This states my point exactly. This is PRECISELY what the contracts state now.
Evidence, my friend, evidence. Present me with such.
BTW, downloading is NOT illegal. Making a CDR of music is not illegal. File-sharing is not illegal. It BECOMES illegal when you do it without the permission of the copyright holder.
Uh... no shit.
I'm certain any responsible attorney would instruct a musical group not to sign a contract like that, but artists making $100 a week don't tend to have the cash to retain the services of an attorney, and when you have the option to sign your rights away for an opportunity to become famous and make a living off of what you love to do, or continue to struggle, what choice do you really have?
If an artist is making $100 a week, that artist isn't popular or talented enough to get signed.
Bands that get signed are making decent amounts of money playing at clubs and getting people to come to shows. And bands at that level usually have managers, who are hired to manage their bookings and legal stuff -- like running recording contracts past lawyers before they are signed.
So, while I'm sure you have the interests of the artists in mind, your view of the artists and what actually happens in reality is incorrect.
Your information is good, but how many artists know to educate themselves about these kinds of issues BEFORE the contract comes? The most compelling horror-stories I hear are from artists that have been in the business for more than 5 years, the ones that finally learn exactly what they gave up to gain the possibility of fame.
OK, I'll call you on it. Which artists? Who are they? What are their compelling horror stories?
But don't believe me. Google Janis Ian, and read what SHE has to say about the RIAA and copyrights. Janis has been in the business for over 40 years, so I think her oppinion matters a whole hell of a lot more than yours or mine.
Einstein was involved in physics for almost as long, and he was wrong about a lot of things (like the existence of black holes, for example.) It doesn't matter how long she's been in "the biz" for, she can still be wrong about some things -- and in my opinion, she is.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong. First off it is an oversimplification to expect all recording contracts to be the same.
Sure, amounts and durations will vary, but there are certain things that are the same in every recording contract.
But ultimately, most of them indeed include a signing away of all rights for any songs produced,
Only recordings, not the actual songs. Otherwise, bands would have to pay royalties to the record companies on their own songs every time they performed them, or if they released a live album through another label later in their career.
plus future songs,
See above.
plus the artists name,
Really? Then how did all these bands switch labels? How did, as a particular example, Rush move from Mercury Records (PolyGram) to Atlantic records and get to keep their name?
and anything else Mr Record Executive can think of.
Why bother? See above.
Artists have even been sued later for making songs that sounded like they were the same style as the kind of songs they used to sing for a record label.
You can't just say something completely outlandish like that without facts to back it up. Please, either present facts, or stop spreading your misinformation.
Essentially, if you sign with a label, they own you, your soul, and everything you will ever be. If you are lucky, you might get a small advance with that.
They own the rights to all recordings you create for the duration of the contract. I don't see how that involves anybody's soul or essence of being. What the hell are you talking about?
Most artists, of course are not even "lucky' enough to sign a record deal. But if they dare to distribute MP3's of their own work, not having signed a deal with any record label, the RIAA bots attack them and their fans and sue them into oblivion.
Again, what the hell are you talking about? I have distributed my own MP3's. I have helped other bands distribute their MP3's. I know a lot of people, in fact, that distribute MP3's of their own material in an effort to get their music heard.
WHERE ARE THE "RIAA BOTS"?
Seriously, do you have ANY IDEA what you are talking about? You make all these wild claims and refuse to back them up with PROOF, a necessary pre-requisite for being taken seriously.
AzOz.com sure does look like a reliable source of information, with headlines like "Downloading is NOT Illegal -- How to Avoid the Foreign Terrorists".
People like you are brainwashed by all of this anti-"M$", anti-RIAA, anti-everything rhetoric that is being published (and I use the word published very, very loosely) all over the Internet.
But now, I am going to do you a favor, and present ACTUAL FACTS to you. Make sure you read them, and understand them.
The copyright held on any particular recording is completely separate from the copyright held for the actual song that the recording was made from.
