Actually, he didn't raise that point because he stated that inaccurate and misleading statement about "70 cents going back to the artist" without doing any research on the subject.
Good grief. How could Techdirt get their information so wrong. Now, I read Techdirt quite a bit, and I'm familiar with a lot of Mike's posts about the music industry and I seem to recall that a lot of his posts have been about educating the online community.
This is a good thing.
But, how could Techdirt writers get their facts so wrong?
I take issue with the following statement, published in this very write-up: "iTunes does something that Tower Records and Musicland never did: put about 70 cents of every dollar back in the artists' pocket".
Did I miss something? This write-up makes an outlandish claim that $.70 out of every dollar goes back into the artists pocket. THAT IS SO WRONG AND INCORRECT ON SO MANY LEVELS. According to what Techdirt has written on before, music artists do not ever see any revenue from iTunes, and when they do, it's of so little that music artists cannot survive on it. The music industry, publishers and executives get the majority of that money due to the heinous nature of their book-keeping. Music studios try to wriggle, squirm, lie and cheat just to get out of paying their artists any money and the RIAA is an even bigger joke.
Hate to say it, and this isn't being disrespectful or sarcastic, but Tim Cushing really should learn to do some research before he makes such outlandish claims that iTunes pays music artists 70 cents on every dollar. That is just as outlandish as the RIAA actually paying music artists for the lawsuits that they collect on.
Truth: The music industry does not pay its artists.
I don't really know what to think of this. Is Sony now saying that they can claim the copyright to any actor or actress that appears in any of their commercials?
If any court in this country accepts this as a valid lawsuit, they would become the laughing stock of the entire country because nobody can claim a copyright on your physical appearance because it would effectively ban you from doing any work for any company, ever.
The court system should throw this lawsuit out because it's simply ridiculous on its claims. The only way they can sue is if the "Butler" character is ever mentioned in the commercial.
This is bullshit. Roland Emmerich didn't blow up anything. It's a movie for goodness sake. The destruction that took place in the movie was done on a computer and created using CGI or Computer Generated Graphics.
I don't see this lawsuit going anywhere because the statue of "Christ The Redeemer" is a religious icon. Religious icons cannot be copyrighted. When was the last time that someone got sued using Jesus' image in a religious pamphlet. The statue is an image of Jesus and I don't see how anyone can claim a copyright on Jesus.
That's what this is going to amount to. Not only that, but you also cannot copyright a statue.
Matter of fact, there are a number of statues that use that name and I doubt that the courts will even hear a case where a church is claiming copyright on the very image of Jesus Christ.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by morisato.
Actually, he didn't raise that point because he stated that inaccurate and misleading statement about "70 cents going back to the artist" without doing any research on the subject.
Good grief. How could Techdirt get their information so wrong. Now, I read Techdirt quite a bit, and I'm familiar with a lot of Mike's posts about the music industry and I seem to recall that a lot of his posts have been about educating the online community.
This is a good thing.
But, how could Techdirt writers get their facts so wrong?
I take issue with the following statement, published in this very write-up: "iTunes does something that Tower Records and Musicland never did: put about 70 cents of every dollar back in the artists' pocket".
Did I miss something? This write-up makes an outlandish claim that $.70 out of every dollar goes back into the artists pocket. THAT IS SO WRONG AND INCORRECT ON SO MANY LEVELS. According to what Techdirt has written on before, music artists do not ever see any revenue from iTunes, and when they do, it's of so little that music artists cannot survive on it. The music industry, publishers and executives get the majority of that money due to the heinous nature of their book-keeping. Music studios try to wriggle, squirm, lie and cheat just to get out of paying their artists any money and the RIAA is an even bigger joke.
Hate to say it, and this isn't being disrespectful or sarcastic, but Tim Cushing really should learn to do some research before he makes such outlandish claims that iTunes pays music artists 70 cents on every dollar. That is just as outlandish as the RIAA actually paying music artists for the lawsuits that they collect on.
Truth: The music industry does not pay its artists.
I really needed a good laugh.
I don't really know what to think of this. Is Sony now saying that they can claim the copyright to any actor or actress that appears in any of their commercials?
If any court in this country accepts this as a valid lawsuit, they would become the laughing stock of the entire country because nobody can claim a copyright on your physical appearance because it would effectively ban you from doing any work for any company, ever.
The court system should throw this lawsuit out because it's simply ridiculous on its claims. The only way they can sue is if the "Butler" character is ever mentioned in the commercial.
This is bullshit. Roland Emmerich didn't blow up anything. It's a movie for goodness sake. The destruction that took place in the movie was done on a computer and created using CGI or Computer Generated Graphics.
I don't see this lawsuit going anywhere because the statue of "Christ The Redeemer" is a religious icon. Religious icons cannot be copyrighted. When was the last time that someone got sued using Jesus' image in a religious pamphlet. The statue is an image of Jesus and I don't see how anyone can claim a copyright on Jesus.
That's what this is going to amount to. Not only that, but you also cannot copyright a statue.
Matter of fact, there are a number of statues that use that name and I doubt that the courts will even hear a case where a church is claiming copyright on the very image of Jesus Christ.