'Well, perhaps it could. If trademark law was taken overboard,'
Well, there is a reason TradeMark and Copyright are different. I'm pretty sure they can't incorporate both under the one law because they are so different. I would say that it would be easier to get changes done to the copyright laws. Merging Trademark and Copyright would be a nightmare as the law stands.
'This is just what people say about GPL code / Free Software and yet people do make money from it.'
Yes, but they have other streams in order to make money from [such as Red Hat having a support line and Asterik selling hardware to go with their PABX software]. People who are solely songwriters don't have other means to make money from their songwriting effort. I mean, some musicians do both write and perform, but many a Songwriter can't do that if they are poor players. If they had to make money peforming, they'd starve. So, unless there is some other means for them to make money, I don't have a problem with paying copyright royalties to perform their songs. [It's only one cent per performance, and most performers can afford that, even if they perform a concert with thirty to fifty songs, they should be making enough profit off each performance to afford 50 cents or so].
'Well, if I put up a statue of mine in my front yard, you can't take a picture of it from the public road and sell copies of your picture of my statue.'
Like I said, Copyright laws are consistent in what can and can't be copied. The Statue is considered a 'Work of Art' and as such can't be copied. The car is not considered a work of art [unless you do something to it and have it accepted as a work of art. Then, it cannot be photographed]. But, it will come down to how the car is seen. If it is just seen as a vehicle, it is not protected under copyright. But, that's not the copyright law being in-consistent, that's just Modern art shifting what can and cannot be considered art. It's only really come about in the last 100 years that this shift in what 'is' art, thanks to artists liek Magrisse etc, who challenged how we perceived things. [For instance, I know one of the Modern Art Galleries in London has a wooden boat shed errected in it as an art piece. I think it is the Tate Gallery. The boat shed was originally just a boat shed. Now it's 'art'. So, previously you would have been able to photograph it without a problem... now, it's 'Art', so it is copyrighted]. Still, that's not the Law changing, that's perception of 'Art' that is changing.
[And there are still a lot of people out there who question the validity of labelling a lot of things as 'Art' just because an 'artist' has said it is so.] I'll leave that one for the artists to fight out. You never know, your car might one day be considred 'art' and people won't be able to photograph it while it's sitting in your driveway.
'If you are a store and you play music in your shop, you must pay performance royalties, If you hang my pictures in your shop, you don't have to pay performance royalties. (I think.)'
That would be because hanging a picture isn't a 'performance' of the picture. You've already purchased the right to hang the picture where ever you like. You just don't have the right to copy the picture. Performance art [which includes those Videos that artists often have playing in art galleries now-a-days as well], get royalties for performance as well. In the case of a shop, paying two cent per performance [as there is a copyright on the song as well as the recording] shouldn't be too bad as long as the shop is making money. [Especially the BIG stores who turn over multi-billion dollar profits each year]. It would only come to about 40 cents per hour. The shop is actually using the music to increase revenue [as the right sort of music while someone shops has been shown to increase sales]. A lot of smaller shops I've been in just play the radio where they don't have to pay royalt
'What did you do as a musician? Do you still dabble?'
I'll be performing in Perth,(Australia) on the 24th of February. Previously [in the late 70's/80's/ early 90's] I played in bands and was for a short while a Studio musician [Late 1980's]. I don't really play much any more [I entered IT in the late 80's after leaving the studio]. The 24th will be my first public appearance in 14 years. [In fact, this appearance might be a bit of a shocker, as I'm not going to have much chance to practice... but, you have to get the bad performances out of the way somewhere, and this is only in front of about 400 people I think. Plus, it's a solo performance, so I won't be embarrassing any band mates:-)].
'lost track of this all being premised on copyright law not existing.'
Ah, sorry. I was talking from a present world perspective. Still, the BRANDING of Madonna etc would be more a case of Trade Mark than copyright. Her songs are copyrighted, but her 'public personnae' is part of the her 'Branding'/Trade Mark.
'Are they about anything else these days from a legal standpoint?'
Yes, as some companies Trade Mark things like 'slogans' and stuff. Pepsi tried to Trade mark 'Uh-Huh' a while ago, and had it rejected as it was too commmon a phrase. Trade Marks also include 'Icons' and things as well. But, the Registration of Names is slightly different to Trade Marks. Both might be used to differentiate a company from its competitors, but the name doesn't have to be a Trade Mark as such [though my legal book does emphasis that making the company name a trade mark gives it added protection]. There are probably a lot of little legalities to differentiate them in ways normal folk can't think of.
'if copyright law did not exist, everyone would be allowed to make any copies they wanted to except if something else was in play. Could that something be trademark?'
