Slashdot Mirror
Eye of Tiger Composer Sues Gingrich To Stop Campaign From Using Song
First time accepted submitter Joe_Dragon writes "The composer of the Survivor hit Eye of the Tiger has sued Newt Gingrich to stop the Republican presidential candidate from using the Rocky III anthem at campaign events. The lawsuit was filed Monday in federal court in Chicago by Rude Music Inc., the Palatine-based music publishing company owned by Frank Sullivan, who, with Jim Peterik, composed the song and copyrighted it in 1982. The lawsuit states that as early as 2009, Gingrich has entered rallies and public events to the pulsing guitar riffs of the song. In a lengthy section of the five-page complaint, Rude's attorneys point out that Gingrich is well aware of copyright laws, noting he is listed as author or co-author of more than 40 published works and has earned between $500,000 to $1 million from Gingrich Productions, a company that sells his written work, documentaries and audio books. It also notes Gingrich's criticism of the 'Stop Online Piracy Act' during a recent debate in South Carolina, where Gingrich suggested the law was unnecessary because 'We have a patent office, we have copyright law. If a company finds it has genuinely been infringed upon, it has the right to sue.' The suit asks for an injunction to prevent Gingrich from using the song, as well as damages and attorneys' fees to be determined by the court."
Deep down inside they are suing because they don't like Gingrich. Just my guess though.
He's not generating profit from this.
He's not playing the entire performance of the song...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
We go through this every election cycle. Stop using music. Just shuffle off the stage. Maybe when you're awkwardly doing so, think about changing music copyright laws if you get elected?
<blatant partisan thinking>
the one good use of coyright law
</blatant partisan thinking>
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
He needs a more appropriate song.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
More likely than not, he's registered with BMI or ASCAP. You can purchase global rights through those agencies. I'm fairly certain Gingrinch's campaign has dotted that 'i' and crossed that 't'.
If he hasn't then by all means tear him up - I hate the guy myself. But his is likely a case of a composer wanting to distance themselves from the politician who likes their music. That's not exactly a new phenomena by any stretch of the imagination.
So many times, it happens too fast
You trade your passion for glory
File take down notices and get the web sites black listed.
Interesting etiology: The word privilege comes from private law.
Newt and those in his circle have it, and aren't used to being told they have to follow the same rules that the rest of us do.
Check your premises.
Is that Jim Peterik, the co-author, is not suing, and doesn't mind that Gingrich uses it... "Chicago-born Frankie Sullivan co-authored the Grammy award-winning song with fellow Survivor founding member Jim Peterik. However, Peterik is not party to the lawsuit and reportedly said that he didn't have a problem with Gingrich using it, according to a Sun Times report." http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/290196/20120131/gingrich-sued-copyright-infringement-eye-tiger-rocky.htm
There Can Be Only One...
*grumbles at spell checker*
Check your premises.
I guess they don't sue on behalf of actual artists.
I don't know why they don't check for permission first. Besides, Grinch Neutron hardly strikes me as a "Tiger". He probably should have contacted Ted Nugent and got the rights to "Cat Scratch Fever", would have suited him better.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
That's pretty bad. Those guys haven't had a hit since Day-Glo Reeboks were still in style.
On the upside, the Gingrich campaign offered him a settlement of 1 month's rent and a case of Thunderbird.
Seriously, if you're a Republican, wouldn't it be much wiser to use Country music anyway? It's not like any Republican has ever gotten tired of hearing "God Bless the USA."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I wonder if Sullivan bothered to simply send a letter to Gingrich asking him to stop using it? After all, it's been YEARS... sounds similar to a submarine patent, right? If Gingrich ignored such a request, then he's got it coming to him. I would feel pretty slimy using a song if I knew the composer didn't like it. That being said, he might be rationalizing a bit since co-writer Peterik is OK with it. I'm not sure what bearing Peterik's wishes have on this, as I don't know if he has a share in Rude Music.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Methinks you have never heard the song. Your other inferences are likely just as invalid.
