Have to agree with Nathan F here... Google has it's standard policy, and it's the photographer who is asking them to change it with no legal leg to stand on. Anybody who receives a DMCA notice can make it public... sure they could play friendly and keep it private, but who does that benefit? Will the photographer really lose business just because he doesn't want his copyrighted material freely available on google?
The problem with the leak is the person tried selling it for an exorbitant amount of money, instead of just uploading it somewhere, which is what kept it from leaking."
Haha this has a 'National Enquirer' feel to it... you know, the people who pay millions of dollars for pictures of secret celebrity weddings or something? Except they realized that most people were comfortable waiting the extra week or two... so no one was going to pay anything more than the 17$ the artists wanted!
Great chat though!! I wish Mike was reading, he would fill us in on the copyright laws in regards to length of time from release! (I also wish I had his extensive knowledge on that stuff!)
Saying Rap isn't music or isn't art is just plain obnoxious. When Rock 'n Roll came out, everyone labeled it as 'not music' as well, and I'm sure you all told your parents where they could stick their opinions.
Some rappers do talk about robbing stuff or shooting people, etc. etc.... but Rock also talks about killing people, robbing places, trashing hotels, killing yourself, using drugs, abusing women... hasn't anybody heard of a groupie? Is there a big difference?
I have lots of friends who play guitar... but nothing they play should be labeled as music. Or as good.
Having to listen to Nickelback on the radio everyday (Ottawa radio stations are awful...) is painful. If everyone said 'rock sucks because Nickelback is horrible", that's obnoxious. Just like saying Soulja Boy's music is all crap doesn't mean rap is brutal.
It's a matter of taste. I personally see nothing of value in 99% of Picasso's art. But I'm a big fan of Andy Warhol!
"As for the "precuations to avoid infringement", you're misunderstanding me. I meant, they went through all this to protect their work. But while they took steps to protect their stuff from being infringed upon, stay with me here, they infringed on the work of another. Two separate things. They weren't trying to protect against that, I did not say that. I'm just saying they did something themselves that they didn't want to have done to them."
Yup, I misunderstood! Thanks for clearing it up! Looks like we're on a similar page. Like somebody above said, they will pay the little fee and all will be fine. Knowing how meticulous both artists have been (neither has been sued, to my knowledge, in the past), I'm sure it was an oversight. Unless, since the song is from 1967, they thought the copyright was gone on it or something? I really don't know the law, but I thought there was some 'public domain' thing that kicked in after 50 years, unless it was re-registered.
"Whether or not it was distributed online is irrelevant, a leak still happened"
I suppose I'm arguing semantics, but there was no leak. A crack in a wall isn't a 'leak', but water coming in through the crack is a leak. Getting the album isn't really a leak... except to that one person. Distributing it would have been a true leak.
"Actually, by "ditch the old business model and do something different" most people mean try a different business model"
So they didn't use a different business model, they just used a different business model? Not sure what you're getting at. As Mike says, artists have neve gone to that extreme to keep it from leaking... so that's a different business model. What's your argument there? I feel like we're agreeing...
How was it not a complete success? They did this to sell more albums... and it worked. What am I missing? The infringement thing? That's really got nothing to do with stopping their work from being leaked. I admit I didn't read the MTV article, but these are 2 different topics. They wanted people to buy and listen to a full album, not a single track, and they were successful in that. Even if it was ALMOST leaked, like Mike said, it never made it online to my knowledge (and to Mike's).
"But I believe the point being made in the article is that they went through precautions to protect THEIR WORK, while at the same time THEY WERE INFRINGING ON THE WORK OF ANOTHER. "
I think you're missing the point here... they didn't go through the precautions to avoid infringement. I really doubt they were concerned about people taking their beats or something. They were protecting the completness of the album, as I stated above, to avoid people hearing one or two tracks out of context. THEY DID NOT AVOID A LEAK TO PROTECT INFRINGEMENT.
PS: I'm taking no offence! First time poster. Big fan of the site! Also big fan of discussion! (and clearly of Jay-Z and Kanye!)
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by awkif.
