Beepster


This is crap... http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/12/pol-supreme-court-copyright-rulings.html

I'm not sure ... it is scary to be true, however, it is a good model that in essence takes away a whole bunch of Copyright laws that movie studios, and record companies have been holding out on, for 40 years, and they should not.
 
All in all, it will mean that the places like iTunes, iCrap and what not, will have an issue ... and that they will become the "new" record companies, with the material by the "BlahBlahBand" exclusively sold here or there. And you have to be a "member" in order to get the downloads ... which means you are paying a monthly fee for the service.
 
i'm ok with that, and what it might ... MIGHT ... do is take away the "control" of the music to the point where a big name band can get all the advertising and attention, and anyone else does not. Which would suggest that really big names for bands and sellers, will likely diminish ... which I think is a good thing in my book!
 
It also has done one thing to music ... that is probably good ... many of the pieces showing at iTunes, iCrap and other outlets, are not mastered/cleaned versions, and many outlets are simply reselling copies of copies ... which in digital terms is not supposed to be an issue, but it is, though extremely minor by comparison to the earlier versions of the LP, Cassette or Video copies. And it will endup forcing these folks to forgo these, since they can not gain from it.
 
I think that the Internet is a great thing ... but coming with it, was a generation of people that were simply milking money anyway they could, and it was impossible to detail which one of those was a legitimate seller and someone that was actually paying the Copyrights ... the likelihood is that they weren't! So, this will mean that those folks will be out of luck ... in general terms.
 
Again, all this crap does, is place music in YOUR hands ... and if you are expecting to get some extra money from ASCAP or BMI, those folks are not into it to protect you ... they have been in it all along to rip you off and go off on their own tangents, and strictly commercial, protecting the big name groups and hits -- not YOU!
 
All of the copyright laws need to be re-evaluated ... end of story ... and I would like to see the "control" by record companies, or other large venues to dissipate. The only bad thing is that in 5 years, you will only be able to get The Beatles in iTunes ... and nowhere else ... but when that happens, it is another record company ... in control of the music, and the likelihood of it expanding further is probably not going to happen.
 
But it is a great chance for the Coffee House Band ... to market itself and not have to wait, or expect these other bruhahas to control their destiny. I'm not sure it can sell a million, but it probably can sell enough to help the folks involved enjoy an extra meal or two ... because right now they are not getting anything anway! Fun is fun and is always fun ... until you can't eat anymore!

...it shouldn't matter how a copy of work is delivered — whether it is bought in a store, ordered through the mail or downloaded digitally, the same copyright rules should apply. SOCAN isn't allowed to collect a separate royalty on video games that are bought in a real store so it isn't entitled to one when a game is bought online, according to the court decision. It doesn't make sense to distinguish between two methods of selling the same work, the court said.

 
Agreed.
 
Again ... I think the whole idea was to clarify the royalty thing ... not to take it away ... but there was a spot where greed was the issue, not the copyright -- and this spot is one of them.
 
It also helps the re-sellers of old CD's and LP's, who were not obligated to pay royalties, but were still selling the used material for a buck or two ... you and I made a living of learning and listening off many of these ... and I'm not complaining ... because there was not enough money that would have paid for everything I had a chance to listen, and do not have anymore! Or still have for that matter!

Hi,

An example of the bad copyright laws, and how some studios and companies control them, is the movie studio model, and Fank Zappa's 200 Motels is one such example. It belonged to one studio and when it was time for Gail and the Trust to get it back, they sold the studio to MGM, and now she can not get control of that movie, and the studio is locking it up to prevent anyone else making money off "it's movie" ...

The Canadian copyright thing would likely not protect the artist better, but it would prevent this movie studio situation from creating an excuse and control that they should not have, or should not own.

While Earner Brothers may have had a lot of good things, one of its bad things was stealing ... and they were not any different than anyone else. And the actors and people in it? ... you're just a gardner or maid for hire .. screw you! You got paid. Get lost ... it doesn't matter if the whole thing worked because of you! You don't own it, and can not own it! And this has been the history of the movies for 100 years. And they are the ones that are hurting the copyright issues right now, but the Internet is not reaching them yet! The Internet has already reached the music business ... it now needs to reach the movie business and rip it apart.