If you knew how record contracts work, the "work for hire" in the record contracts refer to the actual recordings, not to the underlying songs.
An example for you: Powerslave, by Iron Maiden. The record is copyrighted by EMI Records, Ltd. The songs themselves are copyrighted by Iron Maiden (Holdings), Ltd. They are two separate entities with two separate copyrights.
Here is where you are going to insist that I am wrong (without any kind of evidence) and that you are correct. But, I'm going to cut you off right there, and insist that you prove that I am wrong. Answer these questions for me:
1) Since the rights to the songs belong to a record label, why doesn't the band have to pay the label a royalty every time they perform the song? If you know anything about the law, you have to pay a royalty every time you perform a copyrighted work. (A good reference for this is
2) Since the rights to the songs belong to the record label, why doesn't the band have to pay royalties to the record label if they switch labels and then perform a song later in their career, and record that song for a live album?
You won't be able to answer those, because you're wrong. The song-writers retain the copyright to their songs, UNLESS they have a clause in their contracts that says otherwise.
But this doesn't happen. From a practical standpoint, it would destroy your music career if you signed the rights to your songs away -- what if the record label dumped you? ANY LAWYER would tell you not sign a contract with a clause like that.
DiscMakers writes about this kind of crap all the time in their newsletters.
Harry Fox Agency represents over 27,000 music publishers for licensing and monitoring services -- are there 27,000 RIAA record labels?
So, I did some reading -- AzOz is full of propaganda.
I, however, have been at this music thing for quite a while, I've done my homework for years, and I know what the facts are.
First, as an example, look at any RIAA affiliated CD you own that has the lyric sheet. You will see "lyrics reprinted by permission" or some such. This is because the band is giving the record company permission to reprint the lyrics.
The reason they can give permission is because the band, not the record company, owns the lyrics. Not to mention the score, i.e. they own the song. Not the record company.
You'll also see things like "songs published by ", and that company you never heard of is actually a legal entity of some sort (maybe a partnership, maybe an actual corporation) that is made up of one or more members of the band.
The RIAA companies don't sign bands to give them songs, they sign them to recording contracts -- i.e., they pay the band for their recordings.
Now, the only thing stopping a band from re-recording those songs is that the record company may (probably does) have a clause that says "you can't release recordings through any other company or through yourself for the duration of this contract".
So if a band is in a 3 year deal, they're stuck with that company. If the company drops them, or their contract expires, while they may not have the rights to the original recordings, they have the rights to the songs, so nothing is stopping them from re-recording.
So... if a band signed to a RIAA company releases an album and it flops, and the company drops them, there is no reason they can't just re-record the songs and release the "new" album.
No one uses internal corporate memos for entertainment purposes, and no one would purchase them at Best Buy, so right there you can see a clear difference in the two activities.
As far as the laws that are violated, not sure if they're the same... if we're talking about DMCA, I have a feeling DMCA wouldn't be interpreted by any sane court to block the posting of memos that are of public interest.
As for the technological hows, if I knew how, I'd be a gazillionaire.
Sigh... I admire the nobility of those that want to protect our rights, and I despise the avarice of people that stomp all over other people's rights (and in this particular case, I am referring to music and software pirates.)
I just wish there was an "easy" way to have our computer rights and not have all the stupid bullshit that comes along with them.
What is the chilling effect? With or without the DMCA, Diebold probably could find legal grounds to issue a Cease and Desist, and to at least bring a lawsuit.
Swarthmore probably doesn't want to pay legal fees out the ass...
The reason it should be considered, though, is because if someone really didn't know they were screwing up, they can't really be responsible for it. To be responsible for your actions, you have to first know that they're wrong, right?
You cannot plead ignorance to the law. It is a citizen's responsibility to know, be aware of, and obey the laws of the country.
Not to mention, with the media covering this as much as they have been, you cannot possibly be unaware that piracy is illegal.
