Forum Moderators: open
Full Story [news.ft.com]
The industry has drawn criticism for trying to stop piracy without offering viable alternatives.We are besieged by rampant piracy. But these same services have shown the tremendous appeal of music.
The RIAA, after intense legal pressure and a flurry of subpoenas were probably a bit dismayed by the 30% drop in CD sales last month. Some artists are starting to get the message too. "Hey, umm, RIAA, you're suing our FANS"!
<added />changed link, pulled quotes from the Washington Post article
I have produced TV myself, and I think 10 years is plenty of tiem to recoup investment. If not, nobody would work more then a few years, because they could just retire on the money they make over the next 100 years. Heck, I'd take out a lone using the license income AFTER MY DEATH as security, and live a good life after just a few years of creative work.
I believe it is
I stand by my original statement (as DigitalGhostian (succinct) as it is). :)
lawman
I think we can all agree it's wrong if someone sneaks into your house and steals your unpublished novel and then sells it in his own name. But that kind of stuff would be protected under state laws and not under federal copyright law. Just as stealing money from your house is a crime under state law but not a federal issue.
And to respond again to the sick child argument, it doesn't matter one bit whether you intend to spend your profits on booze and pornography, or on your sick child's hospital bills, the law applies to you the same either way.
If I was writing a novel, and I learned that I could only have rights to it for 17 years after it was published (the traditional years for a patent) and not 100 years, would I still continue writing it? Absolutely. 17 years is long enough to make a good deal of money.
If songwriters for movie and TV didn't have rights to their songs after they produced them, would they still do it? SURE they would, so long as the TV or movie studio payed them enough money to make it worth their while.
SN
[edited by: lawman at 3:28 pm (utc) on Sep. 9, 2003]
[edit reason] spelling [/edit]
Copyright only applies to published works. If it hasn't been published, copyright is irrelevant.
Legal cite?
BTW, check message 28 of this thread. :)
Your Friendly Neighborhood Lawman
How to they expect the rest of the kids from using KaZaA if they can't stop their own kids.
I have to admit that I'm too lazy to use KaZaA, it's easier to buy a whole CD. I LIKE listening to the extra tracks on the CD.
But when I was a kid we used to make tapes of each other's vinyl albums, so I don't know why we'd expect today's kids to behave any differently.
Could the person who has never made any kind of copy of someone else's record/CD/mp3 file please raise their hands? No hands went up--I thought so.
We need to officialy acknowledge the fact that technology has made the CD sales industry no longer viable. Much like the typewriter industry. Or the factory that used to acutally make the physical vinyl albums--out of business now.
the RIAA can bite meI agree, what a bunch of loosers picking on 12 year old kids who don't have the money to be ripped of by their high prices anyway so they just sue the parents... what a laugh
Even if they get people to stop using Kaza, they won't stop people from using their CD burner to copy CDs.
Almost all the money the music companies spend go into marketing. Basically, the high price of the CD means that you're paying the music company to tell you what you want to listen to. That's a service that I could do without anyway.