I'm surprised candidates haven't already started paying composers to write theme music for their campaigns. It's so similar to pro wrestling, maybe Gingrich could have a shot at the belt in the sequel if he doesn't make prez!
Maybe he should try Weird Al's "Theme from Rocky XIII(The Rye or the Kaiser)". Not only is it more appropriate, Weird Al might let them use it for free.
Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
Why wouldn't a political candidate double check to make sure that the composers/artists/etc responsible for music their using in their campaign is, at worst, neutral towards them?
Because, quite frankly, if I had total legal control over a piece of art that some dickwad I didn't like was appropriating for PR purposes, my first instinct would be to do my own counter-PR version and dump it on whichever public channels I could find.
For instance, a youtube video set to "Eye of the Tiger" which just shows a picture of Gingrinch on a punching bag being pummeled by various disadvantaged types with captions explaining their beefs against him and the Republican party might be an effective way to develop a negative association between him and the song.
Why in the world would a political campaign risk pissing someone off like that?
Log in or piss off.
By the same logic, Gingrich should write his own song.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
American Idol, Jersey Shore, Survivor, America's got Talent, etc.... are all huge hits, and yet you think Newt's not electable for the reasons you listed? The GENERAL population loves people with those qualifications. They don't realize that they make horrible LEADERS.
There's no indication whether or not the song is paid for through the standard licensing. To assume it is, is as unjustified as to assume it isn't. Politicians tend to assume everything they do is fair use as in http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/01/29/2015203/romney-invokes-fair-use-in-dispute-with-nbc-over-campaign-ad. Unfortunately, without that information, the article is pointless.
Artist with existing contract doesn't like what happened to his song, with no information about existing contract.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
Every election season, this comes up. A politician licenses music from one of the performance rights organizations (often ASCAP). The artist (or, really, the composer) gets all upset and either sues or threatens to sue. He has no claim, but just does it for political reasons.
... he was more of a Dead Kennedys fan anyway....
Check your premises.
I wonder if the FBI will start an investigation. This seems to be quite a public case of copyright infringement. It could even be called a conspiracy!
Then they could freeze all his assets, as well as those of his campaign. Just until the trial is over of course. I'm sure keeping him in jail for a few months won't cause any permanent damage to his career.
I don't follow.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
See, if we had just let SOPA get enacted, then they would have an easy route to shut Gingrich down, now we'll actually have to use our votes to do it. Damnit, i didn't want to have to work for this country to run!
I was born in the USA .....
who where what when now?
So how long till political campaigns get a fair use exception written into law? They did it for the do not call list after all.
No sir I dont like it.
By any sane measure, it's been long in public domain.
If the venue (or more likely the campaign for a traveling show) has an ASCAP license (that song is under ASCAP IIRC) of the correct type, then how is a public performance of a recorded version a violation?
Maybe there's something I'm not seeing, but I don't see how the case has anything behind it. Is there a clause in ASCAP contracts about use being denied when it is a political event?
The ASCAP licensing I've dealt with is for festival type licensing so there may be nuances I don't know.
Sure, if it had been used in a video production without a synchronization license, but I'd hope any video producer worth their salt would have gotten one.
No, ugnaughts have useful technical skills.
David Byrne had something like this happen a couple years back. Of course he won (if it's not in the journal). Again, if it's not in there, something to point out: This happens ALL THE TIME, but many artists don't have the money or cajones to fight it.
http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2010/05/052510-yours-truly-vs-the-governor-of-florida.html
It makes an interesting point: we go on about copyright, yet here's a song 30 years old and still incredibly recognizable. It is an enduring work. Should it get protection or shouldn't it? How do we determine what has been marked indelibly into the lexicon of American Culture, should we compensate people for that?