No, it can't be Trademark, as the Trademark laws are totally different. For instance, I don't see how you would expect a songwriter to make a living from this. I write a song, if there is no copyright on it, then anyone can record it and I get nothing for my efforts. It doesn't matter if I place a trademark on it, that doesn't even prove I wrote it. Trademark doesn't actually stop people from claiming they wrote my song. That's why Henry the Eighth once added a bar to the end of a song and then put his name on it. Copyright is the part of the law which stops people doing that sort of thing. Trademarks are different to that and can't stop that from happening. Trademarks really just protect 'logos' and 'slogans' etc [and they have to be registered].
'I am saying that trademark law should not be able to stop me from copying artists CDs'
I'm not sure if you understand the difference between copyright and trademark. Trademark laws only cover the copying of the trademarks NOT the CD's. If copyright laws didn't exist, then Yeah, anyone can copy a CD, DVD or anything else without penalty, but it doesn't leave a cash flow for people who only work as Songwriters or Writers etc. After all, a songwriter earns their income from the roylaties [which is usually 1 cent per song]. If the songwriter has no other income [because a lot of good songwriters are terrible musicians], it basically forces them out of the market. There is little to no difference between a CD and a Pirated CD these days, so the removal of copyright would effectively remove any incentive for artists to keep producing their songs etc as they can't make a living from it. As soon as they release a song [even with their Trademark on it], anyone can rip it, and sales drop to next to nothing. OR if people actually decide they want to buy the song, a more popular artist can just record the song and with a better distribution channel etc sell more units. [In fact, this sort of thing has happened even with copyright, but at least the songwriter was still able
'According to recent research by the U.S. military and CERT, workers who sabotage corporate systems are almost always IT workers who are disgruntled, paranoid, generally show up late, argue with colleagues, and generally perform poorly."'
'I am saying in a more basic sense that she is not, she is a person.'
Okay, I understand that [whcih iswhy I didn't dispute it, but said she is both]. In a basic sense we're all people, but the person bit isn't the bit that is marketed in Madonnas case. It's her image etc [basically a brand] that is marketed. Many a real person is very different than their 'brand'. So, the record buying public really doesn't know Madonna at all, not as a person, only as her 'public personnae'/'brand'. They may think they know her as a person, but they don't. That's all i was trying to point out [which, as you said, you undestand, so hopefully we're on the same page].:-)
'I seriously don't see how it could have been a copyright case. Can you check into it some?'
I looked it up, and it wasn't a Trade Mark case. The Band Popular Mechanics had the rights to the name (as they were using it first and had aquired a considerable reputation under that name in the State of New South Wales). It wasn't a trade mark case as trade marks need to be registered as trade marks in order to be effective as trade marks. The name wasn't registered as a Trade Mark, so it became a 'Protection of business name'.
This talks briefly about it, but my legal book [which I have as I use to be a musician], does explain that it wasn't a trade mark case.
I was thinking when I wrote the comment that it might have been a copyright case as I was pretty sure I remembered it wasn't a trade mark dispute [my memory was at least correct in that small part]. But, you can't copyright a name, so it wasn't copyright either, it was a 'Protection of Business name' case. [Which I would assume is similar to a Trade Mark protection case.] It's basically to stop the buying public from being defrauded into buying something they think is from another band / company etc.
'But if there were no copyrights, I think she should not be able to stop people selling copies of her songs from saying they are copies of her songs.'
Copyright covers the right to copy songs etc. So, anyone selling her music isn't stopped from saying they are her songs. They just get in trouble for selling copies they're not allowed to make. No one disputes they are her songs, and in fact, if that was in dispute then it wouldn't be a copyright case, it'd be a fraud case. There are some places that used to sell copies of concerts by artists [basically recordings that were NOT created by the bands record label, nor the artists]. As they were selling them in Seven Elevens and Petrol Stations [one of my old flatmates owned several of these CDs], I assume they were legal. In order for the company manufacturing them, it would have required them getting permission to make the recordings. It was probably a tricky mine field for the company to have got around, as they would have required permission to copy the songs from whoever owned the copyright [most likely the band], but it got around the record company, as the record company only has copyright on the recording on the album the band recorded for them NOT on the copy of the songs in the concert.
She is both. She would have a company that she trades under, [bands normally form companies in order to operate and solo artists are normally registered as Soul Traders] but at the end of the day the image is marketed as a Brand. That's why another artist can't come and call themselves 'Madonna'. Even her name would be a trade mark or a copyright. That's why musicians have lawyers etc. to stop other musicians using their name etc, as it's all part of their Brand.
An interesting case in Australia was of one band called Popular Mecanics and another band caled Pop Mechanix going head to head over their names being too similar. [I'm pretty sure it was a copyright case and not a Trade Mark case... but in any case each band is considered a sort of 'Brand' and bands can produce trademarks like Mick Jaggers Lips for the Rolling Stones or even just their logos etc].
