From: "David W. Fenton"
Reply-To:
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:11:41 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Copyright and downloadable music
>
> On 10 Jul 2010 at 5:59, dhbailey wrote:
>
>> my post was quoted by Blake Richardson, who
>> then went on the tirade ag
Darcy James Argue wrote:
As far as the Nicole Simpson murder, you are correct, but
of course O.J. Simpson was convicted of armed robbery,
kidnapping, and other felonies on Oct. 3, 2008, and is
currently serving a minimum 9-year sentence.
You're correct -- I should have been more specific that
As far as the Nicole Simpson murder, you are correct, but of course O.J.
Simpson was convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, and other felonies on Oct.
3, 2008, and is currently serving a minimum 9-year sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson
Cheers,
- DJA
-
WEB: http://www.se
Indeed. There is a BIG difference between Criminal and Civil Cases. I think the
original poster needs to bone up on this..
On Jul 11, 2010, at 11:45 AM, dhbailey wrote:
>
> O.J. was never convicted of anything -- he simply lost a lawsuit as defendant
> and was forced to pay the penalty that
At 2:38 PM -0400 7/11/10, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
It's really crucial to maintain the distinction between the two,
seems to me, and getting all bent out of shape about the idiots
going after the Girl Scouts (ASCAP will surely lose in court if EFF
or somebody else steps up to d
John Howell wrote:
At 1:41 PM -0400 7/11/10, Blake Richardson wrote:
From: John Howell
If there IS a single problem, it's obviously the one we've all been
aware of all the time: the progress of technology has made new
crimes not only possible but really, really EASY!
Copyright infringem
Blake Richardson wrote:
[snip]> All sorts of scary stuff is happening in Europe
under the umbrella of
"artists' rights". There's a proposal (don't know whether it's made it into
law yet) to give sculptors and painters the right of first refusal on sales
of their work. Under such a system, if you
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 10 Jul 2010 at 5:59, dhbailey wrote:
my post was quoted by Blake Richardson, who
then went on the tirade against stupid things done in the
name of copyright protection.
No, those were done in the name of enforcing performance rights,
which is distinctly different f
At 1:41 PM -0400 7/11/10, Blake Richardson wrote:
From: John Howell
If there IS a single problem, it's obviously the one we've all been
aware of all the time: the progress of technology has made new
crimes not only possible but really, really EASY!
Copyright infringement is generally not
On 9 Jul 2010 at 19:42, Blake Richardson wrote:
> It's this sort of draconian, heavy-handed thuggish approach to
> copyright that's turning off an entire generation of people from
> respecting it.
Not a single one of your examples has anything at all to do with
copyright or copyright enforcement
On 10 Jul 2010 at 5:59, dhbailey wrote:
> my post was quoted by Blake Richardson, who
> then went on the tirade against stupid things done in the
> name of copyright protection.
No, those were done in the name of enforcing performance rights,
which is distinctly different from copyright. Copyr
From: John Howell
Reply-To:
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:01:44 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Copyright and downloadable music
> If there IS a single problem, it's obviously the one we've all been
> aware of all the time: the progress of technology has made new
> crime
Sure, I'll accept that addition. But my point was that while the top
executives of companies do get huge salaries, it's the percs and
extras that makes them millionaires. Surely we've seen that with the
recent financial meltdown, and the salaries and bonuses that have
been paid to executives
On 11/07/2010, at 9:49 AM, John Howell wrote:
Can I insert a little word into your statement, which will make it accurate?
> At 5:44 PM -0400 7/10/10, dhbailey wrote:
>>
>> I perhaps spoke incorrectly -- it was the record company executives which
>> got fabulously wealthy. Of course, the lab
At 5:44 PM -0400 7/10/10, dhbailey wrote:
I perhaps spoke incorrectly -- it was the record company executives
which got fabulously wealthy. Of course, the labels did, too, or
the larger conglomerates wouldn't have started buying them up.
Well sure, but they don't do it through obscene profi
At 5:40 PM -0400 7/10/10, dhbailey wrote:
Interestingly, the ownership of the involved copyrights is so murky
that even the publishers have no clue anymore.
Actual story -- years ago I discovered that a then out-of-print
concert band arrangement I had just purchased (and dearly wanted to
pe
John Howell wrote:
[snip]
The former is exactly true, as I've pointed out before. But I'm not
sure the latter really is. If you ever walked through a record company's
distribution warehouse (and I have), you realize that of all the records
that company fronted for and released, only a few ever
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Nigel Hanley wrote:
Cecil, in many ways I agree with you. Full stop. I 'm equally not
trying to pick a fight, but am merely attempting to understand why the
original owners of such monumental works of popular music such as the
Beatles' library are forced to undergo leg
Nigel Hanley wrote:
Cecil, in many ways I agree with you. Full stop. I 'm
equally not trying to pick a fight, but am merely
attempting to understand why the original owners of such
monumental works of popular music such as the Beatles'
library are forced to undergo legal proceedings to retain
the
Cecil Rigby wrote:
I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just understand
WHY, exactly, is it offensive in any degree that anyone can (having
enough money and a willing seller) become a holder of copyrights?