-
At the time, the Democrats were the party of racism, trying to keep the blacks in their place. The Republicans were the party fighting racism, in large part originally founded on the abolitionist platform.
This whole supposed flip-flop on who's racist only happened with Nixon's Southern Strategy. Until then, the Democrats were the party of the KKK. Remember Robert Byrd saying you couldn't be in Democratic politics down South unless you were KKK?
Actually, the Native Americans welcomed the white men. That's why so many of us have mixed blood. Or, did you think that all mixed breed Americans were the result of rape?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Every time this happens, I wish that the politician in question finally opens his or her eyes to how out of whack our fair use has gotten. But in the end they just want to be special and be allowed to do the things they think we the people should not be able to do.
And after all, they are special. They work for the corporations.
Perhaps you've seen the movie Idiocracy? :)
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
For example, a talk show radio host. He plays various intro and exit music, definitely covered under payments.
But what if he picks a song as his theme song and plays it constantly? I wouldn't think that would be covered under ASCAP any more than someone wanting to use a song in a movie.
Sounds like Newt's using it as his theme.
...who are so deeply offended by the use of "their" music by the "wrong" people:
If you sell your song to agents/distributors who you legally empower to pimp that music to be used as theme music in movies, in Muzak versions in elevators, and in waiting rooms, don't be surprised that they ALSO pimp that music to political organizations that are offering decent $$.
In fact, unless you have a rider in your contract that allows you some special control over said distribution and the right to nay-say certain clients for whatever reason (you don't like their business, their politics, the color of their hair) then you haven't got shit legal basis for your suit and can pretty much fuck off.
- The people that pay you.
-Styopa
That is overly simplistic. "Native Americans" are a lot of people. No doubt being people means that they had a lot of different views on the people showing up on their borders. Irrelevant of who were the "good guys" and who were the "bad guys", there were clearly many Indians that were not only very unhappy with the presence of Europeans, but were willing to both kill and die to protect their borders.
How does Gingrich stand on SOPA/PIPA/ACTA? Irony at its finest.
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
Really... 8 years of W, and you think he COULDN'T get elected?
In other news, a new bill has been introduced that exempts political candidates from using copyrighted works in their political ads. This will join the existing bill that exempts the idiots from telemarketing rules so they can call you whenever the hell they want with a recorded message asking for your vote. (Because I form all my political judgments from 30-second pre-recorded phone calls...)
There's no place like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5zAAASsuyk&feature=related
How long before a law gets passed that exempts politicians from copyright restraint?
It's a standard procedure to pass a law and then exempt themselves anyway.
In the mean time, any of them can feel free to use the following:
(to the beat of "I like Big Butts")
I'm a rich, white guy and I sure can lie!
I don't talk to brothers (you know why!)
A lobbyist walks in I gotta get a little taste
of the cash that's in my face,
I get sprung, wanna pull in the dough
It gets me so hot you know!
It's for power and cash that I'm caring
I'm hooked and I won't be sharing
I'm a real Good Ol' Boys fixture,
So now do ya get da picture?
Massive apologies to Sir Mix-A-Lot...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Funniest part of the story : "Eye of the tiger" was written is because stallone couldn't get the right to "Another one bite the dust". Maybe Gingrich should just commision a new version (or get the right to another one bite the dust :)).
I think Henry Rollins should sue to force him to use that song. He could use the argument that, since it's clearly piracy if a person fails to buy music (according to the RIAA), it must also be copyright infringement if a candidate fails to license a song.
I think he might even have enough absurdist leanings to give it a go, just for chuckles.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Why should somebody profit indefinitely from a work they produced years ago? It makes no sense.
Umm so why should the publisher profit indefinitely from that same work without the creator getting any of it? That makes even less sense.
Some work generates revenue for decades. Sorry, but it does. That money's going to flow somewhere, so who is better entitled to it?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
And why is this on Slashdot?
Political news for nerds now?
