True, there's a reference to a 'wall post'. Shame that this wasn't shown or mentioned in the TechDirt article.
Why the blatant attack? Well, because someone in Skype Marketing has a job to do and figured this was a good approach. Seems that most of us here don't agree.
Facebook and Microsoft share a lot, actually. Bing Maps is deeply embedded into Facebook Places and Events, whilst Bing Search is a part of Facebook Search. Also, the overall layout of the desktop browser (regular) Facebook deliberately mimics Windows, with a task bar and notifications at the bottom of the window, menu options at the top, and a Windows Explorer style tree on the left side. These things are no coincidence.
Except that Facebook's 'Messages' product is used regularly by the majority of users for direct communication - popular because it bridges e-mail, SMS, Facebook messaging and Facebook Chat (instant messaging). Personally I use it far more often than anything else for keeping directly in touch with friends online. There's even a Windows client available.
Surely there is a 'natural right' to have the right to control over what we create?
And again: Are you going to say it was a 'natural right' to steal physical property of others, or to kill others, or even kill out whole races, just because our ancestors could and did do this? A 'right' implies that it was deemed to be 'right' to do that - do you have evidence of homo sapiens agreeing upon this?
I think your example of youngsters being charged millions of dollars is an extreme one - the fines will have been that hight because of the extent of their copyright abuse. Unfortunately the Internet makes it very easy to abuse copyright on a very large scale very quickly. In the UK, it would be their parents/guardians who would be in trouble as they are legally responsible for their children, just as they would be if they were selling knock-off copies down at the local flea market.
I believe copyright is fair because I value the creative process and intellectual property, not because an 18th century law made it legal.
Actually, if I sell something to someone, if part of the deal is that they can't do a certain thing with it, that's totally up to me as well. If they don't like it, they don't have to buy it. This isn't the right to control your fellow man, it's the right for two people to have a contract between each other that they both agree to. I don't believe there is any such 'cultural liberty' or right to share and build upon existing culture - *that* is a privilege.
"it cannot and does not give you the power to control what everyone else on the planet does with your published works" - of course it doesn't physically stop people going against your wishes, just like laws against murder don't stop people from killing each other, but as it's a law, it does give you legal standing to both discourage the actions, and potentially be compensated for any infringement.
"the rest of the world would rather keep its cultural liberty and damn your privilege you claim supersedes it"
Says who? Have you polled the rest of the world except for me?
"Your published works WILL be shared, illicitly performed, broadcast, reproduced and distributed. They WILL be derived from, incorporated, remixed, edited, translated, and mashed up as others see fit. And that's the best you can hope for"
No, the best I can hope for is that some of those who use it respect my wishes, whatever they may be. And some will. Just because some people infringe copyright, that doesn't mean everyone does.
Copyright is unethical?! How? And without it, how can artists earn a *fair* living? Relying on donations is not fair or relative to the amount that your art is used/viewed/heard/consumed.
"You have no right to keep your music off the radio."
You do in the UK. Our copyright law states that permission is required:
"A performer has the exclusive right to authorise the recording and/or broadcast of his performances (s. 182). The use or broadcast of recordings without the performer's consent (s. 183) and the import or distribution of illicit recordings (s. 184) are also infringements of the performer's rights."
"Go to your local bookstore and pick up a copy of a particular Shakespeare work. You do realize that his plays are in the public domain. Did the publisher get your permission to sell it? You just said he had to."
No, I said they had to get permission to sell the actual work, not a copy of it. I did go on to give an example of how you can make your own recording of a work in the public domain and sell that, to demonstrate that.
"Every country has different rules for how you can put your works into the public domain -- and some have NO SPECIFIC RULES, meaning that even if you declare it to be in the public domain, it might not be!"
We're not talking about 'every country' though, we're talking about the UK. Surely this is obvious by now.
No, I am right. The examples you showed me do use copyright so that the creators can still generate an income. If they fully surrendered their copyright, they would not have a business model. You can't have a business model with have copyright over something, as without it, you have nothing to sell.
I wouldn't pay you anything for those shares, as they are of no interest to me. They are worth nothing to me - I give them no value at all.
As you say, the market valuing them at zero means they have no value to the market. It's quite simple maths - zero means nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. If the price of something is zero, it doesn't actually have a price at all. If I have zero apples in my hand, I don't have any apples. If nobody will buy my music, it has no financial value.
Zero is not a value. It is the only number that is not a value. It has no value, it's a nothing.
For the last time, I hope, I've never said "the law is the law and thus the law is right". I've just said that the law is the law and if you break it there are consequences, so if you don't like the consequences, don't break it, or get it changed.
"Good artists should get rewards" - and what defines their goodness, out of interest?
Rose has made it very clear from her comments that she is not in the UK, and my comment was directed at her.
No, I have not said the law is right because it's the law. That makes no sense.
The best choice is to waste your time? No, I don't believe it's moot, the UK law cares what the majority of UK citizens thinks, but it would take a lot of effort to get most of the country to agree that creators aren't entitled to choose what happens to their work, IMHO.
Nope, I rent a property and it came with kitchen appliances including the refrigerator.
Does the UK Freon Society exist, then? Or are you making it up for this hypothetical?
In any case, in UK law, individuals are given a lot more legal leeway than businesses. The barber was running a business. If I owned a refrigerator, it would likely be as an individual, as my own business doesn't utilise refrigeration at all. If I did own and use it as part of my business, I'll bet there'd be a whole bunch of health and safety laws that wouldn't apply as an individual.
Another weird choice of an example. Can't we just stick to the actual case in hand instead of trying to compare it to something difference?
"it is logical that a legally bought radio should not be expected to break any laws by hitting the 'power' button"
No. That's like saying it's logical that a legally bought shotgun should not be expected to break any laws when the trigger is pulled.
"we tuning in a radio station which broadcasts over the public airwaves that belong to the citizens, and using the signal that enters all of our homes and places of business whether we like it or not."
Sure, but it's not the receiving of the airwaves that is the problem. It's the performance (playing of recorded) music with (or without) permission of the owner of the recording and the writer(s)/owner of the publishing rights of the music, that matters here. If there was no music on the station that you're tuned to (as can often be the case), you wouldn't have any PRS/PPL issues to worry about.
The barber's choices are not *just* to boycott or leave the country. He can simply NOT PLAY THE MUSIC. If he doesn't like having to get the licenses that the owners require, he can simply NOT PLAY THE MUSIC. If he wants to negotiate with the owners, he can certainly give it a shot - if he made the case that he couldn't afford the license, perhaps some of the artists he wanted to play might give him free licenses to play it. But it's never been about whether he could afford it - just about his ignorance of the schemes that the artists have chosen to use.
Is it moral for artists to call the shots regarding their own work. Yes, I think so!
I guess by 'his own music' you don't mean their own music (that they own the rights to)...?
Being in the office does make a difference because the licenses that the PRS and PPL issue to the radio broadcasters do not cover the music being performed (played) in commercial or public venues/spaces. The owners of the venues/spaces need their own license too for this (see all the messages above!).
I don't know whether they would count a home office as a commercial venue/space - probably not as the rule is generally if there are two or more people working there (see the case mentioned about the stables).
That's exactly my point. The radio station has licensed those air waves, but they don't own them Rose was claiming the air waves in her property were hers - "they should refuse to play their music on my air waves" - and then: "People own the air waves".