I own the song writng credits to all songs that bear my name in the credit listings.
Certainly. You own the right to any work you create. You are free to negotiate those rights in any contract you sign. They are yours to do with as you please, not the mob's to do with as it pleases.
But, since you have no objection, whats the name of your band, so that others might listen, too?
Wasn't it Hatch who made a point of formally stating that the Clinton administration's take on Napster (their very negative amicus brief) did NOT represent Congress's viewpoint?
Hatch doesn't speak for the Congress. The Congress is free to file briefs if they want. They didn't. So much for that. But thats besides the point. I want to first touch on the "fair use" issue that you have convientently forgoten in your long winded justification for theivery.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work,
including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by
that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In
determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be
considered shall include -
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Stealing music with napster meets none of these requirements, let alone all four. Note, there is no reference at all to the quality of the reproduction being considered as part of fair use. None. Nada. Do you get that?
Now that I've done your homework for you, I'll continue to disassemble the rest of your pathetic excuses.
Call me what you like (I'm not primarily a computer geek- I'm a musician- and clearly oh such a criminal in putting my music out as mp3s
You are free to do whatever you like with your music. So are the record companies, and their contracted artists. If they want to sue you into oblivion for violating their copyrights, good for them.
I think I know what fair use is better than you, regardless of whether you are a RIAA lawyer or usenet troll or whatever explanation you have for your oddlyfamiliar,takeke no prisoners concede no losses rhetoric.
It is in evidence that you don't know jack shit about fair use. You have the law sitting in front of you right now. Tell me how napster meets the fair use laws. I'd realy like to know. And as far as take no prisoners or conceding no losses, it is hardly necessary to do so when you are so clearly in the wrong, and I am so clearly in the right. Were it simply a matter of opinion, you would be right. But its not. Its a simple matter of fact.
Well, in the music business we have exactly that: it's called digital copying, and we even have quick cheapo copies called mp3s that aren't as good as the real thing but even easier to copy and transmit.
And we have a whole body of law that covers such things. Its called Title 17, US Code, authorized by Article I section 8 of the US Constitution. What you feel about it isn't worth a fart in the wind.
Like it or not (for you, I'd guess it's 'not'), this changes everything
Like it or not, you're dead assed wrong on this, too. It changes things about as much as, oh, say, the radio changed things. Not at all. The issue isn't whether you have stolen a physical copy, its that you have stolen the work itself. A work that someone else owns the rights to. Do you think radio stations play whatever they want without paying the right holders?
Yet what is the product? You don't get the physical media- did you want that?
Write this down. Copyright infringment has nothing to do with physical media. Repeat until it sinks in. You have *no* right to a work you didn't create, regardless of how you got it. Just because something is easy to steal doesn't make it not theft. You are a thief.
Hell, never mind credentials: tell me three books on the music industry that you have read that qualify you to have even half a clue here. I will be happy to give you a list of titles if that will help.
You read a book? That is absolutely laughable. I write software for a living. My mortgage gets payed because there are laws protecting my IP. If some theiving luser living in his parents basement thinks he's some kind of expert on that because he *read a book,* then he's dumber than I thought. You go on and keep looking for your name in Variety. The law will continue to be what it is. Its right up there for your perusal.
Me? I'm going off right now to upload still more music to besonic.com/chrisj:
As long as its your music, that you own the rights for, more power to you. If you upload someone elses tunes, I hope they sue you into non-existance.
Dont you presume to speak for me. Im not a pirate. I have never attacked any shipping. However, I do perform unauthorized copying from time to time. And I dont like Newspeak.
I don't like newspeak either. I'll just call you what you are. A theif.
Personally, I think it is an unalienable Right of any man, woman and child to copy any and all released information without any restriction.
So, we can expect you to post your credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and social security information here, right, theif?
This is rich. Stealing music is akin to freeing slaves.
Every pathetic attempt at justifying your larceny gets better and better (or worse and worse.)
But the structure of the industry which does not pay artists trumps that. The fact that the mechanism that distributes the product to the consumer this way or that way and costs less, marginally less or is free will not alter that one fact.
Oh, I get it. If you buy the music, instead of stealing it, the artist may or may not get his fair cut, which justifies your theivery?
Whether artists get a fair shake or not is an issue that artists need to solve when they sign their contracts. I'm qute sure if they wanted your advice, they'd give you a call. All you do when you steal the music is ensure the artist won't get paid.
how charming to define 'music' as 'that which is controlled by the giant corporations' and disenfranchise anyone else's music)
Thats not my defenition, straw boy. Its intelectual property and contractual agreement. You don't own it, they do. I realize that pisses you off, and sends you off into wild machinations attempting to justify your theivery (which, of course, is modded up by the equaly theiving drones that get to do that kind of thing.)
But lets disassemble your little diatribe, anyway. Then you can get back to your lawbreaking.
