Anti-piracy Group Fined For Using Song Without Permission

zacharye writes "Oh, the irony. A musicians' rights group in the Netherlands was fined this week for stealing music from a client, using it without his permission and failing to pay royalties. Music royalty collection agency Buma/Stemra approached Dutch musician Melchior Rietveldt in 2006 and asked him to create a composition that would be used in an anti-piracy advertisement, which the group said would be shown exclusively at a local film festival. One year later, Rietveldt purchased a Harry Potter DVD only to find that his piece was being used on DVDs around the world without his permission..."

Comments

According to the FBI it is "THEFT"

[kotku]

So we don't need to discuss this anymore. Copyright infringement is "THEFT"

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr

Preventing intellectual property theft is a top priority of the FBI’s cyber program. We specifically focus on the theft of trade secrets and infringements on products that can impact consumers’ health and safety, such as counterfeit aircraft, car, and electronic parts. Key to our success is linking the considerable resources and efforts of the private sector with law enforcement partners on local, state, federal, and international levels.

Re:According to the FBI it is "THEFT"

[h4rr4r]

When did the FBI get to decide that?

Under US law it is clearly not theft.

Re:Another case of "do what i say, and not what I

[drkstr1]

We are at a point in time where the sharing of ideas is almost instantaneous, and internationally reaching. Eliminating the concept of idea ownership will allow people to innovate at a faster pace, creating a richer (not necessarily wealthier) society. This of course would happen at the expense to business models that rely entirely on the concept of IP, and do not create any actual value in the process.

Artists, inventors, and creators, would still provide a service like any other profession. They can choose to start a business that utilizes their skill set, or go work for a company that knows how to efficiently capitalize on those skills. Your claim is that in either model, these people would [get the shaft]. If they are getting screwed in either model, why not choose the one that allows society to progress faster?

I would even go as far to say that without IP ownership, more artists would be able to earn a living wage. Why you ask? Because their sole means of income would no longer be in the hands of a monopolistic media empire which controls the entirety of mainstream distributions channels. That's a doubleplusgood for the model without IP.