in favor of individual private persons and for this reason the zealous defense I offer is more than merited.

Otherwise, I've always had a hard time dealing with the morality of copyright. The entire model just fails on so many levels and if rife with fundamental flaws. How does a sound-wave become owned? I'm not saying artists should not be funded, but I'd love to see a movement en-mass towards a copyright free - pay what you think is right model. I don't know, its a big minefield really.

Sound waves are not owned nor are they copyrighted. Intellectual property is copyrighted and why shouldn't a songwriter own the song he created? Why shouldn't a songwriter have the right to profit off of their creation? Why shouldn't that songwriter have the protection of law to ensure their creation is recognized as their property?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Qumulys

 

The title of this thread alone is deceitful and that deceit is used to attack a Supreme Court who has been alarmingly maligned by a highly corporatized main stream media, particularly in the matter of Citizens United where that corporatized media has engaged in the very same sort of deceit that the O.P. has in this thread. The Supreme Court remains the last bastion of defense for the People and at this time is the only branch of government that even dares to stand in defense of the People and their rights. They do not deserve the slanderous and libelous - such as the O.P.'s title - remarks and deserve not only defense, but at this point zealous defense.

Thus far, in this thread, I seem to remain alone in defending that Court. Not you, nor anyone else is defending a Court that has consistently held in favor of individual private persons and for this reason the zealous defense I offer is more than merited.

Otherwise, I've always had a hard time dealing with the morality of copyright. The entire model just fails on so many levels and if rife with fundamental flaws. How does a sound-wave become owned? I'm not saying artists should not be funded, but I'd love to see a movement en-mass towards a copyright free - pay what you think is right model. I don't know, its a big minefield really.

Sound waves are not owned nor are they copyrighted. Intellectual property is copyrighted and why shouldn't a songwriter own the song he created? Why shouldn't a songwriter have the right to profit off of their creation? Why shouldn't that songwriter have the protection of law to ensure their creation is recognized as their property?

On point 1, I wasn't saying you were wrong on this case, just I felt you were belittling the Op slightly calling him 'sport'. Anyways, he seems fine with it.

Onto point 2. Now this is where is gets tricky for me. If I rip off a 1 bar sample from lets say 'Sting' and plop it into my song, I'd be in all hell. Now, lets saying on part of that bar, I take just a 1 beat sample which is a kick drum from a tr-808. I'd be perfectly fine, as thousands of songs would contain the same sample. Maybe that first beat I took was the note 'A' played on a piano. Yes, it was played by him, but we are talking about 1 note resonating at a set frequency. In its breakdown, how does he become the owner of this oscillation? If he can prove its his, I'd still be in trouble, but that's getting absurd. In modern western music there are only 12 notes. Heck, the millions of songs just using chords C D and G, could all be argued to contain similar oscillations...
That's why I just kind of find it hard to get my head around the fairness of owning a vibration.

Its kind of like this.
Lets say Sting is a mathematician. His latest 'hit' goes like this
4456444
4456999
445644877324
(Its a catchy sequence I know)
Can he now own the number sequence 4456444? How about just a smaller part of his sequence? Now everytime you use the number 4 your paying royalties to Sting, he's rich enough already!
There is amazing beauty in maths, repetitions, circles, curves, spirals! All found in the Arts. Is Euler any less of an artist because his medium was numbers? A musical note is graphable wave that can be written in maths!

Anyway, I rest my case.

reply to post by Qumulys


In the diatonic scale there are only seven notes. However, in Western music it is generally accepted there are 12 notes. It is not notes, however, that get copyrighted, nor is it any single beat that is copyrighted. It is the combination of beats or notes, or beats and notes that make one song distinctly its own even if it shares notes and beats with countless other songs.

David Bowie and Freddy Mercury are rightfully credited with the bass line beat of Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" because that sample is very recognizably the same bass line as heard in "Under Pressure". No one needs a rocket scientist to explain how this is so, two functioning ears and knowing the song "Under Pressure" compared to "Ice Ice Baby" is all that is needed.

There are many reasons why Rap and Hip Hop remain a sub-genre of music and "sampling" is just one of those reasons. "Sampling" can have its place and there are some rap songs that do sample that I like a lot, but there is a reason it is called "sampling" instead of "creativity", and when rappers and hip hop artists finally grow the balls to stop "sampling" and just create their own beats then rap and hip hop will start to gain the respect it so badly wants.

