If they have made the item available on the web, and knowing that for someone to see what you put on the web means that your source (copyrighted material) has to be copied to their computer for them to see it, it could be argued you have given them permission to copy it. Basically by putting something on the web, you have given away your rights for copy as that is how the Web has always worked. A point might even be made in that the original purpose for the web was the free exchange of ideas and that anything on there was free to read and pass on. You should not claim it as yours, but it was expected to be copied and passed around. If you have not put it on yourself, I see that you can argue you have nto given up your rights, but once you publish on a medium that is setup to be viewed only if it is copied from your source to thiers, it seems ignorant on the part of the originator to give away their rights but that is the way it was designed. Funny we don not have this argument with copy machines. Almost every use is a copyright infringement. I guess that stems from the fact that books are printed on a medium that is to be read by one at a time, where the web is a medium that for anyone to even see it all content must be copied from your source.
For one, the library bought a copy of his works and share only that one copy. You are assuming she bought a copy (I doubt) but she shares on a permanent basis (read gives away) to any one that wants it. First off, if this is sheet music, someone had to copy or scan a printing of the work and convert it to a file to be shared for the express purpose of sharing this work. If this was a book, we wold not be having this discussion as we all know you may not scan/copy copyrighted works for distribution with out the owners permission. Just because she is supposedly doing it for free (not if she has adds on her library - then she is getting paid for distributing stolen works). Now, all will think I am for RIAA and the like, I am not. I think they are stupid and lazy. They should find a way to make money off electronic distribution in ways such as what LaLa.com was doint till bought by apple. I also think that this author should look into making his works available for download for perhaps 99 cents via his own website or create a leagal website for distribution of sheet music. I see this done for books (which this is the same as but with music). Some even give away samples and charge for the following as a way of bringing in business (Bane.com). All this does not lessen the fact that he is right and she is wrong. I would like to see her get the part in a play and find that although she is performing, and the theater is getting bucks for her performance, she will not be paid because they want to SHARE her performance with the folks in the audience. I dont think she will stay in the business very long working for nothing.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by ollie.
Too bad they don't know how the web works
If they have made the item available on the web, and knowing that for someone to see what you put on the web means that your source (copyrighted material) has to be copied to their computer for them to see it, it could be argued you have given them permission to copy it. Basically by putting something on the web, you have given away your rights for copy as that is how the Web has always worked. A point might even be made in that the original purpose for the web was the free exchange of ideas and that anything on there was free to read and pass on. You should not claim it as yours, but it was expected to be copied and passed around. If you have not put it on yourself, I see that you can argue you have nto given up your rights, but once you publish on a medium that is setup to be viewed only if it is copied from your source to thiers, it seems ignorant on the part of the originator to give away their rights but that is the way it was designed. Funny we don not have this argument with copy machines. Almost every use is a copyright infringement. I guess that stems from the fact that books are printed on a medium that is to be read by one at a time, where the web is a medium that for anyone to even see it all content must be copied from your source.
Re:
For one, the library bought a copy of his works and share only that one copy. You are assuming she bought a copy (I doubt) but she shares on a permanent basis (read gives away) to any one that wants it. First off, if this is sheet music, someone had to copy or scan a printing of the work and convert it to a file to be shared for the express purpose of sharing this work. If this was a book, we wold not be having this discussion as we all know you may not scan/copy copyrighted works for distribution with out the owners permission. Just because she is supposedly doing it for free (not if she has adds on her library - then she is getting paid for distributing stolen works). Now, all will think I am for RIAA and the like, I am not. I think they are stupid and lazy. They should find a way to make money off electronic distribution in ways such as what LaLa.com was doint till bought by apple. I also think that this author should look into making his works available for download for perhaps 99 cents via his own website or create a leagal website for distribution of sheet music. I see this done for books (which this is the same as but with music). Some even give away samples and charge for the following as a way of bringing in business (Bane.com). All this does not lessen the fact that he is right and she is wrong. I would like to see her get the part in a play and find that although she is performing, and the theater is getting bucks for her performance, she will not be paid because they want to SHARE her performance with the folks in the audience. I dont think she will stay in the business very long working for nothing.