'But if you want to buy the latest Weird Al or Madonna album, there's only source. It's a monopoly, '
No, that would be like saying the Car industry is a monopoly as you can only buy the Ford Mustang from FORD, or a Ferrari from Ferrari. The fact is the price of Albums changes depending on which store you buy it from. If I go to one of the local small stores, it charges AUD$32 for a latest CD. But going to one of the big chains I can get it for a lot less. [With one chain I know selling them for as little as AUD$21 - they just buy a LOT of a very small selection to do that though]. YOU as a consumer have PLENTY of choice.
Calling it a monopoly is really incorrect. It would be a monopoly ONLY if they controlled & SOLD ALL the music in the world. You can still get your Madonna album from a lot of different stores and they will have different prices. If you get to know your local record store you might even get discounts. [One of my old flatmates was good friends with one of the local record store owners and used to get albums for FREE from the guy].
Calling it a monopoly would be akin to calling ANY BUSINESS a monoploy as you can only buy their product from them. All businesses have differences in product quality and in many cases with the features on the product. In this case the product is a CD with music on it... sure, Madonna is distributed by a specific record company - but all Fords come from Ford, all Apple Macs come from Apple and even Red Hat Linux has to come from Red Hat. If I want Nike runners, I have to buy them from a store who gets those shoes from Nike. None of these are monopolies just because you SPECIFIC want Madonna or you SPECIFICALLY want a Ferrari. Those things are products from the companies, and the other companies in those industries have SIMILAR products that you can chose instead. Making it seem like a company has a monopoly on something JUST because it is different from similar products is incorrect, as MOST companies HAVE to make their products different just to be competitive.
If Madonna left her label today [after fulfilling any contract she has] and decide to go to another record company and record one of her songs [or even ALL of her songs] again EXACTLY the same as her original, she could do that. That's not monopolistic at all. If the industry WAS MONOPOLISTIC that sort of thing wouldn't be allowed. [Artists just don't do this, as it doesn't increase their sales, but they are free to do so if they wish].
'an in theory limited but in practice eternal one called "copyright".'
Only in the US. Most other countries have the Copyright on recordings go into public domain about 50 to 90 years after they're recorded and the copyright on the song goes into public domain 50 years after the songwriter/s die.
Plus the major labels take on more bands. As nine in ten bands are usually flops they lose money on them. An Indie label with a smaller budget can usually only take on a few bands [they have a lot less staff to handle the numbers too], and as such REALLY need to look hard for a GOOD band and market hard any band they decide to take on. The big labels EXPECT to lose money on nine in ten bands, and as such expect to recoup some of the cost from what they get on their successful artists.
The record companies don't make money from bands touring, except from the merchandise sales PROVIDED they have a deal to do the merchandising (which isn't the case with all bands. For instance, the Dave Matthews band kept their merchandising). So record companies would get bugger all from the touring. Plus, many a tour runs at a loss.
This is especially true of bands just starting out. The Police did their first tour of the US in ONE VAN with no roadies, where the three members slept in the van and their manager did the driving. One of their concerts only got 3 people to it.
Many a starting band does this sort of tour [it's amazing how far you can get in a Tarago with a U-Haul on the back], but often it still costs the band more money than they make. Though, for any starting band it isn't too bad a way to get around to a LOT of places and spread the word/name of the band.
Though, I think the RIAA have forgotten that the cost of pressing CD's has come down considerably since they were introduced. Taking into account that the total cost of pressing the CD, the Jewel Case (or other sort of casing) and printing of the art work can be done for less than 50cents in China (with a little added on for the cost of shipping it to somewhere in the world), and the Royalties are about 1 cent per track for the artist and 1 cent per track for the recording, we're looking at CD's being made for a little under $1 all up. Take into account that the store will mark them up by about 100%, it explains how record companies can release Classical recordings and sell them for $2 a pop.
Admittedly they don't spend $millions promoting classical CD's, nor do they spend a lot in the recording of them [where as some pop/rock records cost millions to record... ], still, if they sell enough units this comes down as a percentage cost per unit. The only problem they have is that 9 out of 10 bands fail dismally and never make their money back [and it usually takes 3 albums on average for a band to make the money back... as the recording deal usually means the cost gets taken out of the bands royalties first... but if the band walks away still owing money they don't have to pay it back... but they also usualyl can't record anywhere else]. Which is why the record companies say they need to charge so much for CD's. [When they're not blaming piracy].
But, if they can bring the price down on CD's to something more reasonable I'm sure they'd make more money.
