Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
from apra letter
Songwriters deserve to be recompensed for their music and for the profits made by the big ISPs like Telecom, Telstra and Vodafone who play a role in illegal file-sharing.
cff response
They "play a role" in the same way the post office should take legal responsibility for judging copyright infringement of letters they post, or the phone company should for people who use their service to sing Happy Birthday to their friends.
really, that's your response?
it isn't copyright infringement to sing happy birthday to your friends, its copyright infringement to include it in a published work such as a movie.and the post office does check your mail for illegal content, mostly drugs an large consignments of pirated or illegal content.
so does customs and airport security.CFF got to up their game a bit if they want to be taken seriously.
-
I can't believe Arthur wrote that..seriously
its got his name at the bottom of it.
There's other stuff in the mail out but I can't give you the details of that cos its all take over the world secret society stuff.navigating the multiple negatives, I think what he's trying to say is "no guilt by accusation"???, "yes I agree with that statement, and who wouldn't, that seems so obvious".
are you having a problem with the grammar or the sentiment?
-
raw meet? that might even be clever if it weren't a typo
-
This from a recent apra newsletter c/o Arthur Baysting
(drops slab of raw meet into the parana tank)
The recently-born Creative Freedom Foundation has been vocal about the code of practice. While their slogan “no guilt by accusation” has received support, the question needs to be asked: who wouldn’t agree to that proposition? A visit to their website suggests a slightly different agenda: <http://www.apra.co.nz/lists/lt.php?id=fhlZAg8OWwAfVAZTTFFRWgA%3D>http://creativefreedom.org.nz/
Here you’ll see how the Foundation denies the validity of the term “Intellectual Property”, calling it “a misnomer”. They then challenge your legal ownership of your music, stating that any song you create is not a genuine property right. According to the CFF website, your copyright is more like “a temporary monopoly”.
The language on the CFF site is similar to the EFF – the “Electronic Frontier Foundation” who are challenging songwriters’ rights in Britain. The EFF has a mutual relationship with Google, the same ISP whose tactics against songwriters has angered the Featured Artists Coalition.
-
despite Rob's line above,
it was a joke!!!!!! jeez :)
I was just breakin' the news for team radiohead since you guys were slacking on the job.
number 6 specifically relates to people who have been manufacturing dvds and including a review at the end of it there by slipping through under a loophole that qualifies it as for critical review purposes.
6 A change to copyright law which will end the commercial exploitation of unlicensed music purporting to be used in conjunction with ‘critical reviews’ and abusing the UK provisions for ‘fair dealing’. Several companies are producing DVDs in the UK which use artists’ audio visual footage and place a review at the end of the DVD. By doing this they claim that the DVD is a work of 'critical review' and therefore no permission or payment is required to any of the stakeholders.
-
Radiohead, Billy Bragg join fray against YouTube
The fight between YouTube and a U.K. music royalties group appears to be heating up as Radiohead, Billy Bragg, and Robbie Williams have come out against YouTube.Williams, KT Tunstall, and the members of the rock band Radiohead will meet Wednesday with other marquee music performers to protest "at how badly they are treated by record companies and music streaming Web sites like YouTube," according to a report in the Times Online, a U.K. publication. The artists will gather as part of a newly formed group called the Featured Artists Coalition.
I told you that radiohead was trouble.
-
legislatio
that sounds vaguely dirty.
-
recoupment
yick, you said a dirty word. I don't really understand the full implications of it but my understand is if label fronts label keeps and recoups costs out of profits. its not a pretty affair.
otherwise you're correct, who commissioned (and therefore most likely fronted cash for) and whoever the rights are contracted to, for the time period they're contracted to them for.
maybe tvnz shot the video? in which case they do own it (the visuals, not the music)
they did a swag of shitty studio lit for tv videos back then so androidss one may not be, or maybe they just got lucky with a good director.
it would be sad if tvnz had paid some one to go checking all the vids on you tube. surely they've got better things to spend their money onThere are still a lot of other clips (RWP etc) up on duncsters page not taken down.
I've messaged him and asked what's up. -
Could it be Warners, thinking they own it because 'Auckland Tonight' is on this compilation you released?
Mike Chunn and Bryan Staff (ripper records) own Auckland tonight if anybody does, or the band if they paid for the recordings.
you could ask the guy who put up the original file. I can do it if you like. he's got heaps of important kiwi docos up.
and passenger was the big iggy number the band played.
They asked him if he wanted to get up and sing one of his songs with the band but he declined and was happy to sit at the side of the stage and watch. -
If the evidence is so robust, prosecute.
wasnt part of the thing people hated about the RIAA approach the criminalisation of people and the sheer out of proportion measure a $100000 fine was for downloading music?
doesn't warning notices essentially saying we know you're doing it, and we are watching send a message with less consequences.
I'd prefer the notice or 3 of em.
you're right about the evidence thing though. if they're so sure its full proof then why not agree to fines for mis accusation.
it also puts an onus on the accuser to get it right.