Second, I'm sure you've seen this question before, but how exactly does making a copy of someone's file on a computer compare to sailing on the high seas, firing cannons at everything that moves, raping and pillaging and generally destroying everything you come across? Come now, piracy is truly a destructive, evil thing. Copyright infringement doesn't even compare to what piracy really is.
You are taking something being offered for sale, without paying for it. So you are ripping companies off, which affects their bottom line, which affects their employees. When you are affecting someone's livelihood and potentially taking their job away because you want free music, that's pretty fucking selfish and borders on evil.
Any time a company resorts to litigation without trying to resolve the issue in a more peacable fashion, it is unwarranted.
Really? So if someone stole a 911 from a Porsche dealership, the dealership should send cease and desist letters, and have a talk with them?
But when someone attacks someone else without warning, that means they don't want to resolve the issue, they want to conquer and own.
The argument can be made that the pirates fired first -- they don't want to resolve the issue of paying for things they took, they want to conquer RIAA and own. I'm not naive enough to think that all of these music pirates sent letter to RIAA companies to complain about high prices, because let's be honest here, they haven't. Most of them said "Oh, I can get music for free online? Cool!" and then did so.
Re:For Those Who Haven't Played the first....
on
Max Payne 2 Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
getting hit in the head with a baseball bat several times and walking away moments later hardly qualifies as real to me
Don't you watch wrestling?? Blunt object trauma to the head is nothing!
If the RIAA is going to hold the average citizen to such a high standard
Much laughter. First of all, RIAA isn't going after everyone. They're going after people that are pirating large volumes of music. And they have evidence.
I propose that a new law be passed that subjects everyone in the music industry to a mandatory annual IRS tax compliance audit.
Unlike the RIAA -- which has evidence against people -- you have no evidence whatsoever that anyone in the music industry is cheating on their taxes.
And instead of finding out specifically which music industry employees are cheating on their taxes (which, by the way, is what RIAA did, they found out which people were pirating insane amounts of music) you are arguing in favor of auditing all of them.
So I have to ask you -- what is this "high standard" that you're talking about?
"Desperate to end filesharing, the major record labels have singled out 261 people and are trying to make examples out of them. Without warning, families and individuals are being slammed with enormous lawsuits that they can't possibly afford to defend themselves against."
Well, they shouldn't have been pirating music now, should they? It's hard to feel bad for people (let alone want to give them money) when they've been breaking the law, and know they've been breaking the law.
"We've created this Fund so that everyone who thinks the RIAA lawsuits are callous and unwarranted can donate to support the people who are being sued. Rather than collecting donations centrally like a traditional defense fund, our system lets you give money directly to someone who is being sued. More about the contribution system."
Callous and unwarranted? Well, call it callous if you want, but you can't dare say unwarranted -- people are pirating RIAA member companies' music, it's clear as crystal.
As I've said a thousand times, if you don't like RIAA, don't support them, but the moment you start pirating things, you've broken the law, and I don't feel sorry for you.
Slashdot Mirror
You have nothing better to do than troll about RIAA after every single one of my posts on a Saturday?
I'm flattered.
This states my point exactly. This is PRECISELY what the contracts state now.
Evidence, my friend, evidence. Present me with such.
BTW, downloading is NOT illegal. Making a CDR of music is not illegal. File-sharing is not illegal. It BECOMES illegal when you do it without the permission of the copyright holder.
Uh... no shit.
I'm certain any responsible attorney would instruct a musical group not to sign a contract like that, but artists making $100 a week don't tend to have the cash to retain the services of an attorney, and when you have the option to sign your rights away for an opportunity to become famous and make a living off of what you love to do, or continue to struggle, what choice do you really have?
If an artist is making $100 a week, that artist isn't popular or talented enough to get signed.
Bands that get signed are making decent amounts of money playing at clubs and getting people to come to shows. And bands at that level usually have managers, who are hired to manage their bookings and legal stuff -- like running recording contracts past lawyers before they are signed.