Just the 'making money from touring' thing won't work for them. They'd start FORCING bands to hand over their merchandising to them [it's already part of a standard record deal... just it'd become a deal breaker if the band wanted to control their own merchandising] in order to make money. [The band does get paid for the use of their image etc on the merchandise, but when the record company controls the merchandising they take the lions share of it all]. It'd also make a lot of bands BROKE very quickly, as they'd be made to foot the bill for the tour and a bad tour would result in a huge money haemorhage.
I don't think there's such a thing a 'Middle Class' in the record industry. The closest you'd come to 'middle class' would be a one hit wonder band. As nine out of ten bands fail, those are basically your 'poor' bands, and the one in ten who make it are basically the 'rich bands'. There isn't really any in between, except [as I said] a one hit wonder band, and they better quit after their hit, else they'll just squander what they've made with poor record after poor record and poor tour after poor tour.
Slightly off topic, but slightly on topic. I dated a girl from Taiwan once who was telling me about her Aunty who has blonde curly hair. They had a Dutch sailor who married into their family hundreds of years earlier.
With what you're saying here, obviously there must have been some European on the girls other side of the family for it to have come out in her Aunty the way it did.
Excommunication is the Pope throwing someone out of the church. Normally as he beleives they're already damned to hell. So he isn't actually damning the person, it's more a matter of him throwing them out of the club. Orthodox churches also sometimes excommunicate peopel also... like when they used to excommunicate the popes before the great schism in 1054 AD. [After 1054, both sides just assumed the other side was excommunicated for existance.]
What are they talking about? My NVidia Software doesn't work properly with XP. [I can only get SOME games to work with it. BLENDER won't work, and neither will a lot of other things without tweaking. It's a pain as I have to tweak some things (like turning off hardward acceleration to watch movies), then have to turn them back on to do other things..
Yes, but THAT MOON base and the moon itself was blown out of the solar system in 1999.
They've since had to rebuild the moon [Luckily Magrathea was still open for business after the demolition of Earth], and now NASA wants to put another moon base on the moon.
Just to add to what you've stated. This is from an E-mail sent to us from one of our University Lectureres regarding the Citing of Wikipedia:
You may be interested in this: text taken in full from Library + Information Update, 5 (9), September 2006, p. 4.
WIKIPEDIA WARNING
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has candidly advised college students not to use Wikipedia as a source.
Speaking at a University of Pennsylvania conference called 'The Hyperlinked Society' Jimmy said he gets about 10 messages a week from students who've got into trouble for using the online encyclopedia.
'They say "Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia",' and the information proved to be incorrect.
Jimmy said he had little sympathy for such students, and thinks to himself 'For God's sake, you're in college; don't cite the encyclopedia.'
He added that the Wikipedia team has thought about producing a fact sheet for professors to students explaining what Wikipedia is and how it is not always a definitive source.
'It is pretty good, but you have to be careful with it,' said Jimmy. It's good enough knowledge, depending on what your purpose is.
******
As a previous post has stated though, Wikipedia is a good point to start at, as it often points to primary texts where students can get the information they need. In my studies I've basicalyl used it as that. A Source for finding Source documents NOT as a source for finding the facts.
I can undertand also a lot of the frustration that teachers/lecturers have, as I've been told from a number of them that they hate receiving half a dozen assignments which are identicle as the students just plagarised things straight off the internet. ie cut and paste jobs from places like Wikipedia [though not just Wikipedia]. In a way the internet is turning out some students who are too lazy to do the work and think that just cutting and pasting from the internet will get them through school/University etc. On the other hand the internet can be a valuable tool.
It might be that teachers might have to start teaching courses on data mining in school that includes methods of finding and using source information without just copying and pasting it.
We must be close to the same age.:-) But when I was in Adelaide they were still using punch cards at the local University and some of the businesses. [Which was about 1979 / 1980], as I did some work experience around that time [though I was still in High School]. At least the first college I attended [in 1981 whilst I was still at school mind you] had a mini computer [the hard drive was about the size of a washing machine] and we were able to input the Programs in via a green screen. [I did a Pascal Course that year].
But, the punch cards were what we used during work experience.
Back then the joke was real programmers could still toggle a program in.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
'Well, perhaps it could. If trademark law was taken overboard,'
... now, it's 'Art', so it is copyrighted]. Still, that's not the Law changing, that's perception of 'Art' that is changing.
Well, there is a reason TradeMark and Copyright are different. I'm pretty sure they can't incorporate both under the one law because they are so different. I would say that it would be easier to get changes done to the copyright laws. Merging Trademark and Copyright would be a nightmare as the law stands.
'This is just what people say about GPL code / Free Software and yet people do make money from it.'
