Still, people having habits and being slow to change is not like anything being forced on them.
Still, people having habits and being slow to change is not like anything being forced on them.
I'm still skeptical. Couldn't she revoke the license at any time? If not, what makes it irrevocable?
The word "irrevocably" in the text of CC0.
"Este v?deo incluye contenido de Screen Media Ventures, LLC, CD Baby, Diwan Videos y de IODA, y uno o varios de estos usuarios lo han bloqueado en tu pa?s por motivos de derechos de copyright."
Quick and dirty translation: "This video includes content from Screen Media Ventures, LLC, CD Baby, IODA and Diwan Videos, and one or more of these users have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."
So don't worry, somebody is taking care of the copyright.
Who do you think you're fooling? Why would the creators feel happy with the video if they were being hurt?
There are already laws against misrepresentation, no ND clauses are needed for that.
Maybe you can be awarded more damages for copyright infrigment than from misrepresentation, though. So it can be a good deal if that's what you're looking for.
Just like commercials, they don't produce revenue not guerantee future revenue but they are... well, commercials.
I wonder if using a work in a commercial qualifies as commercial use.
"What if an amateur artist produces one single design that does really well"
What if he produces none, which is more realistic? What are his work's chances of becoming the next "To kill a mockingbird"?
Doing "really well" is unlikely. Most amateurs' works are not going to do well at all no matter how they are licensed, but a free license gives more opportunities.
Like doing voluntary work so you can gain knowledge, experience and/or exposure and then get a good paid job?
What most of them are actually missing is a chance to see their work promoted on t-shirts for free.
"My real target are the blowhards around here who justify their piracy by saying that the record companies don't deliver the content in a form that meets an ever growing list of requirements."
You misunderstand. This is not abot justification. The thing is, as long as the record companies don't deliver the content in a form that meets consumers' expectations, infringenment will keek happening. Whether Mike, you or I justify it or not is not relevant.
That's not just punition but damages. Since the main damage appears to be lost sales, that's roughly $25,000 in lost sales just because Joel shared a song.
Let's say that's not a very popular song so about 100 people are sharing it. That's $2,500,000 in lost sales due to file sharing for a single, not very popular song.
Now ypu can see how bad file sharing is, how it's ruining the economy and why it must be stopped at all costs.
"Is it fair to say that he was greedy to just take it?"
He didn't take $675000. If what he did makes him greedy then we have to create a new word for the record companies and their execs.
The music is kept in multiple locations already.
"Yes, but think about all those linking sites that link to links on other linking sites.
What about them?"
That's easy: they are porn sites.
Actually I can't see how this incident is "unfortunate". It does not harm the authors and it's funny for the fans --which otoh may be good for both authors.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Horse", then "Cart"...
"The ISP's aren't claiming that you violated the law, but the TOS."
Yeah. That part of the TOS which says that dealing in unlawful activity is prohibited.