They all want you to display the award with a link back to their website, it's basically SEO spam. My website is total crap and I still keep getting offered these awards (although nowdays google just filters them straight into my spam folder)
I'm betting the police went next door, 'claimed' they had logs and the neighbour panicked and confessed. Do home routers even keep track of what MAC addresses connected to them? I'm pretty sure mine doesn't!
It's my opinion that these albums (they put one out for just about every natural disaster and cause) undermine humanitarian efforts and are a blatant attempt by the record industry to cash in and get some free publicity from various natural disasters. And I've though this for a very long time.
And finally here's the proof. Clearly the album is such a stinker that nobody really wants it, even for free on p2p networks. It's obvious that sales of this album are driven entirely by people wanting to help with Haiti relief.
So how much profit from the album actually goes to Haiti and how much gets swallowed up in the music industry's grossly inflated 'costs'?
Also WMG have been very active in getting all their music taken off youtube and similar services, which is really annoying a lot of the artists signed with WMG labels because Youtube is basically radio for the internet age.
Isn't that basically what they did when radio came along? And what the movie industry did when TV came along? And also what killed MTV? And also pretty similar to the current situation of news industry vs. google?
Piracy has a promotional effect; more generally piracy leads to greater legitimate sales. Many studies support this, even some paid for by the recording industry themselves (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090604/0117405122.shtml)
This obviously benefits the recording industry.
And you only need look at a typical recording contract (http://www.negativland.com/albini.html) to see that the recording industry ARE organised crime.
I would agree with the schools having the same policy as the government, that all work paid for by taxpayer dollars is automatically in the public domain. This wouldn't stop the teachers from doing exactly what they're doing.
I partially agree with anti-mike on this though; I don't think that teachers should be making extra profit from their taxpayer-funded development of teaching materials. If they sell it at all it should only be under a permissive license such as CC-BY-SA or CC-0 which effectively means that they can really only expect to recover the cost of physically making and distributing copies.
But I don't think that taxpayer-funded schools should be charging each other (or anyone else) to share that material either.
It depends on a combination of how prominently the people feature in the photo, and how much of a public figure they already are, and how commercial the use if it is. Putting photos of some random person on your website, possibly a problem. Putting photo of some random person on a billboard, very likely a problem. Putting photos of a celeb on your website, not a problem. Putting same celeb on an advertising billboard, very likely a problem. Putting photos of a crowd or a sports team on your website, no problem. Putting the same photos in an advertising billboard, possibly a problem... (in each case asssuming you own copyright and do not get model releases)
In this case the subject is a celeb and I think therefore less protected because they're already not a 'private person', which is why they're doing the copyright thing instead.
It's my understanding that the Photographer gets the copyright unless it's specifically transferred / waived (thus copy-shops refusing to copy wedding photos, etc) but a model release is required before the photographer can do anything else with the photos. The photographer has 'copyright', the subject(s) has/have 'privacy rights' or something similar.