A lot of times such song use is in fact licensed. Usually through a licensing company which is contracted with publishing companies to license use.
In otherwords, I as an artist signs with SONY Records. Who contracts with MyPlay music licensing. I who am an event organizer pays MyPlay an annual fee to use any of the songs in their licensed music library. I am then hired by New Gingrich's campaign team.
So Newt pays the event entity who pays the license firm who pays the royalty house who in turn pays the artist.
Then when the artist finds out their song is being used by someone they don't like they decry theft, theft. But usually it's the case that it was licensed, licensed through a complicated chain that is basically how music is licensed in our society.
People who oppose said event side with artist, decrying "them there evil bass tards (fish poop)". Those who side with the other party sit there pondering, it's just how the system works. And it's how the artist gets paid. And if the average whiner self-absorbed artist only licensed their music to people they liked, no one would be able to ever license music because they're constantly offended by everything.
Hence, record labels handle that exericising of rights. Otherwise, artists would receive no license fees and starve to death.
Government officials should be held accountable to the laws they create and enforce. This is *ESPECIALLY* true when the law is a bad law that blocks people from doing things that are completely reasonable. That helps ensure that "they" feel the same pain as "us," which in turn furthers the cause of getting the bad laws corrected.
One law for them and another for us is a basic ingredient of tyranny.
I do not see the point of allowing unskilled people into our borders. Why would we do that? For what purpose?
Oh, I don't know. Perhaps because they are people who, like you, and want to live in a free country where you have a chance to pursue your dreams. If you look at America's history, immigrants seem to be hard working and ambitious. Quite frankly, we could use more of that right now, and not just a bunch of stupid complacence idiots who think the most important thing to be focusing on is teaching creationism in schools.
By your logic, shouldn't we expel all the white people who are unskilled, and let in all the African, Hispanic, Asian, and Arabic people who are educated and skilled? Go see how that flies with the Republican party.
Unless you are of native American descent, you have no fucking right to complain about the immigrants anyway, seeing as how you are one...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Yes - of course. But, let's not forget that the natives had spent millenia killing each other too.
Off on a tangent with that now. The "big news" in "immigration" (or, alternatively, "invasion") issues are Mexicans. Or, Azteca. Funny that today's Azteca seem to claim the land that they attempted to take by way of genocide for a thousand years before the white man came. "We killed millions of Apache before you whites ever showed up, so it should be OUR land!"
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
In other words, if the Gingrich Campaign is paid up with ASCAP, they can play Eye of the Tiger all they want, even if the writers of that song disagree vehemently with Mr. Gingrinch's politics. The writers could go their own and not deal with ASCAP, which I kind of doubt they did, and hence retain more control over their works, but then they are on their own and lack ASCAP's "muscle" in getting the tithe paid.
If the Gingrich people are not paid up with ASCAP or BMI, well, some lame capitalists they are and Mr. Gingrinch doesn't deserve to run for President on account of legal ignorance.
Romney's use of that news footage in an advertisement is likely Fair Use.
I disagree with that assessment, as I've posted in recent discussions on the issue.
I'd be curious to know why you think the Romney campaign ad is fair use. Keep in mind that the various purposes mentioned for fair use - e.g., criticism and comment - must (as far as I know) specifically be aimed at the work in question. I.e., if you are quoting or duplicating a copyright work to criticize or comment on that copyrighted work, that's fair use (this is why parody is allowed). But if you're just quoting or duplicating it in order to criticize or comment on something else, that's not (necessarily) fair use. Otherwise pretty much anything would be fair use, since anything can be viewed as "commentary."
The Romney ad did not copy and rebroadcast the NBC news clip to comment on the clip itself. They rebroadcast it to criticize Newt Gingrich, which they could have (and have) done in myriad other ways. In order to build a case for fair use, it's always helpful to show why you specifically needed to quote/copy that particular portion for that particular length (you'll note that Wikipedia does this for virtually all its fair use images).