So, while I'm sure you have the interests of the artists in mind, your view of the artists and what actually happens in reality is incorrect.
Your information is good, but how many artists know to educate themselves about these kinds of issues BEFORE the contract comes? The most compelling horror-stories I hear are from artists that have been in the business for more than 5 years, the ones that finally learn exactly what they gave up to gain the possibility of fame.
OK, I'll call you on it. Which artists? Who are they? What are their compelling horror stories?
But don't believe me. Google Janis Ian, and read what SHE has to say about the RIAA and copyrights. Janis has been in the business for over 40 years, so I think her oppinion matters a whole hell of a lot more than yours or mine.
Einstein was involved in physics for almost as long, and he was wrong about a lot of things (like the existence of black holes, for example.) It doesn't matter how long she's been in "the biz" for, she can still be wrong about some things -- and in my opinion, she is.
In order for it to be an effective deterrent, it should be somewhat excessive, don't you think?
The storm didn't start until yesterday (the 24th) as far as I know, so I don't think it's related to the storm...
Where do I begin?
Sorry, but you are completely wrong. First off it is an oversimplification to expect all recording contracts to be the same.
Sure, amounts and durations will vary, but there are certain things that are the same in every recording contract.
But ultimately, most of them indeed include a signing away of all rights for any songs produced,
Only recordings, not the actual songs. Otherwise, bands would have to pay royalties to the record companies on their own songs every time they performed them, or if they released a live album through another label later in their career.
plus future songs,
See above.
plus the artists name,
Really? Then how did all these bands switch labels? How did, as a particular example, Rush move from Mercury Records (PolyGram) to Atlantic records and get to keep their name?
and anything else Mr Record Executive can think of.
Why bother? See above.
Artists have even been sued later for making songs that sounded like they were the same style as the kind of songs they used to sing for a record label.
You can't just say something completely outlandish like that without facts to back it up. Please, either present facts, or stop spreading your misinformation.
Essentially, if you sign with a label, they own you, your soul, and everything you will ever be. If you are lucky, you might get a small advance with that.
They own the rights to all recordings you create for the duration of the contract. I don't see how that involves anybody's soul or essence of being. What the hell are you talking about?
Most artists, of course are not even "lucky' enough to sign a record deal. But if they dare to distribute MP3's of their own work, not having signed a deal with any record label, the RIAA bots attack them and their fans and sue them into oblivion.
Again, what the hell are you talking about? I have distributed my own MP3's. I have helped other bands distribute their MP3's. I know a lot of people, in fact, that distribute MP3's of their own material in an effort to get their music heard.
WHERE ARE THE "RIAA BOTS"?
Seriously, do you have ANY IDEA what you are talking about? You make all these wild claims and refuse to back them up with PROOF, a necessary pre-requisite for being taken seriously.
AzOz.com sure does look like a reliable source of information, with headlines like "Downloading is NOT Illegal -- How to Avoid the Foreign Terrorists".
People like you are brainwashed by all of this anti-"M$", anti-RIAA, anti-everything rhetoric that is being published (and I use the word published very, very loosely) all over the Internet.
But now, I am going to do you a favor, and present ACTUAL FACTS to you. Make sure you read them, and understand them.
The copyright held on any particular recording is completely separate from the copyright held for the actual song that the recording was made from.
If you knew how record contracts work, the "work for hire" in the record contracts refer to the actual recordings, not to the underlying songs.
An example for you: Powerslave, by Iron Maiden. The record is copyrighted by EMI Records, Ltd. The songs themselves are copyrighted by Iron Maiden (Holdings), Ltd. They are two separate entities with two separate copyrights.
Here is where you are going to insist that I am wrong (without any kind of evidence) and that you are correct. But, I'm going to cut you off right there, and insist that you prove that I am wrong. Answer these questions for me:
1) Since the rights to the songs belong to a record label, why doesn't the band have to pay the label a royalty every time they perform the song? If you know anything about the law, you have to pay a royalty every time you perform a copyrighted work. (A good reference for this is
2) Since the rights to the songs belong to the record label, why doesn't the band have to pay royalties to the record label if they switch labels and then perform a song later in their career, and record that song for a live album?
