[videoblogging] Re: Hardball legal tactics. Was: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
around the 1/8/07 Steve Watkins mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: Hardball legal tactics. Was: The Histor that: I dont think its a new law though is it, just another wave of 'make an example of them to get others to comply, throw the book at them' type stuff? you're right, old law. as discussed here recently, in Australia this been the norm for years. Small annual licence fee, the money is redistributed as royalties to the artists (they do audits of what is played and bought). Added together these sorts of extra costs can make it hard for the smaller venues to survive, if they arent too profitable to start with. But its something Im sure most businesses are used to paying, I think in the UK that most companies accept they have to pay such things, or they try to avoid it until they are first approached, and then they cough up the moolah rather than having to suffer any further hassle. here the cost for clubs has just gone up substantially which they're all upset about, on the other hand if I sell a recording to an individual for an individual cost and it gets played to a *paying* audience in a club of 1000, it seems pretty reasonable that the artist gets a return... I dont expect anybody that makes a stand in the courts to win, as I think the laws are pretty well established regarding public performance rights, but maybe Im wrong. Like when I was a kid, when they played videos at school the smallprint always mentioned that the video was not licensed for display at public events, in schools etc. I always wondered if the schools paid a blanket fee, or some higher authority covered it on their behalf, or whether they were being naughty and ignoring such things. it is normal practice to buy a different licence for edu use. eg a film that i can buy for $30 over the counter for home use might be $300 but I can then show it to a lecture theatre full of students. same logic as for the music. also why technically you can only photocopy x% of a book to make available to students. we can complain about it, or we can make work that is not subject to these forms of copyright if we wish. :-) -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au [official compliance stuff:] CRICOS provider code: 00122A
[videoblogging] Re: Hardball legal tactics. Was: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
Heres a tinyurl to the story you posted: http://tinyurl.com/3bzguo I dont think its a new law though is it, just another wave of 'make an example of them to get others to comply, throw the book at them' type stuff? Added together these sorts of extra costs can make it hard for the smaller venues to survive, if they arent too profitable to start with. But its something Im sure most businesses are used to paying, I think in the UK that most companies accept they have to pay such things, or they try to avoid it until they are first approached, and then they cough up the moolah rather than having to suffer any further hassle. I dont expect anybody that makes a stand in the courts to win, as I think the laws are pretty well established regarding public performance rights, but maybe Im wrong. Like when I was a kid, when they played videos at school the smallprint always mentioned that the video was not licensed for display at public events, in schools etc. I always wondered if the schools paid a blanket fee, or some higher authority covered it on their behalf, or whether they were being naughty and ignoring such things. As that article's quotes from people show, the majority dont really buy into the concept tat when they buy music or films or whatever, they dont own them, they are just given rights to do certain things with them. Its a tricky one, companies are spending lots of money trying to 'educate the public' that things like mp3 downloading are the same as stealing CDs from a music shop. Theres a really dreadful advert on UK TV at the moment that tries to make a social taboo out of buying pirate DVDs and such things, equating it to a bloke who gives his girlfriend a ring he found in the street, what a cheapskate, hate him, hate him. Meanwhile research suggests that the UK is a world leader in terms of people buying dodgy fake goods. What I really object to is when I buy a legit DVD and then every time I stick it in the drive I am forced to watch a short piece about how evil copied DVDs are. Great, punish me for having the legit version! If In 25 years it is the trend for people to gather at venues wher videoblogs are played on giant screens, would videobloggers think this was commercial use and that they are entitled to some small cut? Thats when the issues can get interesting, as otherwise its too easy to side with freedom. At this point my own philosophy is settling on the total respect for whtaever the particular content cretor wants. If theyve signed up to a system that uses draconian methods, more fool them in the long run. If they want all media to be free and believe in a true creative commons of works, then hoorah. If they believe in something else then I'll respect that too, though I personally have a special place in my heart for those who want to push freedom further than most. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, bordercollieaustralianshepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eat faster, Drink quick, Move along, nothing to hear here any more. Without a special license, owners of bars, clubs and restaurants could be sued for playing any one of 8 million recorded songs, even from their own CDs. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) says that equates to performing copyrighted music without permission, and the group is going after local businesses that haven't paid them for the privilege. more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/ 2003815486_royalty01.html