I rest my case.

reply to post by Qumulys

The definition of a copyright is exclusive recognized ownership of a unique work. Notes are not unique, but a song or even a substantial part of a song are unique. The alphabet contains 26 letters which can be arranged to form words which can then be arranged to express thoughts or elicit emotions. Letters and words are not unique; they are part of general human experience. A writing however, where certain words are chosen and arranged so as to produce works as defined above, is unique. It is a reflection of the writer, a part of his thoughts and feelings. A song may be made up of repeating sequences of notes, but taken as a whole it is more than that. It is a part of the very psyche of the writer and belongs to that writer much more than a purchased item can ever belong to the purchaser.

Even this post... the methodology I use to assemble my words and the way I express myself through them is wholly me. No one else would say the same thing with the same words. Now, I may use certain methods more frequently than others, methods I picked up from reading the works of others, but it is the combination of the words, the punctuation, the timing, and the writing methods that make this post mine.

Copyright law simply enforces and validates what is obvious to those who understand art in any of its myriad of forms.

TheRedneck

This is absolutely CRAZY.

I can see the only one being midly legitimate in this entire list is selling some sort of copyrighted material if it isn't legally being sold in the country you're selling it in.

For instance, I listen to Jools Holland and have a large collection of CDs bought in England, but if I were to sell these in Canada I'd probably be in violation of copyright.

Originally posted by Qumulys
I'll just leave this brilliant short video here as food for thought.

edit on 20-6-2012 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)

made me want to reincarnate as a virus
a computer virus

until i saw the adjusting mental patterns and delete copyrighted works

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


Glad you liked it! It makes you think that video... Think... then run!
I did make a thread about the video, but it bombed and died a horrid death. ATS - Welcome to Life

JPZ, Some might get a little testy you calling rap a sub-genre! But even in the world of sampling they have to pay royalties. Although, in recent years they have been talking about slightly relaxing those laws a bit. I think a happy medium could be to reduce the span of holding copyright on music. I think after (don't quote me on this) 50 years, it becomes a samplers free delight. Maybe reduce this to 10 years? Oh I don't know! This is why I struggle with its ownership!

Redneck, ok, I get you there, unique work. But, Lets say Sting does Message in a Bottle as a solo acoustic performance just on his guitar. It would not sound the same, but it would still have the same chords. Those same chords could be found in thousands of over songs! I really don't have an answer, but how it stands doesn't really sit well with me either. Gotye's hit "somebody that I used to know" has the baa baa black sheep song in it! Same notes, same order, will he get stung one day down the track for it like the infamous "Men at Work" case which was dubious at best, but the flute soloist was devastated with being labled a copyright cheat and recently died feeling shamed I'd guess.

Watch the video I posted (welcome to life), how much 'mental' copyright infringements would you have? I just think there needs to be a fairer system.

reply to post by Qumulys

But, Lets say Sting does Message in a Bottle as a solo acoustic performance just on his guitar.

Speaking of Sting, have you ever noticed the melody he uses when singing "I want my, I want my, I want my MTV" on Dire Straits Money for Nothing?

10 years? Geez Q, don't you think owners of property have the right to pass that property on to their children?

How Long Does a Copyright Last?

The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ahhh, it differs a fair bit from country to country, the US used to be 50 years after death, but was extended to 70 years recently. Wiki

But yeah, there is no easy answer. What do they hand down to their kids? That's a tricky one again. I think the most highly paid musicians are getting obscenely rich, I'd love to see a cap on the amount one song can earn, but that's an entirely different sticky situation. Perhaps once a copyright holder earns (x) amount of dollars per song, it becomes free for all!??? Now I like that solution! In fact, I'd say its a genius solution there! 1 million is where I would put the cap. That very generous considering most songs are done in a few days or less.

It becomes very hard to own something when it's freely able to be copied an infinite amount of times...

reply to post by Qumulys


Placing caps on how much a producer can make off of their effort just so there comes a point that some people don't have to pay for the privilege of using that product is fantasy that has no understanding of market principles. Particularly since few songs make a million dollars.

Especially if that songwriter or musician has gone through a major label:

That report suggests that for every $1,000 sold, the average musician gets $23.40.

Of course, with the advent of the internet musicians and other artists now have the opportunity to market directly to their fan base, but ironically as that disruptive technology has been made available for the artist as marketer, so too has the disruptive technology of digitization risen, and it is digital that makes it so easy to pirate music and other art over the internet.

Further, your notion that a million dollar cap should be placed on a song so that afterward people can have the song for free means you expect x amount of people to pay for the product so you can have it for free. Imagine if everyone takes that view. No song will ever reach the million dollar mark and you're right back where you started from.

Here's an idea: For Christmas, Birthdays and other gift giving holidays, ask those you anticipate buying you gifts to purchase your favorite music. How's that?