MAFIAA: They should pay damages for our fictional 70 trillion lost sales from piracy!
Judge: Ok, you can have the fictional pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
OH DID HE NOW? His lovely ex-wifey, who is the bitch responsible for the "forever minus a day" quote, is still a Congresswoman, and is in fact a co-sponsor of SOPA.
That doctrine doesn't apply because like I said UMG and the artists in the video never owned any "property" related to that song, and because what you say only applies to real property. Thanks for playing.
You only read half my comment -- how typical of someone like you. You missed the other half that says the artists in question would never own any copyright in this song in the first place.
Wtf are model rights? Do you mean publicity rights? Do you think there's any chance that paying those artists to endorse Mega's brand didn't already cover that aspect? And besides, that still doesn't justify the use of the DMCA in this way.
The DMCA can't be used for tort claims. Performance rights are owned by the composer/lyricist of the song, not the performer, so again it's owned by Megaupload. In fact, I can't think of a single aspect of copyright that UMG could conceivably claim ownership to.
The vast majority of label contracts are not work-for-hire contracts and signed artists are not generally considered label employees -- I would be very surprised if these artists are exceptions to the rule.
The automatic copyright on the video was assigned to the cameraman('s employer) and nobody else could have a stake in it -- including the people in the video. Even if those artists have exclusivity agreements with UMG, the artists never owned a copyright on this video and therefore neither would UMG under any private agreement.
I think it's you who's not understanding. If the artists signed an exclusivity agreement (i.e., a contract between two parties) and then violated that agreement, the label can sue the artists but not the people who hired those artists. Moreover, the "automatic" copyright on that video is legally assigned to whoever was holding the camera, not to the artist. Assuming the cameraman had a work-for-hire agreement with Megaupload, then the rights to the song belong 100% to Megaupload.
So? That may mean they have a contract issue with those artists and they can sue them, but that doesn't change the status of the copyright on the song. The fraudulent takedown notices were a clear abuse of the DMCA.
Hypercard/HyperTalk lived on in the Lingo scripting language that is still used in Macromedia Director (Adobe/Shockwave). Of course, I'm sure it must have changed a lot since v4 (~1992) when I saw it last...
What the Anonymous Coward described sounds like Kickstarter's business model to me, which appears to be working reasonably well for a lot of rather unknown artists (but NB, how you present your work can make or break your call for funding!).
To answer your question, you'll probably want to give your potential readers a glimpse of what you are trying to sell them before they buy, for instance by releasing the first few chapters of your book so they can evaluate your writing ability and get a taste of the storyline/characters (which is more than they'd normally get, as in the traditional model they'd pay up front only to find out later if what they bought was just abysmal, over-marketed drivel). Of course, if it doesn't work out at first, you'll just need to persist! Don't lose heart and throw your book out; if your book is good, you'll get there eventually.
Also, I highly recommend Joe Konrath's blog, who is a very intelligent and successful self-published writer using such business models.
Slashdot Mirror
MAFIAA: They should pay damages for our fictional 70 trillion lost sales from piracy!
Judge: Ok, you can have the fictional pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
No no no, in America copyright owns you. In Slovakia, copyright knows its place.
And how do you know they don't have a license to put that up???
OH DID HE NOW? His lovely ex-wifey, who is the bitch responsible for the "forever minus a day" quote, is still a Congresswoman, and is in fact a co-sponsor of SOPA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bono_Mack
You should be out selling them pepper spray. It's a food product essentially.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/09051617180/law-firms-removing-their-name-sopa-supporters-list-sopa-support-crumbling.shtml
They can try to clone it, but maaan, imagine the IP that must be crammed into that thing!
That doctrine doesn't apply because like I said UMG and the artists in the video never owned any "property" related to that song, and because what you say only applies to real property. Thanks for playing.
You only read half my comment -- how typical of someone like you. You missed the other half that says the artists in question would never own any copyright in this song in the first place.
Megaupload paid those artists for their endorsement, and consent was no doubt given in whatever boilerplate release form they had them sign.
Wtf are model rights? Do you mean publicity rights? Do you think there's any chance that paying those artists to endorse Mega's brand didn't already cover that aspect? And besides, that still doesn't justify the use of the DMCA in this way.
Nope. The performers don't get a copyright on the performance, the guy recording them does.
Ehm, does that have ANYTHING to do with who owns the copyright on the song and whether the DMCA takedown was legal?
The DMCA can't be used for tort claims. Performance rights are owned by the composer/lyricist of the song, not the performer, so again it's owned by Megaupload. In fact, I can't think of a single aspect of copyright that UMG could conceivably claim ownership to.
The vast majority of label contracts are not work-for-hire contracts and signed artists are not generally considered label employees -- I would be very surprised if these artists are exceptions to the rule.
The automatic copyright on the video was assigned to the cameraman('s employer) and nobody else could have a stake in it -- including the people in the video. Even if those artists have exclusivity agreements with UMG, the artists never owned a copyright on this video and therefore neither would UMG under any private agreement.
I think it's you who's not understanding. If the artists signed an exclusivity agreement (i.e., a contract between two parties) and then violated that agreement, the label can sue the artists but not the people who hired those artists. Moreover, the "automatic" copyright on that video is legally assigned to whoever was holding the camera, not to the artist. Assuming the cameraman had a work-for-hire agreement with Megaupload, then the rights to the song belong 100% to Megaupload.
And suckless? Nah.
So? That may mean they have a contract issue with those artists and they can sue them, but that doesn't change the status of the copyright on the song. The fraudulent takedown notices were a clear abuse of the DMCA.
Chemistry's periodic table can soon welcome livermorium and flerovium, two newly named elements
Welcome welcome! Would you like some Ti?
It pays to be unprofessional.
Hypercard/HyperTalk lived on in the Lingo scripting language that is still used in Macromedia Director (Adobe/Shockwave). Of course, I'm sure it must have changed a lot since v4 (~1992) when I saw it last...
That needs to be made into a South Park episode!
the Philippines is a much smaller destination for outsourcing more broadly — India earns about 10 times as much revenue from outsourcing
Which figures, because India has more than 10 times the population of the Philippines.
Is it an Autobot or a Decepticon?
What the Anonymous Coward described sounds like Kickstarter's business model to me, which appears to be working reasonably well for a lot of rather unknown artists (but NB, how you present your work can make or break your call for funding!).
To answer your question, you'll probably want to give your potential readers a glimpse of what you are trying to sell them before they buy, for instance by releasing the first few chapters of your book so they can evaluate your writing ability and get a taste of the storyline/characters (which is more than they'd normally get, as in the traditional model they'd pay up front only to find out later if what they bought was just abysmal, over-marketed drivel). Of course, if it doesn't work out at first, you'll just need to persist! Don't lose heart and throw your book out; if your book is good, you'll get there eventually.
Also, I highly recommend Joe Konrath's blog, who is a very intelligent and successful self-published writer using such business models.