Hey man, we complain about newspapers that "don't get it" all the time, let's give credit where credit is due here, so long as they follow through on their intentions...
Otherwise we're the guys who damn them if they do (HEY ABOUT TIME STUPID!) or damn them if they don't (GET WITH THE PROGRAM STUPID!).
Maybe I'm dense, inartistic, or didn't RTFA, but it doesn't look like the secondary artist added much content to the original, beyond making it bigger. If that's the case, the WSJ may be justified.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I'm not, I don't think the Shep Fairey precedent is germane. What kind of value is being added here?
Players do this ALL THE TIME in post-game interviews. In this case, it's a coach trying to make a proactive statement on his players use of Twitter. I'd argue this had very little to do with the content of the tweet itself.
You don't have to amend the Constitution to bring about this change. No one here is saying that Copyright has no place in our society.
However, the laws that govern copyright are easily changable and in fact, OUGHT to be changed.
You're right, as the law is written now, songs are the intellectual property of the copyright holder. As such, they have the right to determine what happens to their intellectual property. But just because that's the way the law is written now doesn't mean that's the way it OUGHT to read.
Reforming a business model can come about two ways. By choice or by law. If the laws are changed to reign in copyright, the business models would have to change to survive. And in changing, Mike contends, they would prosper.
The Recording Industry, however, can also CHOOSE to embrace a "digital-age" business model instead of clinging onto a model that is doomed to failure. Suing your customers is never a sound business model. Soon (some would argue VERY soon), people will turn away from that model and embrace something different. Something they WANT.
And that is the choice that the Recording Industry faces. Reform by choice, go down with the old law, or be reformed by new law. Only one of these routes involves choice and survival, and we can only sit back and wonder, "When will they get it?"
RSS
Twitter
Credit (as Drew)
Hey man, we complain about newspapers that "don't get it" all the time, let's give credit where credit is due here, so long as they follow through on their intentions...
Otherwise we're the guys who damn them if they do (HEY ABOUT TIME STUPID!) or damn them if they don't (GET WITH THE PROGRAM STUPID!).
Enlargements? (as Drew)
Maybe I'm dense, inartistic, or didn't RTFA, but it doesn't look like the secondary artist added much content to the original, beyond making it bigger. If that's the case, the WSJ may be justified.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I'm not, I don't think the Shep Fairey precedent is germane. What kind of value is being added here?
It makes you wonder... (as Drew)
What if they had sent this information to his US Postal Service mailbox? Could they have sued to confiscate (and destroy) it?
In this case, it's the medium (as Drew)
Players do this ALL THE TIME in post-game interviews. In this case, it's a coach trying to make a proactive statement on his players use of Twitter. I'd argue this had very little to do with the content of the tweet itself.
Excuses for Theft? (as Drew)
You don't have to amend the Constitution to bring about this change. No one here is saying that Copyright has no place in our society.
However, the laws that govern copyright are easily changable and in fact, OUGHT to be changed.
You're right, as the law is written now, songs are the intellectual property of the copyright holder. As such, they have the right to determine what happens to their intellectual property. But just because that's the way the law is written now doesn't mean that's the way it OUGHT to read.
Reforming a business model can come about two ways. By choice or by law. If the laws are changed to reign in copyright, the business models would have to change to survive. And in changing, Mike contends, they would prosper.
The Recording Industry, however, can also CHOOSE to embrace a "digital-age" business model instead of clinging onto a model that is doomed to failure. Suing your customers is never a sound business model. Soon (some would argue VERY soon), people will turn away from that model and embrace something different. Something they WANT.
And that is the choice that the Recording Industry faces. Reform by choice, go down with the old law, or be reformed by new law. Only one of these routes involves choice and survival, and we can only sit back and wonder, "When will they get it?"