Many have written music based on other music before contacting the artist. The best option is to contact the artist first.
Even if I don't agree with the verdict in Smith vs Petty, at the end of the day Smith is still making a crap load of money regardless of payments needing to be made to Petty's copyright owners.
Keep in mind that I didn't say the copyright laws are perfect. If anything it requires lots of attention but he time constraint isn't the real issue.
I like what you wrote because I feel the same way. I think he provided a great service to the whole world.
I'd also be curious how many of the millennials would hire him to work in their business. I bet the % would be significantly lower and I wouldn't blame them.
I'm curious if the older generation would think more of Snowden if he faced the music after releasing the information? After all, heroes of the people have either suffered or even died for their cause to be recognized.
You are coming off the main topic of copyright extension. The time period isn't the issue and that's why I get annoyed by most users who respond to that change. The issue is the lacking definition of limitation of reach for the copyright. The Smith vs Petty case is a great example of the copyright being too general.
The copyright should protect the artist for his actual work, not resemblance of his work. That would solve the whole issue wouldn't it?
How so? Apart from a small number of compulsory licenses, the copyright owner reserves the right to decline a license at any price for any reason
Show me where it says that. There's nothing preventing you from using their content. All that will happen is payment will be required in form of a royalty that may be more than it would have been if you go their authorization. There are tones of cases like that even more recently Smith vs Petty (which in my opinion is BS). FYI, they can't decline you from being inspired by their music or innovate from their concept. New types of music appear all the time and many artist hop on the band wagon
Besides, who owns copyright in a work first published by a company that has since ceased to exist?
That's for you to go find out but I'm sure that's well covered.
You don't understand copyright law (And I don't claim to be an expert). You can still make music based on existing music. All you need to do is get authorization from the author. The author may require a royalty which I consider a non issue.
Everybody seems to be stuck on the idea that the time limit is the issue. It's not the time limit, it's the lack of flexibility around the copyrights themselves. There's nothing wrong with the song being protected, after all it's his/her work. The problem real problem is the grey line that allowed a case like Smith vs Petty to go in favor of the copyright owner. To me that just shows the copyright laws are tool general and/or lacking definition and limitations.
In my experience, it's less about speed and more about careless/reckless behavior
Inexperienced drivers don't know how much speeding is safe and that is why limits are set. If you fear the police there's a very simple solution, follow the speed limit.
The problem with this is how do you define "moderate", "excessive" and "speeding"?
That's funny since most people seem to know what amount of speeding they can do. Cops don't care to stop you for a $50 ticket. They rather wait and get the next big fish. I've never been stopped for going 15km/h over the speed limit and I've driven over a million KMs in my life. Obviously I use common sense when going through construction and school areas.
At the same time there's some roads I'll do 20 under the limit because it's too dangerous to do the speed limit
That's the issue isn't it? Not everybody can evaluate this by themselves, instead they need to be told what speed they should go.
The math is pretty simple. More speed = more danger. You cannot argue that and that is why speed limits are set based on ministry of transportation predefined parameters.
This line from the article says it all and it's got nothing to do with race or gender:
If you run your own shop (no matter how large), it always pays to choose words as carefully as possible when referring to anything that affects your employees' lives and careers
Like I said to many others who have responded, the law is too general. The length of time the copyrights are valid for isn't the real issue. Defining better what copyright infringement is had much better value in my opinion. I'm talking a black and white definition. The case of Smith vs Petty is BS and should never have been in favor of the copyright holder. That alone was proof the lines are blurred.
Less strict or better defined copyright laws. I think the laws are too general and need to be defined better. I'm no copyright expert but the case of Smith vs Petty is prof the line is blurred.
The argument was valid in the context it was used. See part of the definition: Creativity can also be defined "as the process of producing something that is both original and worthwhile"
It didn't stifle creativity, instead it stifled innovation from copyright material or creativity inspired from copyright material (which I still don't agree to be true). Many artist have been inspired by music of their favorite artists and same goes for artist before them. Elvis Presley was inspired music mostly cherished by African Americans.
The copyright mostly protects the usage of said content. There is law in place to allow parodies and reuse of content within set parameters. I think people are having a knee jerk reaction to this change that has little to no impact for day to day artists.
Fact is that Canada has been known for being loose on it's copyright laws especially when it comes to piracy so I'm not sure why people are up in arms.
