I won't reveal to you the identity of the corporation, but how hard do you honestly think it would be to "pierce the corporate veil" of such a small company? My post is based on legal advice all company shareholders have received. A judge can rule that if a company's holdings aren't substantial, a plaintiff can go after officers and shareholders directly--in fact it's more likely the smaller the corporation's holdings are. I'm no corporate lawyer, which is why I defer to one, who told me all of this.
Um...I own 10% of a corporation (annual gross revenue < $150K/yr). You better believe I could get have damages awarded against me personally if the corporation lost a lawsuit to someone. Corporations are nothing more than organized groups of people. They are as capable of malice as they are of empathy (read: not at all).
Likewise, unions, such as the American Federation of Musicians (or whatever the British equivalent may be) is in place as another organized group of people (with equal freedom, right & opportunity). The whole unions vs. corporations thing is just a struggle between two groups of people with conflicting interests. I'm fed up with people complaining about both corporations and unions. It's the equivalent of blaming the the car that just cut you off instead of the driver.
Translation: "that is only true until society decides to steal it." By your rational, I should be able to download the source code to Windows XP and create a derivative product with no obligation to Microsoft.
I think you're confusing needs with wants, even if the arts did make Maslow's hierarchy. You can label it what you want, but do I believe that a person should have a monopoly over the products of the labor of his/her own mind? Absolutely.
Society has no right to something that someone has created. It is the property of the person/company that created it. As a composer and a software engineer, I deal in intellectual property. Why should I have any less a right to the product of my work than I do to any physical property I might purchase?
Right...we should start trampling people's intellectual property because society "needs" music that was not written, performed, recorded, produced or published by "society."
Next time someone writes a good piece of software, they'd better hope that "society" doesn't have a "need" for it as well...or if your pharmaceutical company invests millions of dollars into research and development, we should ALLOW you a proper window to make a profit on your investment before we force the drug into the generic market. I'm sure if there's a homeless problem in your city, you'd be more than happy to be told you must open your doors, kitchen and beds. You can still sleep there, we're just "balancing" the needs of a property owner with the needs of those who have no legal claim to the property.
Actually, you neither witnessed nor partook in copyright infringement. At least not in the US. Artists involved in a public performance are not liable to the copyright holders for royalties, the venue is. Only if the restaurant was not paying it's royalty fees did anything illegal take place. And it's the rights-collection agencies that would sue in that event (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC being the big three), not the RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
I won't reveal to you the identity of the corporation, but how hard do you honestly think it would be to "pierce the corporate veil" of such a small company? My post is based on legal advice all company shareholders have received. A judge can rule that if a company's holdings aren't substantial, a plaintiff can go after officers and shareholders directly--in fact it's more likely the smaller the corporation's holdings are. I'm no corporate lawyer, which is why I defer to one, who told me all of this.
Um...I own 10% of a corporation (annual gross revenue < $150K/yr). You better believe I could get have damages awarded against me personally if the corporation lost a lawsuit to someone. Corporations are nothing more than organized groups of people. They are as capable of malice as they are of empathy (read: not at all).
Likewise, unions, such as the American Federation of Musicians (or whatever the British equivalent may be) is in place as another organized group of people (with equal freedom, right & opportunity). The whole unions vs. corporations thing is just a struggle between two groups of people with conflicting interests. I'm fed up with people complaining about both corporations and unions. It's the equivalent of blaming the the car that just cut you off instead of the driver.
Translation: "that is only true until society decides to steal it." By your rational, I should be able to download the source code to Windows XP and create a derivative product with no obligation to Microsoft.
I think you're confusing needs with wants, even if the arts did make Maslow's hierarchy. You can label it what you want, but do I believe that a person should have a monopoly over the products of the labor of his/her own mind? Absolutely. Society has no right to something that someone has created. It is the property of the person/company that created it. As a composer and a software engineer, I deal in intellectual property. Why should I have any less a right to the product of my work than I do to any physical property I might purchase?
Right...we should start trampling people's intellectual property because society "needs" music that was not written, performed, recorded, produced or published by "society." Next time someone writes a good piece of software, they'd better hope that "society" doesn't have a "need" for it as well...or if your pharmaceutical company invests millions of dollars into research and development, we should ALLOW you a proper window to make a profit on your investment before we force the drug into the generic market. I'm sure if there's a homeless problem in your city, you'd be more than happy to be told you must open your doors, kitchen and beds. You can still sleep there, we're just "balancing" the needs of a property owner with the needs of those who have no legal claim to the property.
Actually, you neither witnessed nor partook in copyright infringement. At least not in the US. Artists involved in a public performance are not liable to the copyright holders for royalties, the venue is. Only if the restaurant was not paying it's royalty fees did anything illegal take place. And it's the rights-collection agencies that would sue in that event (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC being the big three), not the RIAA.