You won't be able to answer those, because you're wrong. The song-writers retain the copyright to their songs, UNLESS they have a clause in their contracts that says otherwise.
But this doesn't happen. From a practical standpoint, it would destroy your music career if you signed the rights to your songs away -- what if the record label dumped you? ANY LAWYER would tell you not sign a contract with a clause like that.
DiscMakers writes about this kind of crap all the time in their newsletters.
Harry Fox Agency represents over 27,000 music publishers for licensing and monitoring services -- are there 27,000 RIAA record labels?
So, I did some reading -- AzOz is full of propaganda.
I, however, have been at this music thing for quite a while, I've done my homework for years, and I know what the facts are.
I mean, hey, it's not ass-rape, but $2 million will do for starters.
Sure thing.
First, as an example, look at any RIAA affiliated CD you own that has the lyric sheet. You will see "lyrics reprinted by permission" or some such. This is because the band is giving the record company permission to reprint the lyrics.
The reason they can give permission is because the band, not the record company, owns the lyrics. Not to mention the score, i.e. they own the song. Not the record company.
You'll also see things like "songs published by ", and that company you never heard of is actually a legal entity of some sort (maybe a partnership, maybe an actual corporation) that is made up of one or more members of the band.
The RIAA companies don't sign bands to give them songs, they sign them to recording contracts -- i.e., they pay the band for their recordings.
Now, the only thing stopping a band from re-recording those songs is that the record company may (probably does) have a clause that says "you can't release recordings through any other company or through yourself for the duration of this contract".
So if a band is in a 3 year deal, they're stuck with that company. If the company drops them, or their contract expires, while they may not have the rights to the original recordings, they have the rights to the songs, so nothing is stopping them from re-recording.
So... if a band signed to a RIAA company releases an album and it flops, and the company drops them, there is no reason they can't just re-record the songs and release the "new" album.
Then tell them that they can't distribute their music online since the RIAA now owns the copyrights to their songs. So they can't get any exposure.
TOTALLY WRONG AND MISINFORMED.
The RIAA company would only own the copyright to that particular recording -- the author(s) of the song still own the copyright to the actual song.
What's stopping them from re-recording the song(s) if they want to?
No one uses internal corporate memos for entertainment purposes, and no one would purchase them at Best Buy, so right there you can see a clear difference in the two activities.
As far as the laws that are violated, not sure if they're the same... if we're talking about DMCA, I have a feeling DMCA wouldn't be interpreted by any sane court to block the posting of memos that are of public interest.
As for the technological hows, if I knew how, I'd be a gazillionaire.
I don't mind people saying things I disagree with.
I mind people ripping other people off.
Sigh... I admire the nobility of those that want to protect our rights, and I despise the avarice of people that stomp all over other people's rights (and in this particular case, I am referring to music and software pirates.)
I just wish there was an "easy" way to have our computer rights and not have all the stupid bullshit that comes along with them.
I agree with the idea of Freenet being used to distribute information... problem with Freenet is it allows people to pirate shit.
If there was a peer-to-peer system that could be used only for distributing text files, and then only under like, 10k, then we'd be on to something.
What is the chilling effect? With or without the DMCA, Diebold probably could find legal grounds to issue a Cease and Desist, and to at least bring a lawsuit.
Swarthmore probably doesn't want to pay legal fees out the ass...
I just don't see this as a DMCA thing.
Officials at the school said that they were still finalizing their results and that the final speed number might be significantly higher.
This will likely be the case.
Why is this likely? The number dropped, why is it more likely to go up rather than down (or nowhere, for that matter)?
Mwongozi adds "Although not announced on the front page, the Apple Store was updated just a few minutes ago to show the new iBook."