The Romney ad lifted basically a full 30 seconds out of a 22 minute broadcast... maybe it's only quantitatively 2%, but qualitatively, it would likely be considered the "heart of the work" - i.e., the most important part of the broadcast (the lead story).
"Free speech" justifications don't hold water; SCOTUS has repeatedly emphasized that the right to free speech does not mean you have the right to use specific copyrighted works as part of that speech (most recently in Golan v. Holder).
Also as I've posted before, I'm just expressing my opinion about the current content and interpretation of copyright law, not what I think it should be. Personally I think that type of use should be allowed, but my reading of the current situation is that it is not.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Other than the Taliban, there cannot be another movement more out of sync with real Rock n' Roll attitudes than the GOP. Hell, they're even against the act of what that phrase originally referred to.
If there were any poetic justice in the world, the Republican party would only be allowed to use empty, jingoistic, might-makes-right music - known more commonly as Country.
If you've embraced the hide-bound, misogynistic, corporatist world-view of the right, you are not allowed to use the cool music. No. Not yours.
Umm so why should the publisher profit indefinitely from that same work without the creator getting any of it?
Perhaps the creator should have demanded better compensation from the publisher when providing said work to the publisher? Or better yet, perhaps the creator shouldn't plan to make money selling copies of their work, but on actually 'creating' work.
You pay a lower price to see a Pink Floyd Tribute band than you do Pink Floyd. Why? Because one is more valuable than the other. A copy isn't the same thing as the original creation.
Some work generates revenue for decades. Sorry, but it does.
Yes, the issue is whether it should be locked up/monopolized by one party or allowed to the greater society for use by anyone to further expand on it. All works will create revenue for as long as they exist whether they are 'free' or not.
That money's going to flow somewhere, so who is better entitled to it?
Perhaps the greater good of culture and society...which is what copyright is supposed to be supporting?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Once the copyright has expired on the recording couldn't anyone publish it?
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Look how well that turned out for them. We stole this land, fair and square.
Perhaps the creator should have demanded better compensation from the publisher when providing said work to the publisher? Or better yet, perhaps the creator shouldn't plan to make money selling copies of their work, but on actually 'creating' work.
Umm... okay, that doesn't account for the fact that some content generates revenue for years.
Yes, the issue is whether it should be locked up/monopolized by one party or allowed to the greater society for use by anyone to further expand on it.
I agree with shortening the copyright term. It's silly. However, the "it's not a real job" argument is, for lack of a better term, dumb. Cut him out of the profits generated from the content he's created and all you've done is hurt the little guy and give more money to the corps. Brilliant.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
If the argument is supposed to be that copyrights are too long, then arguing that authors/songwriters/etc should get a real job is downright confusing.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Newt Gingrich is using this song? Well, then it is clearly legally protected parody.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
You're right. Whenever someone writes a new song, we should just pay them millions of dollars up front and make it public domain immediately.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
This.
In this specific case the issue isn't whether copyrights would be infringed upon since this work would still be covered under the original copyright before it was extended out to the ridiculous term is currently sits at. If this were an issue where the great grand children of the composers were coming out and saying "stop using pappy's work" then that point about "get a job" might we valid, but since this is about the actual creators saying "this asshole can't use our song" then it's less a matter of them not having a job or content creation and more a matter of "we don't want this douche to give our song a bad name while we have something to say about it"
I got here through a series of tubes
Great idea; I'm going to write me an RV this evening!
So he's Rocky from Rocky V then?
The profit from a copy argument is still a vestige of the pre-digital days of music labels controlling everything. There are no profits from copied digital works. They cost nothing to create and and can be infinitely created. They have no value in and of themselves.
There are profits to be made from 'convenient delivery' of digital works...see iTunes. There are profits to be made using digital works to drive people to buy scarce physical things like concert tickets, t-shirts and other merchandise.