Yes, but they have other streams in order to make money from [such as Red Hat having a support line and Asterik selling hardware to go with their PABX software]. People who are solely songwriters don't have other means to make money from their songwriting effort. I mean, some musicians do both write and perform, but many a Songwriter can't do that if they are poor players. If they had to make money peforming, they'd starve. So, unless there is some other means for them to make money, I don't have a problem with paying copyright royalties to perform their songs. [It's only one cent per performance, and most performers can afford that, even if they perform a concert with thirty to fifty songs, they should be making enough profit off each performance to afford 50 cents or so].
'Well, if I put up a statue of mine in my front yard, you can't take a picture of it from the public road and sell copies of your picture of my statue.'
Like I said, Copyright laws are consistent in what can and can't be copied. The Statue is considered a 'Work of Art' and as such can't be copied. The car is not considered a work of art [unless you do something to it and have it accepted as a work of art. Then, it cannot be photographed]. But, it will come down to how the car is seen. If it is just seen as a vehicle, it is not protected under copyright. But, that's not the copyright law being in-consistent, that's just Modern art shifting what can and cannot be considered art. It's only really come about in the last 100 years that this shift in what 'is' art, thanks to artists liek Magrisse etc, who challenged how we perceived things. [For instance, I know one of the Modern Art Galleries in London has a wooden boat shed errected in it as an art piece. I think it is the Tate Gallery. The boat shed was originally just a boat shed. Now it's 'art'. So, previously you would have been able to photograph it without a problem
[And there are still a lot of people out there who question the validity of labelling a lot of things as 'Art' just because an 'artist' has said it is so.] I'll leave that one for the artists to fight out. You never know, your car might one day be considred 'art' and people won't be able to photograph it while it's sitting in your driveway.
'If you are a store and you play music in your shop, you must pay performance royalties, If you hang my pictures in your shop, you don't have to pay performance royalties. (I think.)'
That would be because hanging a picture isn't a 'performance' of the picture. You've already purchased the right to hang the picture where ever you like. You just don't have the right to copy the picture. Performance art [which includes those Videos that artists often have playing in art galleries now-a-days as well], get royalties for performance as well. In the case of a shop, paying two cent per performance [as there is a copyright on the song as well as the recording] shouldn't be too bad as long as the shop is making money. [Especially the BIG stores who turn over multi-billion dollar profits each year]. It would only come to about 40 cents per hour. The shop is actually using the music to increase revenue [as the right sort of music while someone shops has been shown to increase sales]. A lot of smaller shops I've been in just play the radio where they don't have to pay royalt
'What did you do as a musician? Do you still dabble?'
... but, you have to get the bad performances out of the way somewhere, and this is only in front of about 400 people I think. Plus, it's a solo performance, so I won't be embarrassing any band mates :-)].
I'll be performing in Perth,(Australia) on the 24th of February. Previously [in the late 70's/80's/ early 90's] I played in bands and was for a short while a Studio musician [Late 1980's]. I don't really play much any more [I entered IT in the late 80's after leaving the studio]. The 24th will be my first public appearance in 14 years. [In fact, this appearance might be a bit of a shocker, as I'm not going to have much chance to practice
'lost track of this all being premised on copyright law not existing.'
Ah, sorry. I was talking from a present world perspective. Still, the BRANDING of Madonna etc would be more a case of Trade Mark than copyright. Her songs are copyrighted, but her 'public personnae' is part of the her 'Branding'/Trade Mark.
'Are they about anything else these days from a legal standpoint?'
Yes, as some companies Trade Mark things like 'slogans' and stuff. Pepsi tried to Trade mark 'Uh-Huh' a while ago, and had it rejected as it was too commmon a phrase. Trade Marks also include 'Icons' and things as well. But, the Registration of Names is slightly different to Trade Marks. Both might be used to differentiate a company from its competitors, but the name doesn't have to be a Trade Mark as such [though my legal book does emphasis that making the company name a trade mark gives it added protection]. There are probably a lot of little legalities to differentiate them in ways normal folk can't think of.
'if copyright law did not exist, everyone would be allowed to make any copies they wanted to except if something else was in play. Could that something be trademark?'
No, it can't be Trademark, as the Trademark laws are totally different. For instance, I don't see how you would expect a songwriter to make a living from this. I write a song, if there is no copyright on it, then anyone can record it and I get nothing for my efforts. It doesn't matter if I place a trademark on it, that doesn't even prove I wrote it. Trademark doesn't actually stop people from claiming they wrote my song. That's why Henry the Eighth once added a bar to the end of a song and then put his name on it. Copyright is the part of the law which stops people doing that sort of thing. Trademarks are different to that and can't stop that from happening. Trademarks really just protect 'logos' and 'slogans' etc [and they have to be registered].
