Gees, Pete... take a chill pill.


--- In, Pete Prodoehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kitka wrote:
> > Thanks Paul, I agree with you too.  In the media world, there IS such
> > a thing as a "cease and desist".  I was talking with someone from the
> > CBC the other day (more about this subject at a later date) and he
> > told me about how someone was compiling a Top 100 songs list for a
> > major network.... he said that they got a cease and desist order from
> > Leonard Cohen (or some boring musician like that) and they couldn't
> > use him in the FLATTERING Top 100 show they were making.
> Makes perfect sense to me. If Leonard Cohen wants to control how his 
> work is used, he should have that choice. Whether the show was 
> flattering or critical doesn't matter. Others may see this differently, 
> but it's ultimately about artists being able to control how their work 
> is used.
> > Similarly, videobloggers aren't going to instantly get sued for using
> > copywritten music/content... they will get a cease and desist order
> > and if they do not comply, they will then be fined or get a court
> I think it is incorrect to say 'copywritten' as a work you create has 
> your copyright assigned to it. How you choose that work to be used is 
> different from this. The music I can get from Magnatune still has a 
> copyright held by the artist, but the *license* allows me to use it in 
> certain ways.
> > That said, stop worrying so much about it.  As long as we all know the
> > consequences, we can remove certain files from the Internet if they
> > are problematic.  I mean, it's not like you can just call up U2 and
> > ask if you can use their music!
> Well, some of us are big believers in things like Creative Commons, 
> which allow an artist to easily specify how their work can be used. U2 
> is a lost cause, they don't even have the rights to their music. (Look 
> up Negativland for more on that one!) The hope is that from this point 
> on, artists will realize they *can* have control of their art, and how 
> it is used, and in 10 years, or 20, or whatever, the world of "what you 
> can legally/safely use" is quite different. It's already happening, but 
> we can help make it happen.
> > Personally, I wouldn't use copyrighted material if I were making money
> > off of it, but if it's all in good fun, I think it's fair to use it. 
> > (I don't see many people complaining about the use of the Brokeback
> > Mountain song with all the homages like "Brokeback to the Future",
> Again, it *is* ok to use "copyrighted" material, as long as you have
> rights to do so. Getting those right can sometimes prove difficult.
> above.) Of course there is the issue of "what is commercial" as well. 
> Are you making money from ads on your site? Affiliate programs? PayPal 
> donation links? Who decides what "making money" consists of? (The
> As for complaining about people using the music from Brokeback mountain 
> without permission (unless it's "fair use" ala parody, etc.)  just
> me at them, and I'll complain! ;)
> The reason I think all of this stuff is important is that I want to see 
> videoblogging grow and grow, and pretty much explode, and I want to see 
> it done without violating the rights of artists. I want to see it done 
> in a way that steps around all that is wrong with the RIAA and MPAA and 
> those that would see us crushed beneath their wheels
> (Whew, rant mode off...)
> Pete
> -- 
> videoblog for the future...

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to