Have to agree with Nathan F here... Google has it's standard policy, and it's the photographer who is asking them to change it with no legal leg to stand on. Anybody who receives a DMCA notice can make it public... sure they could play friendly and keep it private, but who does that benefit? Will the photographer really lose business just because he doesn't want his copyrighted material freely available on google?
Re:
The problem with the leak is the person tried selling it for an exorbitant amount of money, instead of just uploading it somewhere, which is what kept it from leaking."
Haha this has a 'National Enquirer' feel to it... you know, the people who pay millions of dollars for pictures of secret celebrity weddings or something? Except they realized that most people were comfortable waiting the extra week or two... so no one was going to pay anything more than the 17$ the artists wanted!
Great chat though!! I wish Mike was reading, he would fill us in on the copyright laws in regards to length of time from release! (I also wish I had his extensive knowledge on that stuff!)
Saying Rap isn't music or isn't art is just plain obnoxious. When Rock 'n Roll came out, everyone labeled it as 'not music' as well, and I'm sure you all told your parents where they could stick their opinions.
Some rappers do talk about robbing stuff or shooting people, etc. etc.... but Rock also talks about killing people, robbing places, trashing hotels, killing yourself, using drugs, abusing women... hasn't anybody heard of a groupie? Is there a big difference?
I have lots of friends who play guitar... but nothing they play should be labeled as music. Or as good.
Having to listen to Nickelback on the radio everyday (Ottawa radio stations are awful...) is painful. If everyone said 'rock sucks because Nickelback is horrible", that's obnoxious. Just like saying Soulja Boy's music is all crap doesn't mean rap is brutal.
It's a matter of taste. I personally see nothing of value in 99% of Picasso's art. But I'm a big fan of Andy Warhol!
"As for the "precuations to avoid infringement", you're misunderstanding me. I meant, they went through all this to protect their work. But while they took steps to protect their stuff from being infringed upon, stay with me here, they infringed on the work of another. Two separate things. They weren't trying to protect against that, I did not say that. I'm just saying they did something themselves that they didn't want to have done to them."
Yup, I misunderstood! Thanks for clearing it up! Looks like we're on a similar page. Like somebody above said, they will pay the little fee and all will be fine. Knowing how meticulous both artists have been (neither has been sued, to my knowledge, in the past), I'm sure it was an oversight. Unless, since the song is from 1967, they thought the copyright was gone on it or something? I really don't know the law, but I thought there was some 'public domain' thing that kicked in after 50 years, unless it was re-registered.
"Whether or not it was distributed online is irrelevant, a leak still happened"
I suppose I'm arguing semantics, but there was no leak. A crack in a wall isn't a 'leak', but water coming in through the crack is a leak. Getting the album isn't really a leak... except to that one person. Distributing it would have been a true leak.
Re: Re: "Who can read"
"Actually, by "ditch the old business model and do something different" most people mean try a different business model"
So they didn't use a different business model, they just used a different business model? Not sure what you're getting at. As Mike says, artists have neve gone to that extreme to keep it from leaking... so that's a different business model. What's your argument there? I feel like we're agreeing...
How was it not a complete success? They did this to sell more albums... and it worked. What am I missing? The infringement thing? That's really got nothing to do with stopping their work from being leaked. I admit I didn't read the MTV article, but these are 2 different topics. They wanted people to buy and listen to a full album, not a single track, and they were successful in that. Even if it was ALMOST leaked, like Mike said, it never made it online to my knowledge (and to Mike's).
"But I believe the point being made in the article is that they went through precautions to protect THEIR WORK, while at the same time THEY WERE INFRINGING ON THE WORK OF ANOTHER. "
I think you're missing the point here... they didn't go through the precautions to avoid infringement. I really doubt they were concerned about people taking their beats or something. They were protecting the completness of the album, as I stated above, to avoid people hearing one or two tracks out of context. THEY DID NOT AVOID A LEAK TO PROTECT INFRINGEMENT.
PS: I'm taking no offence! First time poster. Big fan of the site! Also big fan of discussion! (and clearly of Jay-Z and Kanye!)