The individual artist's rights are NOT abridged just because someone may
buy their
No, you didn't miss something Cecil. It's a difference between
considering copyrights and patents as property, which can be traded,
sold, leased, assigned, rented, or otherwise treated like any other
property, and considering them a somehow philosophically belonging to
their creators and to no
At 8:22 AM -0400 7/10/10, dhbailey wrote:
I have no idea if the situation has improved any
these days, but for many years that was very
true, often with performers being on the hook to
the record labels for a lot of money which was
never recouped by the record sales, due in large
part to "c
On 7/10/10 1:00 PM, "finale-requ...@shsu.edu"
wrote:
> From: John Howell
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 20:26:23 -0400
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Copyright and downloadable music
>
>> From: Blake Richardson
>>
>> Let's be
Nigel Hanley wrote:
Cecil, in many ways I agree with you. Full stop. I 'm equally not trying to
pick a fight, but am merely attempting to understand why the original owners of
such monumental works of popular music such as the Beatles' library are forced
to undergo legal proceedings to retain
At 5:59 AM -0400 7/10/10, dhbailey wrote:
You misread the quotation attributes, John. I didn't say that at
all -- my post was quoted by Blake Richardson, who then went on the
tirade against stupid things done in the name of copyright
protection.
I am most definitely arguing that 2 wrongs mak
Cecil, in many ways I agree with you. Full stop. I 'm equally not trying to
pick a fight, but am merely attempting to understand why the original owners of
such monumental works of popular music such as the Beatles' library are forced
to undergo legal proceedings to retain their work , or archiv
I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just understand
WHY, exactly, is it offensive in any degree that anyone can (having enough
money and a willing seller) become a holder of copyrights?
The individual artist's rights are NOT abridged just because someone may buy
their publisher's library
David, I think that's a very accurate summation of the industry then, and also
now. I was surprised to read that most older major league rock bands continue
touring not just for the glory of it, but because, for that year, the bulk of
their income will come from the tour. The Rollingstones were
Graeme Gerrard wrote:
I am from an older generation, but kids these days have the attitude that the money goes
to multinational companies, with only a trickle to the composers and performers, their
"heroes".
My generation bought into the arrangement and that's who passed the laws (same
with pl
I am from an older generation, but kids these days have the attitude that the
money goes to multinational companies, with only a trickle to the composers and
performers, their "heroes".
My generation bought into the arrangement and that's who passed the laws (same
with plant/gene/life ownership)
dhbailey wrote:
John Howell wrote:
From: dhbailey
Let's be fair about things here. Yes, there's a problem with people who
believe that just because the internet makes it easy, they're
entitled to
whatever they want without paying. But you also have to take into
account
the almost psychopathi
John Howell wrote:
From: dhbailey
Let's be fair about things here. Yes, there's a problem with people who
believe that just because the internet makes it easy, they're entitled to
whatever they want without paying. But you also have to take into account
the almost psychopathic pursuit of every
Dr. Howell,
Just a technical point: while Blake Richardson, the author of the post
to which you responded, did, indeed, quote David Bailey, Blake was the
author of the bit of the post post to which you responded, not David.
The problems arising from attitudes towards copyright (and I would
From: dhbailey
Let's be fair about things here. Yes, there's a problem with people who
believe that just because the internet makes it easy, they're entitled to
whatever they want without paying. But you also have to take into account
the almost psychopathic pursuit of every conceivable penny in
From: dhbailey
Reply-To:
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 05:45:08 -0400
To:
Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Copyright and downloadable music
> The same attitude goes for people wanting to download
> copyrighted music without the copyright owners' permission,
> as if we have an inherent right as
Dr. Howell wrote:
I have no idea ... whether you remember the
Payola scandals of the '60s,
Though the payola scandals were within my lifetime, I'm not quite old
enough to remember them. I was looking at the issue from the
perspective of the "end user", suggesting that the commercial support
At 8:31 AM -0500 7/9/10, Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
dhbailey wrote, in part:
I .. am intrigued by the way that many people seem to
think that additional exposure to a potential wider buying audience is
what we musicians want,
I blame the model of the commercial radio stations for this. Years
dhbailey wrote, in part:
I .. am intrigued by the way that many people seem to
think that additional exposure to a potential wider buying audience is
what we musicians want,
I blame the model of the commercial radio stations for this. Years
before there was an "all-talk, all the time" for
I had gotten the link to that blog from a different list
(orchestralist maybe?) and as always am intrigued by the way
that many people seem to think that additional exposure to a
potential wider buying audience is what we musicians want,
whether we be composers or performers. I can't remember
This was on the NY Times website today (I didn't see it in the
printed paper):
http://tinyurl.com/29wzmx9 =>
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/no-easy-answers-in-the-
copyright-debate/
It refers to a blog post from a Broadway composer, Jason Robert
Brown, and his interaction with a teen
40 matches
Mail list logo
