Answered my own questions, and it makes this whole idea more ridiculous. From another pdf on the SAMRO site:
"Strangely enough, however, this Bill will have the effect of making it illegal for Mutwa, Mhlophe or any of their colleagues to share traditional stories in published books without facing reams of red tape. Firstly, the author would now need to secure the permission of the indigenous community that claims ownership of that story. Further, the copyright in the published edition of the story will no longer belong to the author, but to a government trust fund. So let us say an author decides to write a book telling a traditional Zulu children’s tale. Which Zulu community is entitled to lay claim to the story? The entire KwaZulu-Natal region? How about the Zulu people in the Eastern Cape?
The simple answer is: no one knows because the Bill does not say how one identifies an indigenous community. Worse still, it doesn’t even provide a way of proving that a community’s claim is, in fact, genuine."
This doesn't even make sense. Owning a copyright requires a copyright owner. If they did lock up public domain works, who gets the money? The government? Some public trust? Whomever can prove some vague connection to the work in question? If the works of Shakespeare were copyrighted, I doubt any content creator would be getting money. More likely it would just be some publishing company with money to bully it's way to the front of the line.
You can't skip commercials on legal internet streams either.
I can't understand how broadcasters have totally failed at commercials online when it's the entire reason for their existence in broadcast tv, except for the fact that they still don't understand that people actually want to watch online.
Unless they haven't failed and they are just whining for some government handout.
It's a great business plan. Provide a service that people want, but be as annoying as possible without driving them away. Then offer to be less annoying for money. I'm going to try that.
Plus, the Harrod's font reminds of, oh, about half the company logos from the 50s and 60s I've ever seen. How long before somebody that predates their 1967 design sues them?
My thoughts exactly. I have a day job so I can afford the time and money to make music. Fortunately my day job is music so I can stand it. But I only make about 1/5th of my income from my own music every year. It's freeing to remove the stress of putting food on the table. This band has some good ideas. I made my first experiment in free about 2 years ago. The torrent has been downloaded thousands of times, but I've had no feedback. All the downloads are nice, but I have no way of knowing if people like it, or even listen to it. Next time, I will have to do something like this to encourage more interaction.
Every time I hear another stupid idea like this, I picture the boardroom meetings from The Hudsucker Proxy. That's how these organizations must function.
Yeah, I spent about 5 seconds hassling with that login bullshit. What a joke. Does a content provider really have a right to do that? Can't they already tell who my service provider is by my IP address that accessed their site (hence why the Canadian streams seem to be blocked for me)?
Re:
I get ASCAP "awards" every year. Honestly, it feel more like the pity trophy for the fat kid who finally actually finished a race at summer camp.
Re: Who gets a piece?
Answered my own questions, and it makes this whole idea more ridiculous. From another pdf on the SAMRO site:
"Strangely enough, however, this Bill will have the effect of making it illegal for Mutwa, Mhlophe or any of their colleagues to share traditional stories in published books without facing reams of red tape. Firstly, the author would now need to secure the permission of the indigenous community that claims ownership of that story. Further, the copyright in the published edition of the story will no longer belong to the author, but to a government trust fund. So let us say an author decides to write a book telling a traditional Zulu children’s tale. Which Zulu community is entitled to lay claim to the story? The entire KwaZulu-Natal region? How about the Zulu people in the Eastern Cape?
The simple answer is: no one knows because the Bill does not say how one identifies an indigenous community. Worse still, it doesn’t even provide a way of proving that a community’s claim is, in fact, genuine."
Who gets a piece?
This doesn't even make sense. Owning a copyright requires a copyright owner. If they did lock up public domain works, who gets the money? The government? Some public trust? Whomever can prove some vague connection to the work in question? If the works of Shakespeare were copyrighted, I doubt any content creator would be getting money. More likely it would just be some publishing company with money to bully it's way to the front of the line.
Re: Re: Re:
Worthy of the Onion
Re: Well...
You can't skip commercials on legal internet streams either.
I can't understand how broadcasters have totally failed at commercials online when it's the entire reason for their existence in broadcast tv, except for the fact that they still don't understand that people actually want to watch online.
Unless they haven't failed and they are just whining for some government handout.
I'm having my entire music collection transferred to player piano rolls.
anotomy of a record deal
Anyone who needs an overview of major label's creative accounting should read this. http://alanbergman.com/articles.htm#deal
Reminds me of the guitar Steve Vai did about 10 years ago, with his blood in the swirl paint job. Those sold for quite a bit less than this book.
Great idea
It's a great business plan. Provide a service that people want, but be as annoying as possible without driving them away. Then offer to be less annoying for money. I'm going to try that.
Re: Re:
Plus, the Harrod's font reminds of, oh, about half the company logos from the 50s and 60s I've ever seen. How long before somebody that predates their 1967 design sues them?
Re: @2 better reread #1
Huh? The Rolling Stones don't have a label backing their tours? Where do you get this idea?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ummmm
Wouldn't Facebook's claim also make the auto-Twitter and auto-blog posting to Facebook illegal? Not that this story need more ridiculous...
The Ministry of Love?
Re:
My thoughts exactly. I have a day job so I can afford the time and money to make music. Fortunately my day job is music so I can stand it. But I only make about 1/5th of my income from my own music every year. It's freeing to remove the stress of putting food on the table. This band has some good ideas. I made my first experiment in free about 2 years ago. The torrent has been downloaded thousands of times, but I've had no feedback. All the downloads are nice, but I have no way of knowing if people like it, or even listen to it. Next time, I will have to do something like this to encourage more interaction.
Every time I hear another stupid idea like this, I picture the boardroom meetings from The Hudsucker Proxy. That's how these organizations must function.
I'm a big fan of ReverbNation. Even without direct selling it's a great tool for indie musicians. I think it's really what myspace should have been.
Re: It's gotta be easier to pirate the streams!
Yeah, I spent about 5 seconds hassling with that login bullshit. What a joke. Does a content provider really have a right to do that? Can't they already tell who my service provider is by my IP address that accessed their site (hence why the Canadian streams seem to be blocked for me)?
Facepalm doesn't quite cover it
Another in a long line of examples of the high levels of crazy found in Texas. Dear Texas, please just secede and get it over with.
Re: Trademarking an entire state?
So what do they do to students who show up at games with a T or school colors painted on their bodies?
Re: Re:
I can vouch for mininova as a content distributor. I've used it quite a bit. Easy to do.