[Snip many red herrings related to distribution media]
Do they own the 'recipe' for the music: publishing, music, lyrics, the same tune done by a different artist?
Yes, in fact they do own the music, lyrics, and most importantly, the right to publish same. That means if they want you to pay for those things, and you don't, you're a thief.
Do they own that recipe if you cover the tune only to test out your recorder or something and don't try to distribute?
Thats not realy the case now, is it, straw boy? Are you going to now tell me that Naptster's whole purpose for existence isn't distribution? "Gorsh! I just thought it was a fancy pants radio!"
Moron. But lets continue.
Do they own the pattern of _sound_ as presented on CD?
That is precicely what they own. Go head and sing happy birthday on the radio. You'll get a call from the Hill family, who owns the tune, asking for their royalty.
It is exactly this fact that makes all your other lame excuses for theivery just that. Lame excuses.
Many of these situations have been tested in court and found to be fair use.
The law clearly defines what fair use is and isn't. Distributing full copies of a work does not constitute fair use, and Napster clearly falls out of that realm. Napster has been tested in court, too. How did those cases end up?
How is it so difficult to see that copying degraded versions of the music noncommercially without stealing one single CD of physical product off store shelves is equally a natural sort of fair use?
Because it is not fair use. Here is your mission, Sport. Go look up exactly what the law says fair use is and isn't. Distributing whole copies of a work aint it, ever. I'll even give you a hint: Its in Title 17
I realize that another primary attribute of "geeks" is to fantasize that the law says something that it realy doesn't in order to justify their propensity for larceny, but you realy should know what the hell you're talking about before you post on a public forum. It's embarrasing.
And when you're done reporting your findings, go read this: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/docs/napsteramicus.ht ml
So the real answer to your question "how can one not see it's fair use?" is that I know what fair use is, and you don't. Simple!
You're a fool to take the record industry lawyer side of things. Period.
And you're not only a thief, your an idiot thief as well. Period.
I'll be anxiously waiting for your "fair use" report.
The Grateful Dead built a fan base larger than the population of the Roman empire by not agressively persuing user-level copyright violations.
The Dead built a huge fan base by putting on monster concerts, and oh yeah, free drugs, but thats not whats at issue.
They own their music. If instead they wanted to crush every tye-dyed wearing granola dipper that tried to sneak a recoder into a show, they would be right to do so.
The music doesn't belong to you. It belongs to artists, and huge corporations. If they aren't inclined to give it to you, and you take it anyway, you're a theif.
Another comon theme among "geeks" is their propensity to justify theivery when they want something bad enough.
You don't own the music. Giant corporations own the music. If you havn't paid the price they set for the products they own, you're a thief, any way you cut it. You can moan all you like about the injustice of the market, but all that would make you is a whiner, or a communist.
Katz is not only pathetic, he's a pathetic appologist for criminal behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
First you sucked, now you're just lazy.
--
Certainly. You own the right to any work you create. You are free to negotiate those rights in any contract you sign. They are yours to do with as you please, not the mob's to do with as it pleases.
But, since you have no objection, whats the name of your band, so that others might listen, too?
--
Hatch doesn't speak for the Congress. The Congress is free to file briefs if they want. They didn't. So much for that. But thats besides the point. I want to first touch on the "fair use" issue that you have convientently forgoten in your long winded justification for theivery.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
Stealing music with napster meets none of these requirements, let alone all four. Note, there is no reference at all to the quality of the reproduction being considered as part of fair use. None. Nada. Do you get that?
Now that I've done your homework for you, I'll continue to disassemble the rest of your pathetic excuses.
Call me what you like (I'm not primarily a computer geek- I'm a musician- and clearly oh such a criminal in putting my music out as mp3s
You are free to do whatever you like with your music. So are the record companies, and their contracted artists. If they want to sue you into oblivion for violating their copyrights, good for them.
I think I know what fair use is better than you, regardless of whether you are a RIAA lawyer or usenet troll or whatever explanation you have for your oddlyfamiliar,takeke no prisoners concede no losses rhetoric.
It is in evidence that you don't know jack shit about fair use. You have the law sitting in front of you right now. Tell me how napster meets the fair use laws. I'd realy like to know. And as far as take no prisoners or conceding no losses, it is hardly necessary to do so when you are so clearly in the wrong, and I am so clearly in the right. Were it simply a matter of opinion, you would be right. But its not. Its a simple matter of fact.
Well, in the music business we have exactly that: it's called digital copying, and we even have quick cheapo copies called mp3s that aren't as good as the real thing but even easier to copy and transmit.
And we have a whole body of law that covers such things. Its called Title 17, US Code, authorized by Article I section 8 of the US Constitution. What you feel about it isn't worth a fart in the wind.
Like it or not (for you, I'd guess it's 'not'), this changes everything
Like it or not, you're dead assed wrong on this, too. It changes things about as much as, oh, say, the radio changed things. Not at all. The issue isn't whether you have stolen a physical copy, its that you have stolen the work itself. A work that someone else owns the rights to. Do you think radio stations play whatever they want without paying the right holders?