See xkcd.com. A free online comic that built up enough fans to be able to sell physical copies of something that is widely available for free. LOLCats is another site doing fairly well by providing something for free.
The little guy has never had it so good as today. The old gate keepers (RIAA/MPAA/publishers) that controlled who would be successful and who wouldn't are becoming irrelevant.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Yep, these guys have short memories...
I liked Charlie's court mandated apology though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4k13LmlcUE
They cost nothing to create...
This is not true.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Eye of the Liger? hmm...hmmm?
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Show me any significant cost in creating a 'copy' of a digital file, that wouldn't already have been spent by the computer already being turned on. Any cost of electricity or wear on the equipment is so small as to be utterly meaningless.
Original content certainly costs money to create, but digital COPIES of that content do not cost anything to create.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
My bad, I thought you meant the cost to create the content.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Is he legally bound to ask or does he just do it to stay on everyones good side?
that they're getting some air time and some sales from an otherwise dead listing. Seriously, when was the last time you heard that song other than a late night umpteenth time Rockie rerun?
What would you do If you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom? What would you do If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice?
Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
He could have Gingrich web sites removed from the net without bothering with going to court!
This would have been the mother of all wake up call for politicians supporting legislation such as ACTA/PIPA/SOPA.
et les Shadoks pompaient...
Perhaps the greater good of culture and society...which is what copyright is supposed to be supporting?
Jesus Fucking Christ, this is a retarded argument.
Generally speaking, copyright does support the greater good of culture and society. The money that's not going to the artist at least goes to a publisher who was willing to support the artist at some point.
If it's just a free-for-all, then who does that money go to? Even shadier individuals and the viagra/online dating/porn/gambling scumbags that enable them.
That diversion of money does not enrich culture and society, it impoverishes it.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Jesus Fucking Christ, this is a retarded argument.
No it's not. It's literally the very definition of copyright. It is a limited time monopoly so that after such time passes society reaps the *entire* benefit of it being freely available for use by anyone however they see fit.
The definition of 'benefit' are not limited to 'money'.
That diversion of money does not enrich culture and society, it impoverishes it.
I would fully agree that RIAA/MPAA are impoverishing society by their very existence yes.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Yes - of course. But, let's not forget that the natives had spent millenia killing each other too.
Kind of like the European tribes kept doing even after they started invading this country. What's this mentality that seems to think that the Native Americans were less civilized than the Europeans, because they were not a united nation across the continent? That's stupid.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
You've read something into my post that I didn't put there. Did I perhaps suggest that the white men hadn't spent the same millenia killing each other? Could you point that out, if it is in my post? Did I suggest that the white men had a single, continent spanning nation in Europe? Did I somehow suggest that the white man's culture was any more homogenous than the native's?
Just like Europe, some of the natives were rather civilized, and others were less civilized.
What the Native Americans lacked was TECHNOLOGY! And, the thing that killed of more natives than anything else was disease. They certainly weren't lacking for civilization.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Religious bigotry is just as offensive when so-called liberals do it - you may not always be as vehement about it as right-wingers are, but you're also supposed to know better than they do, and be better people than they are.
Also, your insults show that you really weren't paying attention during the '00s. Religious right-wingers didn't take over the party, neocons and machine politicians like Rove and Norquist did, and they pushed all the religious conservatives' big well-marked buttons to get them to become politically active right-wingers, just as they pushed all the buttons of the anti-debt folks (after Bush was done tripling the national debt and leaving Obama with a huge deficit, a couple of wars, and a broken financial industry to bail out.) They were at some risk of losing them in the 2005-2007 time frame, and if you read moderate-liberal sources like The Huffington Post, you'd have seen articles about how the religious conservatives were starting to notice that the political right-wingers had been using them, getting votes, and not giving anything significant back.