Maybe you want to review your numbers. I see compact and sedans seeing a 15 to 20% more efficient combined fuel consumption. Is that equal to no difference to you?
Make and models please. I have a hard time believing your SUV does better than your Civic unless you Civic is 15 years old and out of shape or your SUV is the smallest in it's class.
I took the most fuel efficient SUV and compared it to the least efficient and the most efficient CIVIC. Keep in mind the SUV is using a variable gear ratio which increases it's efficiency further giving it an advantage. If you go down the list of SUVs the next one in the last is 3MPG less efficient and that's a big deal.
I won't argue that SUVs are fairly efficient for their size but they generally are still bigger guzzlers than your small to medium size cars.
Check the definition of stifle. If that law had the impact stated it would not have allowed for as much music to have been released since it's implementation.
I don't know how that's an argument. I'm more interested in what really happened since 1998. Fact is that we have access to more and more creative work, not less. If you can't see that they take the blind fold off and look around.
There are thousands of songs released monthly (and that doesn't include the indie scene, or any other media productions that include music). So I guess to your eyes the fact that lots of creative content makes it to our ears doesn't count as proof that creativity is still very possible.
What an artist created is his and there's nothing wrong with the artist needed to be notified (and compensated when applicable) for usage of their work. I think there's more value in defining what is copying vs what is innovation from copyright material than there is into trying to remove rights to old copyright. It would also be important to have a time limit for which an artist can pursue another artist for copyright infringement for similar work.
There are plenty of artist out there that have used existing content without legal recourse being used against them. Unfortunately in the case of Sam Smith it didn't work out in his favor. I think it's harsh to tell people who have created content that their work can no longer be monetized.
Previous content has always inspired others to come up with new material and that's been more than common for as long as we can recall. Protecting the original content doesn't hurt creativity, proof is the amount of content available today.
And if you use someone's copyright content all you have to do is the pay the royalty.
Slashdot Mirror
Many have written music based on other music before contacting the artist. The best option is to contact the artist first.
Even if I don't agree with the verdict in Smith vs Petty, at the end of the day Smith is still making a crap load of money regardless of payments needing to be made to Petty's copyright owners.
Keep in mind that I didn't say the copyright laws are perfect. If anything it requires lots of attention but he time constraint isn't the real issue.
You must be 16. Angry and confused.
I like what you wrote because I feel the same way. I think he provided a great service to the whole world.
I'd also be curious how many of the millennials would hire him to work in their business. I bet the % would be significantly lower and I wouldn't blame them.
I'm curious if the older generation would think more of Snowden if he faced the music after releasing the information? After all, heroes of the people have either suffered or even died for their cause to be recognized.
I got marked troll by people who don't know the definition of the word "Creativity". I guess that's /. users for you.
You are coming off the main topic of copyright extension. The time period isn't the issue and that's why I get annoyed by most users who respond to that change. The issue is the lacking definition of limitation of reach for the copyright. The Smith vs Petty case is a great example of the copyright being too general.
The copyright should protect the artist for his actual work, not resemblance of his work. That would solve the whole issue wouldn't it?
How so? Apart from a small number of compulsory licenses, the copyright owner reserves the right to decline a license at any price for any reason
Show me where it says that. There's nothing preventing you from using their content. All that will happen is payment will be required in form of a royalty that may be more than it would have been if you go their authorization. There are tones of cases like that even more recently Smith vs Petty (which in my opinion is BS). FYI, they can't decline you from being inspired by their music or innovate from their concept. New types of music appear all the time and many artist hop on the band wagon
Besides, who owns copyright in a work first published by a company that has since ceased to exist?
That's for you to go find out but I'm sure that's well covered.
You don't understand copyright law (And I don't claim to be an expert). You can still make music based on existing music. All you need to do is get authorization from the author. The author may require a royalty which I consider a non issue.
Everybody seems to be stuck on the idea that the time limit is the issue. It's not the time limit, it's the lack of flexibility around the copyrights themselves. There's nothing wrong with the song being protected, after all it's his/her work. The problem real problem is the grey line that allowed a case like Smith vs Petty to go in favor of the copyright owner. To me that just shows the copyright laws are tool general and/or lacking definition and limitations.
In my experience, it's less about speed and more about careless/reckless behavior
Inexperienced drivers don't know how much speeding is safe and that is why limits are set. If you fear the police there's a very simple solution, follow the speed limit.
The problem with this is how do you define "moderate", "excessive" and "speeding"?