'I am saying that trademark law should not be able to stop me from copying artists CDs'
I'm not sure if you understand the difference between copyright and trademark. Trademark laws only cover the copying of the trademarks NOT the CD's. If copyright laws didn't exist, then Yeah, anyone can copy a CD, DVD or anything else without penalty, but it doesn't leave a cash flow for people who only work as Songwriters or Writers etc. After all, a songwriter earns their income from the roylaties [which is usually 1 cent per song]. If the songwriter has no other income [because a lot of good songwriters are terrible musicians], it basically forces them out of the market. There is little to no difference between a CD and a Pirated CD these days, so the removal of copyright would effectively remove any incentive for artists to keep producing their songs etc as they can't make a living from it. As soon as they release a song [even with their Trademark on it], anyone can rip it, and sales drop to next to nothing. OR if people actually decide they want to buy the song, a more popular artist can just record the song and with a better distribution channel etc sell more units. [In fact, this sort of thing has happened even with copyright, but at least the songwriter was still able
'According to recent research by the U.S. military and CERT, workers who sabotage corporate systems are almost always IT workers who are disgruntled, paranoid, generally show up late, argue with colleagues, and generally perform poorly."'
Bloody Managers!
'I am saying in a more basic sense that she is not, she is a person.'
:-)
Okay, I understand that [whcih iswhy I didn't dispute it, but said she is both]. In a basic sense we're all people, but the person bit isn't the bit that is marketed in Madonnas case. It's her image etc [basically a brand] that is marketed. Many a real person is very different than their 'brand'. So, the record buying public really doesn't know Madonna at all, not as a person, only as her 'public personnae'/'brand'. They may think they know her as a person, but they don't. That's all i was trying to point out [which, as you said, you undestand, so hopefully we're on the same page].
'I seriously don't see how it could have been a copyright case. Can you check into it some?'
I looked it up, and it wasn't a Trade Mark case. The Band Popular Mechanics had the rights to the name (as they were using it first and had aquired a considerable reputation under that name in the State of New South Wales). It wasn't a trade mark case as trade marks need to be registered as trade marks in order to be effective as trade marks. The name wasn't registered as a Trade Mark, so it became a 'Protection of business name'.
This talks briefly about it, but my legal book [which I have as I use to be a musician], does explain that it wasn't a trade mark case.
I was thinking when I wrote the comment that it might have been a copyright case as I was pretty sure I remembered it wasn't a trade mark dispute [my memory was at least correct in that small part]. But, you can't copyright a name, so it wasn't copyright either, it was a 'Protection of Business name' case. [Which I would assume is similar to a Trade Mark protection case.] It's basically to stop the buying public from being defrauded into buying something they think is from another band / company etc.
'But if there were no copyrights, I think she should not be able to stop people selling copies of her songs from saying they are copies of her songs.'
Copyright covers the right to copy songs etc. So, anyone selling her music isn't stopped from saying they are her songs. They just get in trouble for selling copies they're not allowed to make. No one disputes they are her songs, and in fact, if that was in dispute then it wouldn't be a copyright case, it'd be a fraud case. There are some places that used to sell copies of concerts by artists [basically recordings that were NOT created by the bands record label, nor the artists]. As they were selling them in Seven Elevens and Petrol Stations [one of my old flatmates owned several of these CDs], I assume they were legal. In order for the company manufacturing them, it would have required them getting permission to make the recordings. It was probably a tricky mine field for the company to have got around, as they would have required permission to copy the songs from whoever owned the copyright [most likely the band], but it got around the record company, as the record company only has copyright on the recording on the album the band recorded for them NOT on the copy of the songs in the concert.
Thnx Kelbear. Yes, I was using the Caps to provide emphasis. I usually use Italics when I quote the parent post.
:-)
Thanks for the links. Much appreciated.
'Madonna is a person. Not a brand.'
... but in any case each band is considered a sort of 'Brand' and bands can produce trademarks like Mick Jaggers Lips for the Rolling Stones or even just their logos etc].
She is both. She would have a company that she trades under, [bands normally form companies in order to operate and solo artists are normally registered as Soul Traders] but at the end of the day the image is marketed as a Brand. That's why another artist can't come and call themselves 'Madonna'. Even her name would be a trade mark or a copyright. That's why musicians have lawyers etc. to stop other musicians using their name etc, as it's all part of their Brand.
An interesting case in Australia was of one band called Popular Mecanics and another band caled Pop Mechanix going head to head over their names being too similar. [I'm pretty sure it was a copyright case and not a Trade Mark case
The Artists ARE the Brand.