During the Tea Party / Anti-KenyanMuslimFurriner-Obama Election period, the Republican machine was able to give them something to come back to that didn't feel quite like the same old politicians using them, and the current election campaign has been mostly about the machine telling the right-wingers that their job was to get Republicans re-elected, not to actually influence policy, so they should shut up and vote for Romney now because none of the actual right-wingers are electable.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Of course it's ok to be talking against both sides of the issue - Newt always does!
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
One law for them and another for us is a basic ingredient of tyranny.
I've read "Three Felonies a Day" and am now reading "It's Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong". Both, highly recommended to understand the nature of the environment that we are currently in.
Personally, I feel that the definition of "treason" should include "participating in the creation of unconstitutional laws." But good luck getting that passed, as the ones that would need to pass it are the ones creating unconstitutional laws.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
No it's not. It's literally the very definition of copyright. It is a limited time monopoly so that after such time passes society reaps the *entire* benefit of it being freely available for use by anyone however they see fit.
Huh? Where did I say it shouldn't be time limited. What I was responding to was your argument that the money shouldn't be flowing to the creator/owner, but rather some undefined "somebody else" for the benefit of society.
My argument is that without copyright law, that "somebody else" who is benefiting is likely to be shady actors like Megaupload, etc. So, how does that benefit society and the arts?
I would fully agree that RIAA/MPAA are impoverishing society by their very existence yes.
When did I mention them? You are aware that one can copyright works without being involved in the RIAA/MPAA cartels, right?
... and then they built the supercollider.
I was born in the USA .....
I wonder if anyone ever told Ronnie what that song was really about.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
What I was responding to was your argument that the money shouldn't be flowing to the creator/owner, but rather some undefined "somebody else" for the benefit of society.
Then you misunderstood my point. I didn't say the money would flow to 'someone else' I said the 'benefits' would go to society as a whole. Benefit does not have to equal money. Moreover, the artist can make plenty of money without selling 'copies' of his work. If he goes this route there can be no money flowing to other people because copies of his work can be freely available and infinite - in the digital world. And this actual 'work' can't be pirated at all. It's a scarce resource unlike infinite digital copies.
The musician actually plays music for a living.
The photographer actually takes pictures for a living.
The artist paints works of art people commission.
Writers can get their works widely known with little to no monetary investment. See xkcd.com as one example of moving from free to making money.
ThePirateBay site recently offered to freely advertise for artists. How much is being publicly shown on the tpb home page to a millions of people a day worth? That kind of advertising normally costs real serious money. It no longer does.
When did I mention them? You are aware that one can copyright works without being involved in the RIAA/MPAA cartels, right?
You mentioned that siphoning off money does not enrich society and I simply pointed out that the 2 biggest proponents of copyright maximalism themselves siphon massive amounts of money out of the system. When the 'defenders' of copyright completely meet your definition of the bad things that would happen if copyright didn't exist, it sort of makes you wonder whether they are actually helping. Sort of like how the LucasFilms literally claims Star Wars - Return of the Jedi was not a profitable movie. Seriously they claim it 'lost' money based on their accounting tricks.
Copyright has been extended to a permanent monopoly. Literally *no* works entered the public domain this year. That's not benefiting society. Heck they are retroactively removing works currently in the public and putting them back under copyright.
Copyright is fundamentally broken. It has been broken by greedy corporations Disney chief among them. The idea of copyright is reasonable. What we have for copyright today is a perversion of what it is supposed to be.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
You're begging the question. You have not demonstrated why any work should generate revenues for decades, which is the question that must be satisfied before any consideration of "where should it go" is undertaken.
The idea of copyright is reasonable. What we have for copyright today is a perversion of what it is supposed to be.
No fucking shit. So, why not make that argument, rather than the trollish rubbish you first advanced?
... and then they built the supercollider.
So, why not make that argument, rather than the trollish rubbish you first advanced?
Rather ironic coming from someone who jumped into this thread with
;-)
"Jesus Fucking Christ, this is a retarded argument."
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people