That's funny since most people seem to know what amount of speeding they can do. Cops don't care to stop you for a $50 ticket. They rather wait and get the next big fish. I've never been stopped for going 15km/h over the speed limit and I've driven over a million KMs in my life. Obviously I use common sense when going through construction and school areas.
At the same time there's some roads I'll do 20 under the limit because it's too dangerous to do the speed limit
That's the issue isn't it? Not everybody can evaluate this by themselves, instead they need to be told what speed they should go.
The math is pretty simple. More speed = more danger. You cannot argue that and that is why speed limits are set based on ministry of transportation predefined parameters.
You're right.
This line from the article says it all and it's got nothing to do with race or gender:
If you run your own shop (no matter how large), it always pays to choose words as carefully as possible when referring to anything that affects your employees' lives and careers
You will be stoned to death for suggesting this. LOL!!
Like I said to many others who have responded, the law is too general. The length of time the copyrights are valid for isn't the real issue. Defining better what copyright infringement is had much better value in my opinion. I'm talking a black and white definition. The case of Smith vs Petty is BS and should never have been in favor of the copyright holder. That alone was proof the lines are blurred.
Less strict or better defined copyright laws. I think the laws are too general and need to be defined better. I'm no copyright expert but the case of Smith vs Petty is prof the line is blurred.
I never argued that. Building on something existent isn't creating, it is innovating or to be inspired by.
The argument was valid in the context it was used.
See part of the definition: Creativity can also be defined "as the process of producing something that is both original and worthwhile"
It didn't stifle creativity, instead it stifled innovation from copyright material or creativity inspired from copyright material (which I still don't agree to be true). Many artist have been inspired by music of their favorite artists and same goes for artist before them. Elvis Presley was inspired music mostly cherished by African Americans.
The copyright mostly protects the usage of said content. There is law in place to allow parodies and reuse of content within set parameters. I think people are having a knee jerk reaction to this change that has little to no impact for day to day artists.
Fact is that Canada has been known for being loose on it's copyright laws especially when it comes to piracy so I'm not sure why people are up in arms.
Maybe you want to review your numbers. I see compact and sedans seeing a 15 to 20% more efficient combined fuel consumption. Is that equal to no difference to you?
SUVs in order of efficiency:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
Small and Family cars:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
Make and models please. I have a hard time believing your SUV does better than your Civic unless you Civic is 15 years old and out of shape or your SUV is the smallest in it's class.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
I took the most fuel efficient SUV and compared it to the least efficient and the most efficient CIVIC. Keep in mind the SUV is using a variable gear ratio which increases it's efficiency further giving it an advantage. If you go down the list of SUVs the next one in the last is 3MPG less efficient and that's a big deal.
I won't argue that SUVs are fairly efficient for their size but they generally are still bigger guzzlers than your small to medium size cars.
I agree but do we drop all laws because of one case? Heck, lets remove all cops from our streets because .1% of them are A-holes.
http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
Check the definition of stifle. If that law had the impact stated it would not have allowed for as much music to have been released since it's implementation.
2 to 3 lines.
I don't know how that's an argument. I'm more interested in what really happened since 1998. Fact is that we have access to more and more creative work, not less. If you can't see that they take the blind fold off and look around.
There are thousands of songs released monthly (and that doesn't include the indie scene, or any other media productions that include music). So I guess to your eyes the fact that lots of creative content makes it to our ears doesn't count as proof that creativity is still very possible.
What an artist created is his and there's nothing wrong with the artist needed to be notified (and compensated when applicable) for usage of their work. I think there's more value in defining what is copying vs what is innovation from copyright material than there is into trying to remove rights to old copyright. It would also be important to have a time limit for which an artist can pursue another artist for copyright infringement for similar work.
There are plenty of artist out there that have used existing content without legal recourse being used against them. Unfortunately in the case of Sam Smith it didn't work out in his favor. I think it's harsh to tell people who have created content that their work can no longer be monetized.
That statement of yours is pretty much cancelled by the fact that there's an increasing amount of creative content being released daily.
Previous content has always inspired others to come up with new material and that's been more than common for as long as we can recall. Protecting the original content doesn't hurt creativity, proof is the amount of content available today.
And if you use someone's copyright content all you have to do is the pay the royalty.
As for Weird Al, he pays royalties. Feel free to read this article:
http://www.bkrlegal.com/blog/2...