Yet what is the product? You don't get the physical media- did you want that?
Write this down. Copyright infringment has nothing to do with physical media. Repeat until it sinks in. You have *no* right to a work you didn't create, regardless of how you got it. Just because something is easy to steal doesn't make it not theft. You are a thief.
Hell, never mind credentials: tell me three books on the music industry that you have read that qualify you to have even half a clue here. I will be happy to give you a list of titles if that will help.
You read a book? That is absolutely laughable. I write software for a living. My mortgage gets payed because there are laws protecting my IP. If some theiving luser living in his parents basement thinks he's some kind of expert on that because he *read a book,* then he's dumber than I thought. You go on and keep looking for your name in Variety. The law will continue to be what it is. Its right up there for your perusal.
Me? I'm going off right now to upload still more music to besonic.com/chrisj:
As long as its your music, that you own the rights for, more power to you. If you upload someone elses tunes, I hope they sue you into non-existance.
--
I don't like newspeak either. I'll just call you what you are. A theif.
Personally, I think it is an unalienable Right of any man, woman and child to copy any and all released information without any restriction.
So, we can expect you to post your credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and social security information here, right, theif?
--
Every pathetic attempt at justifying your larceny gets better and better (or worse and worse.)
But the structure of the industry which does not pay artists trumps that. The fact that the mechanism that distributes the product to the consumer this way or that way and costs less, marginally less or is free will not alter that one fact.
Oh, I get it. If you buy the music, instead of stealing it, the artist may or may not get his fair cut, which justifies your theivery?
Whether artists get a fair shake or not is an issue that artists need to solve when they sign their contracts. I'm qute sure if they wanted your advice, they'd give you a call. All you do when you steal the music is ensure the artist won't get paid.
--
Thats not my defenition, straw boy. Its intelectual property and contractual agreement. You don't own it, they do. I realize that pisses you off, and sends you off into wild machinations attempting to justify your theivery (which, of course, is modded up by the equaly theiving drones that get to do that kind of thing.)
But lets disassemble your little diatribe, anyway. Then you can get back to your lawbreaking.
[Snip many red herrings related to distribution media]
Do they own the 'recipe' for the music: publishing, music, lyrics, the same tune done by a different artist?
Yes, in fact they do own the music, lyrics, and most importantly, the right to publish same. That means if they want you to pay for those things, and you don't, you're a thief.
Do they own that recipe if you cover the tune only to test out your recorder or something and don't try to distribute?
Thats not realy the case now, is it, straw boy? Are you going to now tell me that Naptster's whole purpose for existence isn't distribution? "Gorsh! I just thought it was a fancy pants radio!"
Moron. But lets continue.
Do they own the pattern of _sound_ as presented on CD?
That is precicely what they own. Go head and sing happy birthday on the radio. You'll get a call from the Hill family, who owns the tune, asking for their royalty.
It is exactly this fact that makes all your other lame excuses for theivery just that. Lame excuses.
Many of these situations have been tested in court and found to be fair use.
The law clearly defines what fair use is and isn't. Distributing full copies of a work does not constitute fair use, and Napster clearly falls out of that realm. Napster has been tested in court, too. How did those cases end up?
How is it so difficult to see that copying degraded versions of the music noncommercially without stealing one single CD of physical product off store shelves is equally a natural sort of fair use?
Because it is not fair use. Here is your mission, Sport. Go look up exactly what the law says fair use is and isn't. Distributing whole copies of a work aint it, ever. I'll even give you a hint: Its in Title 17
I realize that another primary attribute of "geeks" is to fantasize that the law says something that it realy doesn't in order to justify their propensity for larceny, but you realy should know what the hell you're talking about before you post on a public forum. It's embarrasing.
And when you're done reporting your findings, go read this: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/docs/napsteramicus.ht ml
So the real answer to your question "how can one not see it's fair use?" is that I know what fair use is, and you don't. Simple!
You're a fool to take the record industry lawyer side of things. Period.
And you're not only a thief, your an idiot thief as well. Period.
I'll be anxiously waiting for your "fair use" report.
--
The Dead built a huge fan base by putting on monster concerts, and oh yeah, free drugs, but thats not whats at issue.
They own their music. If instead they wanted to crush every tye-dyed wearing granola dipper that tried to sneak a recoder into a show, they would be right to do so.
The music doesn't belong to you. It belongs to artists, and huge corporations. If they aren't inclined to give it to you, and you take it anyway, you're a theif.
--
--
You don't own the music. Giant corporations own the music. If you havn't paid the price they set for the products they own, you're a thief, any way you cut it. You can moan all you like about the injustice of the market, but all that would make you is a whiner, or a communist.
Katz is not only pathetic, he's a pathetic appologist for criminal behavior.
--