:-)
Mwongozi, how did you know? Do you sit at the Apple Store hitting reload looking for changes?
565 comments and counting...
People steal from RIAA, RIAA sues them.
Someone steals from a dealership, the dealership sues them.
The 2nd dealership doesn't factor into my argument at all, and you didn't really make any attempt to explain it -- what are you talking about?
Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I'm just pointing out "why".
Not to mention, last time I checked, fossil fuels were more efficient and more reliable than windmills...
The reason it should be considered, though, is because if someone really didn't know they were screwing up, they can't really be responsible for it. To be responsible for your actions, you have to first know that they're wrong, right?
You cannot plead ignorance to the law. It is a citizen's responsibility to know, be aware of, and obey the laws of the country.
Not to mention, with the media covering this as much as they have been, you cannot possibly be unaware that piracy is illegal.
Second, I'm sure you've seen this question before, but how exactly does making a copy of someone's file on a computer compare to sailing on the high seas, firing cannons at everything that moves, raping and pillaging and generally destroying everything you come across? Come now, piracy is truly a destructive, evil thing. Copyright infringement doesn't even compare to what piracy really is.
You are taking something being offered for sale, without paying for it. So you are ripping companies off, which affects their bottom line, which affects their employees. When you are affecting someone's livelihood and potentially taking their job away because you want free music, that's pretty fucking selfish and borders on evil.
Any time a company resorts to litigation without trying to resolve the issue in a more peacable fashion, it is unwarranted.
Really? So if someone stole a 911 from a Porsche dealership, the dealership should send cease and desist letters, and have a talk with them?
But when someone attacks someone else without warning, that means they don't want to resolve the issue, they want to conquer and own.
The argument can be made that the pirates fired first -- they don't want to resolve the issue of paying for things they took, they want to conquer RIAA and own. I'm not naive enough to think that all of these music pirates sent letter to RIAA companies to complain about high prices, because let's be honest here, they haven't. Most of them said "Oh, I can get music for free online? Cool!" and then did so.
getting hit in the head with a baseball bat several times and walking away moments later hardly qualifies as real to me
Don't you watch wrestling?? Blunt object trauma to the head is nothing!
Oh, where do I begin?
If the RIAA is going to hold the average citizen to such a high standard
Much laughter. First of all, RIAA isn't going after everyone. They're going after people that are pirating large volumes of music. And they have evidence.
I propose that a new law be passed that subjects everyone in the music industry to a mandatory annual IRS tax compliance audit.
Unlike the RIAA -- which has evidence against people -- you have no evidence whatsoever that anyone in the music industry is cheating on their taxes.
And instead of finding out specifically which music industry employees are cheating on their taxes (which, by the way, is what RIAA did, they found out which people were pirating insane amounts of music) you are arguing in favor of auditing all of them.
So I have to ask you -- what is this "high standard" that you're talking about?
Because a little bit of smog isn't the same thing as a giant windmill blocking your view.
From the site:
"Desperate to end filesharing, the major record labels have singled out 261 people and are trying to make examples out of them. Without warning, families and individuals are being slammed with enormous lawsuits that they can't possibly afford to defend themselves against."
Well, they shouldn't have been pirating music now, should they? It's hard to feel bad for people (let alone want to give them money) when they've been breaking the law, and know they've been breaking the law.
"We've created this Fund so that everyone who thinks the RIAA lawsuits are callous and unwarranted can donate to support the people who are being sued. Rather than collecting donations centrally like a traditional defense fund, our system lets you give money directly to someone who is being sued. More about the contribution system."
Callous and unwarranted? Well, call it callous if you want, but you can't dare say unwarranted -- people are pirating RIAA member companies' music, it's clear as crystal.
As I've said a thousand times, if you don't like RIAA, don't support them, but the moment you start pirating things, you've broken the law, and I don't feel sorry for you.
Oh, please. Don't just make statements, back them up with some evidence!