A musician's career usually has an arc. In the beginning, a license for a nominal fee, with credit, is great to get the name out there and to have a credential to build buzz. But over time, the smaller payments become hopefully larger. If the television production submits cue sheets (many don't, particularly cable), the money they already pay to ASCAP will be attributed to the artist.
I think your post is a little too theoretical. Credit is very very important in the creative arts. Exploiting young or undiscovered talent for next-to-nothing is the tradition: film, music, photography, painting, whatever.
Television shows already pay blanket licensing fees for music. Not registering copyrights, not filling out the ASCAP/BMI paperwork, and not making sure that you are credited properly is simply poor business behavior, letting a stream of money go to the other artists who do what they are supposed to do and does not in any way implicate the evils of the copyright system.
In terms of the television production not licensing a sound recording, it makes no sense to argue that they should just borrow what they like. A "fresh" song, a "fresh" photo or a "fresh" vision is what high-end content creators are looking for. They don't want tired/played stuff. So by "exposing" the product, the desperate artist can destroy his/her most desirable market.
You can't use some kind of Chicago-School social Darwinism theory to argue that the best songs kind of rise to the top on their merits. It's just not how humans work. The right song, played in the right film, with the right director, will "pop". Absent control, the song will be burned and "flop".
So yes, uncompensated commercial use is really really bad.
In France, rights flow, at least initially, from registration. In the U.S. rights flow from use. Squatters have much better leverage in France and countries with similar TM systems.
It is a major conceptual and cultural difference. Likely that the registrant knew of Hadopi and that Hadopi's prior use can be proven.
But while the French registration is in effect, it is quite powerful. A French huissier (sheriff) properly authorized will seize and destroy goods that infringe a registered mark. So before you attend a trade show in France, check what's registered...
I posted on Copyright Litigation blog the same video without seeing your post about an hour later, my source was a Google alert on "Nazi & art" that I run daily, my analysis and feeling was exactly the same.
I have noticed that when I seek to post a link from some publications, they automatically insert an enclosure link for my blog post. An enclosure link is a unique link that corresponds to my blog post.
That means if someone tries to click on the link to my blog post, they would be redirected to the newspaper, not to my blog. That's overstepping, and too high a price for a blogger to pay.
I now delete these "suggested" enclosure links, but put a link to the content in the body of my post. I have never run into the ad issue, but don't usually repost content in full.
In the context of an election, campaigning against your adversary is pure political speech at the core of the First Amendment. The First Amendment forbids Congress from passing laws that abridge free speech. Copyright law does not protect "facts". Reid's re-publishing his adversary's political positions is pure First Amendment speech, and falls squarely in the statutory definition of what is NOT copyright infringement (fair use) "for purposes of commentary, criticism, etc.". The statute says that you can publish to criticize, that's what Reid is doing.
So the First Amendment and the actual text of the Copyright Act expressly authorize Reid's publication of Angle's website.
Copying court filings for purposes of further dissemination for legal research, education or criticism would all fall under the fair use doctrine. So would putting a copy of a court pleading in a book as an appendix to show what occurred in a trial. Court filings generally purport to be compilations of fact: allegations of what happened or statements of what the law is. Facts are not protected by copyright. Official publications of the US government (which lawyers cite in favor of arguments in briefs) are all public domain. In his Little Book of Plagiarism Judge Posner discusses how judges and lawyers take the writings of others for their decisions and briefs without giving attribution. If I wanted to put a book together called "best court filings of 2009" and attributing sources properly, I would not feel impelled to pay a license fee. Nor would any lawyer have the slightest hesitation about stealing whole chunks of someone else's brief without citing it as a source, if, after checking, it fit. Legal citation rules are different from those of academics. Court filings may contain copyrightable material (ie a whole copy of Catcher in the Rye or an entire photograph). But the lawyer's contribution, if copyrightable at all, is a very very thin copyright and subject to so many fair uses that almost none give rise to an expectation of income on resales.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ray Dowd.
