Allow me to help you.
If I have an ebook on my computer and I copy it to paper, I have infringed on the copyrights of someone.
If I have a link to an ebook and I copy it to paper, I have not infringed on the copyrights of someone.
That concludes today's lesson.
It's not that frightening at all. If property is used to commit crimes, that property gets seized and forfeited.
Please tell us more about this crime that was committed. I can't find it anywhere.
There was no copyright infringement, was there? The "suspicion" was some third party saying so.
So, you're saying that I can simple say that iTunes is infringing on my copyrights, and ICE will take down itunes.com, and all will be perfectly fine and legal? They'll then ask me for my proof, after the fact, and will let me stall for a year when I don't have any. Once they finally return itunes.com, there will be no backlash against me or ICE?
Seems unlikely.
How does one tell the difference between an authorized mp3 and an unauthorized one?
On the gripping hand
Lay off the porn, buddy.
You state that he has a point, and then show examples of where the lack of competition is making things worse...
I'm very confused.
You are assuming a level financial playing field. If I can't afford a lawyer to go to court at all, then the situation you describe is not helpful. In the situation I describe, it would never make it to court.
Your questions have been asked in different ways already in this post, and the answer to it is they don't just want money; they also want control.
That's why they will pay someone to upload a clip to YouTube, but issue a take-down when a fan does it.
I feel that economics would be able to handle that. Why would I listen to the "sample" you suggest, versus going to the source? (Or, if I'm a "filthy freetard", why wouldn't I just pirate the actual song without a second of silence?)
It's not even a very good straw man. (That's not to say it wouldn't be used, of course.
I looked for a way to +1 this. I spend too much time on G+.
The time to come up with a new, effective licensing scheme is long overdue.
Yeah, because licensing schemes work *so* well, right? The only real solution is to make Fair Use more than just a defense against copyright infringement claims-- to codify several actions which are always Fair Use, and to have sampling fall under it.
We keep hearing about how, without copyright protection, all we would get is amateur shit, not even worth watching. This implies that only the old guard can make things worth anything. So, if "amateur" art can't compete, then it shouldn't harm the market for their media.
They should put their money where their mouth is, if anything "amateur" is so far beneath them, then there is obviously no harm in allowing it.
Not bad. I'm listening on Rdio, though I don't know if that makes you any money.
You link a bandcamp page. Do you have a band blog? How do you connect with fans?
That's pretty jewish. :-P
If they want to stop people from searching for this sort of thing, they can always find every Jewish person and put their name on a biiiiiiig list, that way everyone will know! What could *possibly* go wrong? :-P
UMG doesn't have to win a trial, they just have to scare away Grooveshark's customers. The info doesn't have to hold up in a court, it only has to scare away enough customers to cause GS to fail. In this light, it would behoove GS to show this comment as fake, as soon as possible.
Maybe it's the innate understanding that a Pebble watch (can't wait for mine!) is a tangible, scarce good that requires money to make, but a song only has to be recorded once. As for video games, I think it might have something to do with how the media is consumed. Music is often used in the background of other events; a video game is something that usually requires direct attention. Perhaps that subconsciously causes people to increase their price point for one and not the other.
Just speculating, of course.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the work you're linking to is under copyright, you don't have any right to link to it.
So, if I link to an authorized video.. it's wrong?