'But if you want to buy the latest Weird Al or Madonna album, there's only source. It's a monopoly, '
... sure, Madonna is distributed by a specific record company - but all Fords come from Ford, all Apple Macs come from Apple and even Red Hat Linux has to come from Red Hat. If I want Nike runners, I have to buy them from a store who gets those shoes from Nike. None of these are monopolies just because you SPECIFIC want Madonna or you SPECIFICALLY want a Ferrari. Those things are products from the companies, and the other companies in those industries have SIMILAR products that you can chose instead. Making it seem like a company has a monopoly on something JUST because it is different from similar products is incorrect, as MOST companies HAVE to make their products different just to be competitive.
No, that would be like saying the Car industry is a monopoly as you can only buy the Ford Mustang from FORD, or a Ferrari from Ferrari. The fact is the price of Albums changes depending on which store you buy it from. If I go to one of the local small stores, it charges AUD$32 for a latest CD. But going to one of the big chains I can get it for a lot less. [With one chain I know selling them for as little as AUD$21 - they just buy a LOT of a very small selection to do that though]. YOU as a consumer have PLENTY of choice.
Calling it a monopoly is really incorrect. It would be a monopoly ONLY if they controlled & SOLD ALL the music in the world. You can still get your Madonna album from a lot of different stores and they will have different prices. If you get to know your local record store you might even get discounts. [One of my old flatmates was good friends with one of the local record store owners and used to get albums for FREE from the guy].
Calling it a monopoly would be akin to calling ANY BUSINESS a monoploy as you can only buy their product from them. All businesses have differences in product quality and in many cases with the features on the product. In this case the product is a CD with music on it
If Madonna left her label today [after fulfilling any contract she has] and decide to go to another record company and record one of her songs [or even ALL of her songs] again EXACTLY the same as her original, she could do that. That's not monopolistic at all. If the industry WAS MONOPOLISTIC that sort of thing wouldn't be allowed. [Artists just don't do this, as it doesn't increase their sales, but they are free to do so if they wish].
'an in theory limited but in practice eternal one called "copyright".'
Only in the US. Most other countries have the Copyright on recordings go into public domain about 50 to 90 years after they're recorded and the copyright on the song goes into public domain 50 years after the songwriter/s die.
Plus the major labels take on more bands. As nine in ten bands are usually flops they lose money on them. An Indie label with a smaller budget can usually only take on a few bands [they have a lot less staff to handle the numbers too], and as such REALLY need to look hard for a GOOD band and market hard any band they decide to take on. The big labels EXPECT to lose money on nine in ten bands, and as such expect to recoup some of the cost from what they get on their successful artists.
The record companies don't make money from bands touring, except from the merchandise sales PROVIDED they have a deal to do the merchandising (which isn't the case with all bands. For instance, the Dave Matthews band kept their merchandising). So record companies would get bugger all from the touring. Plus, many a tour runs at a loss.
... ], still, if they sell enough units this comes down as a percentage cost per unit. The only problem they have is that 9 out of 10 bands fail dismally and never make their money back [and it usually takes 3 albums on average for a band to make the money back ... as the recording deal usually means the cost gets taken out of the bands royalties first ... but if the band walks away still owing money they don't have to pay it back ... but they also usualyl can't record anywhere else]. Which is why the record companies say they need to charge so much for CD's. [When they're not blaming piracy].
... just it'd become a deal breaker if the band wanted to control their own merchandising] in order to make money. [The band does get paid for the use of their image etc on the merchandise, but when the record company controls the merchandising they take the lions share of it all]. It'd also make a lot of bands BROKE very quickly, as they'd be made to foot the bill for the tour and a bad tour would result in a huge money haemorhage.
This is especially true of bands just starting out. The Police did their first tour of the US in ONE VAN with no roadies, where the three members slept in the van and their manager did the driving. One of their concerts only got 3 people to it.
Many a starting band does this sort of tour [it's amazing how far you can get in a Tarago with a U-Haul on the back], but often it still costs the band more money than they make. Though, for any starting band it isn't too bad a way to get around to a LOT of places and spread the word/name of the band.
Though, I think the RIAA have forgotten that the cost of pressing CD's has come down considerably since they were introduced. Taking into account that the total cost of pressing the CD, the Jewel Case (or other sort of casing) and printing of the art work can be done for less than 50cents in China (with a little added on for the cost of shipping it to somewhere in the world), and the Royalties are about 1 cent per track for the artist and 1 cent per track for the recording, we're looking at CD's being made for a little under $1 all up. Take into account that the store will mark them up by about 100%, it explains how record companies can release Classical recordings and sell them for $2 a pop.
Admittedly they don't spend $millions promoting classical CD's, nor do they spend a lot in the recording of them [where as some pop/rock records cost millions to record
But, if they can bring the price down on CD's to something more reasonable I'm sure they'd make more money.