A musician's career usually has an arc. In the beginning, a license for a nominal fee, with credit, is great to get the name out there and to have a credential to build buzz. But over time, the smaller payments become hopefully larger. If the television production submits cue sheets (many don't, particularly cable), the money they already pay to ASCAP will be attributed to the artist.
I think your post is a little too theoretical. Credit is very very important in the creative arts. Exploiting young or undiscovered talent for next-to-nothing is the tradition: film, music, photography, painting, whatever.
Television shows already pay blanket licensing fees for music. Not registering copyrights, not filling out the ASCAP/BMI paperwork, and not making sure that you are credited properly is simply poor business behavior, letting a stream of money go to the other artists who do what they are supposed to do and does not in any way implicate the evils of the copyright system.
In terms of the television production not licensing a sound recording, it makes no sense to argue that they should just borrow what they like. A "fresh" song, a "fresh" photo or a "fresh" vision is what high-end content creators are looking for. They don't want tired/played stuff. So by "exposing" the product, the desperate artist can destroy his/her most desirable market.
You can't use some kind of Chicago-School social Darwinism theory to argue that the best songs kind of rise to the top on their merits. It's just not how humans work. The right song, played in the right film, with the right director, will "pop". Absent control, the song will be burned and "flop".
So yes, uncompensated commercial use is really really bad.
French Trademark Law
In France, rights flow, at least initially, from registration. In the U.S. rights flow from use. Squatters have much better leverage in France and countries with similar TM systems.
It is a major conceptual and cultural difference. Likely that the registrant knew of Hadopi and that Hadopi's prior use can be proven.
But while the French registration is in effect, it is quite powerful. A French huissier (sheriff) properly authorized will seize and destroy goods that infringe a registered mark. So before you attend a trade show in France, check what's registered...
Dancing in Auschwitz
I posted on Copyright Litigation blog the same video without seeing your post about an hour later, my source was a Google alert on "Nazi & art" that I run daily, my analysis and feeling was exactly the same.
Reposting Content From Publications on Blogs
I have noticed that when I seek to post a link from some publications, they automatically insert an enclosure link for my blog post. An enclosure link is a unique link that corresponds to my blog post.
That means if someone tries to click on the link to my blog post, they would be redirected to the newspaper, not to my blog. That's overstepping, and too high a price for a blogger to pay.
I now delete these "suggested" enclosure links, but put a link to the content in the body of my post. I have never run into the ad issue, but don't usually repost content in full.
Elections and Copyright Infringement
In the context of an election, campaigning against your adversary is pure political speech at the core of the First Amendment. The First Amendment forbids Congress from passing laws that abridge free speech. Copyright law does not protect "facts". Reid's re-publishing his adversary's political positions is pure First Amendment speech, and falls squarely in the statutory definition of what is NOT copyright infringement (fair use) "for purposes of commentary, criticism, etc.". The statute says that you can publish to criticize, that's what Reid is doing.
So the First Amendment and the actual text of the Copyright Act expressly authorize Reid's publication of Angle's website.
Ray
Copyrights in Court Filings
Copying court filings for purposes of further dissemination for legal research, education or criticism would all fall under the fair use doctrine. So would putting a copy of a court pleading in a book as an appendix to show what occurred in a trial. Court filings generally purport to be compilations of fact: allegations of what happened or statements of what the law is. Facts are not protected by copyright. Official publications of the US government (which lawyers cite in favor of arguments in briefs) are all public domain. In his Little Book of Plagiarism Judge Posner discusses how judges and lawyers take the writings of others for their decisions and briefs without giving attribution. If I wanted to put a book together called "best court filings of 2009" and attributing sources properly, I would not feel impelled to pay a license fee. Nor would any lawyer have the slightest hesitation about stealing whole chunks of someone else's brief without citing it as a source, if, after checking, it fit. Legal citation rules are different from those of academics. Court filings may contain copyrightable material (ie a whole copy of Catcher in the Rye or an entire photograph). But the lawyer's contribution, if copyrightable at all, is a very very thin copyright and subject to so many fair uses that almost none give rise to an expectation of income on resales.