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Hardball legal tactics. Was: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
If In 25 years it is the trend for people to gather at venues wher videoblogs are played on giant screens, would videobloggers think this was commercial use and that they are entitled to some small cut? No. At this point my own philosophy is settling on the total respect for whtaever the particular content cretor wants. If theyve signed up to a system that uses draconian methods, more fool them in the long run. If they want all media to be free and believe in a true creative commons of works, then hoorah. If they believe in something else then I'll respect that too, though I personally have a special place in my heart for those who want to push freedom further than most. Me too... I have a special place in my heart for those who want to push anything farther than most. Creativity, freedom, even obscenity (for fuck's sake). One of the biggest misses in videoblogging is the lack of people pushing limits, and I don't exclude myself. The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. Hunter S. Thompson -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Hardball legal tactics. Was: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
Perhaps we need a personal information contract that we could supply to corporations that says ,You don't own this information, you just have the rights to use it for your personal records. If enough of the market were on board, they'd have to deal with it. I'm tired of them exploiting us. Cheers, Ron Watson Pawsitive Vybe 11659 Berrigan Ave Cedar Springs, MI 49319 http://pawsitivevybe.com Personal Contact: 616.802.8923 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On Aug 1, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: Heres a tinyurl to the story you posted: http://tinyurl.com/3bzguo I dont think its a new law though is it, just another wave of 'make an example of them to get others to comply, throw the book at them' type stuff? Added together these sorts of extra costs can make it hard for the smaller venues to survive, if they arent too profitable to start with. But its something Im sure most businesses are used to paying, I think in the UK that most companies accept they have to pay such things, or they try to avoid it until they are first approached, and then they cough up the moolah rather than having to suffer any further hassle. I dont expect anybody that makes a stand in the courts to win, as I think the laws are pretty well established regarding public performance rights, but maybe Im wrong. Like when I was a kid, when they played videos at school the smallprint always mentioned that the video was not licensed for display at public events, in schools etc. I always wondered if the schools paid a blanket fee, or some higher authority covered it on their behalf, or whether they were being naughty and ignoring such things. As that article's quotes from people show, the majority dont really buy into the concept tat when they buy music or films or whatever, they dont own them, they are just given rights to do certain things with them. Its a tricky one, companies are spending lots of money trying to 'educate the public' that things like mp3 downloading are the same as stealing CDs from a music shop. Theres a really dreadful advert on UK TV at the moment that tries to make a social taboo out of buying pirate DVDs and such things, equating it to a bloke who gives his girlfriend a ring he found in the street, what a cheapskate, hate him, hate him. Meanwhile research suggests that the UK is a world leader in terms of people buying dodgy fake goods. What I really object to is when I buy a legit DVD and then every time I stick it in the drive I am forced to watch a short piece about how evil copied DVDs are. Great, punish me for having the legit version! If In 25 years it is the trend for people to gather at venues wher videoblogs are played on giant screens, would videobloggers think this was commercial use and that they are entitled to some small cut? Thats when the issues can get interesting, as otherwise its too easy to side with freedom. At this point my own philosophy is settling on the total respect for whtaever the particular content cretor wants. If theyve signed up to a system that uses draconian methods, more fool them in the long run. If they want all media to be free and believe in a true creative commons of works, then hoorah. If they believe in something else then I'll respect that too, though I personally have a special place in my heart for those who want to push freedom further than most. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, bordercollieaustralianshepherd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eat faster, Drink quick, Move along, nothing to hear here any more. Without a special license, owners of bars, clubs and restaurants could be sued for playing any one of 8 million recorded songs, even from their own CDs. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) says that equates to performing copyrighted music without permission, and the group is going after local businesses that haven't paid them for the privilege. more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/ 2003815486_royalty01.html [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