Just the 'making money from touring' thing won't work for them. They'd start FORCING bands to hand over their merchandising to them [it's already part of a standard record deal
I don't think there's such a thing a 'Middle Class' in the record industry. The closest you'd come to 'middle class' would be a one hit wonder band. As nine out of ten bands fail, those are basically your 'poor' bands, and the one in ten who make it are basically the 'rich bands'. There isn't really any in between, except [as I said] a one hit wonder band, and they better quit after their hit, else they'll just squander what they've made with poor record after poor record and poor tour after poor tour.
I'd be even more impressed if you can successfully punch information into drummers. :-)
Slightly off topic, but slightly on topic. I dated a girl from Taiwan once who was telling me about her Aunty who has blonde curly hair. They had a Dutch sailor who married into their family hundreds of years earlier.
With what you're saying here, obviously there must have been some European on the girls other side of the family for it to have come out in her Aunty the way it did.
Excommunication is the Pope throwing someone out of the church. Normally as he beleives they're already damned to hell. So he isn't actually damning the person, it's more a matter of him throwing them out of the club. Orthodox churches also sometimes excommunicate peopel also ... like when they used to excommunicate the popes before the great schism in 1054 AD. [After 1054, both sides just assumed the other side was excommunicated for existance.]
I think they were meaning Space Turingism. They were trying to prove that the Man in the Moon is able to hold a human like conversation. :-)
One of these days, Alice! Bang, zoom, straight to the Moon!"
Haven't you seen JAWS? One Big Laser for ONE BIG SHARK!!! :-)
What are they talking about? My NVidia Software doesn't work properly with XP. [I can only get SOME games to work with it. BLENDER won't work, and neither will a lot of other things without tweaking. It's a pain as I have to tweak some things (like turning off hardward acceleration to watch movies), then have to turn them back on to do other things..
Yes, but THAT MOON base and the moon itself was blown out of the solar system in 1999.
They've since had to rebuild the moon [Luckily Magrathea was still open for business after the demolition of Earth], and now NASA wants to put another moon base on the moon.
'they can time travel or visit alternate universes'
:-)
:-)
:-)
So, your suggesting that just lampoon the Star Trek Original Series episodes of that nature.
I bet they could introduce a Bender look a like, except he has a goatie and calls himself Flexo.
Nah, I'm yanking your chain, I think it's a good idea.
Which in turn pushes the price of Green Cheese through the roof!
I thought it was because the Dinosaurs wouldn't quit smoking. They prefered to look Cool rather than look after their health.
Just to add to what you've stated. This is from an E-mail sent to us from one of our University Lectureres regarding the Citing of Wikipedia:
You may be interested in this: text taken in full from Library +
Information Update, 5 (9), September 2006, p. 4.
WIKIPEDIA WARNING
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has candidly advised college students not
to use Wikipedia as a source.
Speaking at a University of Pennsylvania conference called 'The
Hyperlinked Society' Jimmy said he gets about 10 messages a week from
students who've got into trouble for using the online encyclopedia.
'They say "Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited
Wikipedia",' and the information proved to be incorrect.
Jimmy said he had little sympathy for such students, and thinks to
himself 'For God's sake, you're in college; don't cite the
encyclopedia.'
He added that the Wikipedia team has thought about producing a fact
sheet for professors to students explaining what Wikipedia is and how it
is not always a definitive source.
'It is pretty good, but you have to be careful with it,' said Jimmy.
It's good enough knowledge, depending on what your purpose is.
******
As a previous post has stated though, Wikipedia is a good point to start at, as it often points to primary texts where students can get the information they need. In my studies I've basicalyl used it as that. A Source for finding Source documents NOT as a source for finding the facts.
I can undertand also a lot of the frustration that teachers/lecturers have, as I've been told from a number of them that they hate receiving half a dozen assignments which are identicle as the students just plagarised things straight off the internet. ie cut and paste jobs from places like Wikipedia [though not just Wikipedia]. In a way the internet is turning out some students who are too lazy to do the work and think that just cutting and pasting from the internet will get them through school/University etc. On the other hand the internet can be a valuable tool.
It might be that teachers might have to start teaching courses on data mining in school that includes methods of finding and using source information without just copying and pasting it.
That friction might be from a big black monolith thingy. I saw one orbiting Jupiter. :-)
As soon as I saw this article I had visions of Fry covering his testicles in pain the first time it's tried on him, and not the second time.
My PC IS My SO!!!!!
We must be close to the same age. :-) But when I was in Adelaide they were still using punch cards at the local University and some of the businesses. [Which was about 1979 / 1980], as I did some work experience around that time [though I was still in High School]. At least the first college I attended [in 1981 whilst I was still at school mind you] had a mini computer [the hard drive was about the size of a washing machine] and we were able to input the Programs in via a green screen. [I did a Pascal Course that year].
:-)
But, the punch cards were what we used during work experience.
Back then the joke was real programmers could still toggle a program in.