UbiquitousBubba


Today, Canada.  Tomorrow, the US.

It's a good thing our work isn't worth anything.  I sure would hate to think what life would be like if people were compensated for their work.  We should keep this idea going.  Let's take everyone's income away.  The people don't do anything important with it anyway.  With no income, the Government wouldn't have any revenue, but they're so Smart, I'm sure they've already got that covered.  Of course, we'd lose everything we have in the process.  Starvation might take a few weeks, but we'd get used to it.  Out of concern for our Wise and Wonderful leaders, we could all lay down in mass graves to make the clean up easier. 

What do you mean, I'm overreacting?

You might be onto something here Bubba....I heard that in Philly (I think) the city has run out of money and the Mayor has or is putting into effect that ALL city employees (police, firemen, county workers, Mayor included) will be paid minimum wage. Similar thing is/has happened in a city in Cali as well.
 
Sorry Beepster for the interruption.....back to the scheduled program

Mesh
You might be onto something here Bubba....I heard that in Philly (I think) the city has run out of money and the Mayor has or is putting into effect that ALL city employees (police, firemen, county workers, Mayor included) will be paid minimum wage. Similar thing is/has happened in a city in Cali as well.

 
I think he is ... the old industrial/commercial model ... the rich get the money and the slaves do the work!
 
I'm thinking something like this ... in the end, what these rich folks fear is any kind of socialist idea ... which means they make less money ... why should they give a cahoot about you? Thus, they will remove the laws to pretect their interests and ownership! No one else can make money but them!
 
Simple math ... you take out the competition. In the old days it was a horse and a sword. Then it was a religion. Then it was lions. Then it was murder. Then it was ... oil. Now it is the rich protecting themselves ... with laws!
 
The question is, are the folks in Canada intelligent enough to vote all those people out and change the law? ... probably not more or less than America!
 
Has anything changed other than the pants and t-shirts we're wearing?

I don't worry about this because I always download all of my music for free.  There's usually a really good selection at THIS website to choose from!

Since I have an i-nothing, still buy CDs, and listen to the radio... does this affect me? Like it matters... like I could change any of it anyway.
I like to hold my music in my hand and read the insert. Once upon a time I would download some songs from Napster to see if I liked it, if I did.. I would order the CD. I have tried a couple of MP3 players but I just have not been abe to warm up to them and in the crawer they sit. Maybe if I get an i-phone (once this Blackberry Pearl.. (yes I am a caveman) breaks).. when tape will no longer hold the trackball in place... maybe then... maybe.

Who knows.. maybe I will get new glasses too and new jeans... maybe.

Once you realize just how powerless you are against the "powers that be" (unless of course you are willing to take up arms) well, I don't know about you but .... I just become cynical. More so as I age. Soon I will be old enough to hit kids with my cane and get away with it.

I refuse to beat a drum and join in with a group and engage in chanting in public (unless of course I can do it naked). Perhaps I should wait until I am 80+ yo and take a swing at a politician with a cane... same thing as hitting a kid I think. I could say I was trying to swat a fly... I am sure they are all plagued with flies.

OK, well.. it is Friday the 13th. Maybe that explains it... nah. Perhaps I should just keep muttering to myself instead of this scribbling.

I read the ruling then read through about half of the comments and this comment sums up what I thought the ruling said... if this is what it says and means then I think it is the correct ruling, if I am wrong explain it to me:
 
QUOTE: <LostInTheSnow 2012/07/12>
at 3:27 PM ET
So many of the commenters here, clearly, didn't even read the article. The ruling doesn't state that artists shouldn't be paid for downloaded music. Rather, that digital downloads shouldn't have an extra tariff added to them. You don't pay extra for a CD copy why should you for an MP3, the medium shouldn't matter.

The article says:
"They will still have to pay a royalty to copy a song, but will no longer be charged a separate tariff for transmitting it to a customer over the internet.

The court essentially said that it shouldn't matter how a copy of work is delivered – whether it is bought in a store, ordered through the mail or downloaded digitally, the same copyright rules should apply. SOCAN isn't allowed to collect a separate royalty on video games that are bought in a real store so it isn't entitled to one when a game is bought online, according to the court decision."
 
This sounds like a good thing to me...
 
J