Music Player Network
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: miroslav] #1822061 10/09/07 04:59 PM
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,378
Billster Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,378
 Originally Posted By: miroslav
Bill

The type of contracts that big label bands sign (and often fail to read all the way through)...has little to do with copyrights and how/when they will revert.


Put on your magnifying glasses and wade through a contract sometime.

GP Island
Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Billster] #1822070 10/09/07 05:10 PM
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
miroslav Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Offline
Cosmic Cowboy
10k Club
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 14,215
When I get to the point of signing a big label contract for my own music...
...I will. ;\)


miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."
Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Billster] #1822078 10/09/07 05:23 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 16,337
Dr. Ellwood Offline
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 16,337
 Originally Posted By: Billster
I've seen deeper research into auto safety in the course of my employment, but I don't know what the confidentiality status is and I don't work there anymore. Let me just say that "is it safe?" is not a question often asked before any other questions are resolved.


Don't work there anymore huh,.,., well I've ALWAYS worked there, and that question is one of the most important questions included in any early design program, even at the early prototype stage, we and all the car company's use FEA design and those safety requirements are built into the design. If you are talking about some supplier concept designs, who cares! any design brought into the design database used by the car companies that does not meet the saftey requirements is modified untill it is in compliment or it is discarded, and that also goes for any styling designs, not just engineering designs.

Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Billster] #1822246 10/09/07 10:03 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,412
Kramer Ferrington III. Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,412
 Originally Posted By: Billster


I think you are misinterpreting. The quote you pulled is followed by this:

 Originally Posted By: "L. Lessig"
I as an academic don't need anyone's permission before I write an article criticizing someone else. But the same freedom is not accorded a filmmaker, or webmaster, under the rules as they exist today.


Obviously academia is a different world than art, but the permission he's talking about is that the current laws create an environment where large media conglomerate companies have a big interest in the status quo. In that environment, art that challenges the status quo is increasingly marginalized.

So he's not talking about asking permission for copyrighted works, he's talking about permission to obtain distribution for ideas that challenge the corporate orthodoxy (which is increasingly in a friendly backscratching arrangement with governments that should know better).


If I'm misinterpreting, you're extrapolating. Where does Lessing say that he is trying to challenge corporate orthodoxy anyway? I don't even know if this "art that challenges the status quo" (and where are you reading that in the quote you provided anyway?) is any more marginalized than it's ever been. But that's a different kettle of fish altogether.

How does this art which challenges the status quo fit in with copyright anyway? Surely you and your art can challenge the status quo without treading on MY right to own MY music, rotten as it may be? Go make your own bloody movie and distribute it whichever way you like, and leave my movie alone. Nobody's saying you can't release your stuff free of copyright if you choose.

 Originally Posted By: Billster

Copyrights and patents exist to promote innovation.


They do? You sure it's not to protect innovation?

 Originally Posted By: Billster

If you innovate, you reap the profits which you presumably don't blow up your nose, but prudently save and invest for the future. You may even invest that profit in exploring further innovations. At some point yesterday's innovations become today's commonplace.


"Innovation"? I don't really see how this applies to us as musicians. Pleasant chord progressions haven't changed much over the centuries, have they? And yet music pushes forward. But that's not because Bach has kept innovating to this very day. It's because other musicians seeing the sheet music (or whatever) knew that Bach now had dibs on some melody or other and were forced to write something of their own.

We write songs, but it's the ARRANGEMENT that is usually innovative and changes over the years. But a piece of music that's hundreds of years old can still sound as good as it ever did. Why should it be in the public domain anyway?

The public domain actually works against innovation. We are flooded by cheap editions of public domain authors like Dickens when the editors could be looking for new talent. If the Lessign guy has his way, we'll never see anything new again.

BTW: Why don't you and Dr. Lessing go and tell the Coca Cola company that they've held on to their name for far too long and that they should let you guys market softdrinks using the Coca Cola name and logo and see how far you both get.

Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Billster] #1822249 10/09/07 10:17 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,616
Warthog Offline
Platinum Member
Offline
Platinum Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,616
I've weighed-in on this before. In my mind, downloading copyright material from a P2P is theft. The law says it is, so it is. It doesn't matter that you think the artists are getting screwed or that it's not hurting anybody. It's still theft. Robin Hood was still a criminal.

Now, the fact that the record companies have ripped-off some artists, that's a separate issue. But stealing from the record companies is NOT the way to deal with it. More power to the RIAA for nailing thieves to the wall.

All this being said, the reality is that the future of marketing and selling music will have to change. I'm not sure how, but most folks aren't willing to pay $.99 a song for something they can get for free from the comfort of their local coffee shop via a laptop and a P2P program.

Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Warthog] #1822290 10/09/07 11:48 PM
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,378
Billster Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,378
The P2P stuff is bad news. It is technology designed to allow theft. I think that at this point, such systems should just be shuttered.

The problem is that the big music companies could have been in front of the digital movement and committed to it a lot earlier and created an atmosphere where folks understood the price of the content. They missed the boat. Entirely.

Of course this is an industry that invented the long box for CD's because retail shelving had been designed for LP's

Vince,

Interesting contrarian views. Look at the history of copyright. They really do have to expire in order to promote new works. If older classics like Mozart etc. were still under copyright control, the holders would be milking them for all they could instead of leaving room in the promotional food chain for new works.

Last edited by Billster; 10/09/07 11:53 PM.
Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Billster] #1822361 10/10/07 01:16 AM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,412
Kramer Ferrington III. Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,412
 Originally Posted By: Billster
Vince,

Interesting contrarian views.


Thank you! \:D

 Originally Posted By: Billster
Look at the history of copyright. They really do have to expire in order to promote new works.


What..? How do you get THAT? \:o Can you give me a practical example?

 Originally Posted By: Billster
If older classics like Mozart etc. were still under copyright control, the holders would be milking them for all they could instead of leaving room in the promotional food chain for new works.


First of all, even if you own the copyright to something it doesn't mean it will actually be in demand. So if Mozart's heirs had inherited a crap back catalogue, they wouldn't be able to milk it for much anyway.

But anyway, what difference would it make whether Mozart's heirs still earned royalties from Eine Kleine Nachtmusik? Demand is pretty much insatiable: there would still be new works, just like always. You could have your copyright and eat it too.

If anything, if orcherstras had to pay royalties, they might just be tempted to commission more work from present day composers.

Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Kramer Ferrington III.] #1822368 10/10/07 01:26 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 16,337
Dr. Ellwood Offline
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 16,337
"If anything, if orcherstras had to pay royalties, they might just be tempted to commission more work from present day composers."

Yep!! \:\)

Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Kramer Ferrington III.] #1822501 10/10/07 10:14 AM
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,378
Billster Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,378
 Originally Posted By: Kramer Ferrington III.
If anything, if orcherstras had to pay royalties, they might just be tempted to commission more work from present day composers.


We should be so lucky, but that's a different topic.

Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Kramer Ferrington III.] #1822534 10/10/07 11:11 AM
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,378
Billster Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,378
 Originally Posted By: Kramer Ferrington III.
BTW: Why don't you and Dr. Lessing go and tell the Coca Cola company that they've held on to their name for far too long and that they should let you guys market softdrinks using the Coca Cola name and logo and see how far you both get.


Trade secrets vs. patents & copyrights

 Originally Posted By: Kramer Ferrington III.
 Originally Posted By: Billster
Vince,

Interesting contrarian views.


Thank you! \:D


You're welcome. Civil discussion is fun.


 Originally Posted By: Kramer Ferrington III.
 Originally Posted By: Billster
Look at the history of copyright. They really do have to expire in order to promote new works.


What..? How do you get THAT? \:o Can you give me a practical example?


An argument against perpetual copyright

Here's a really long discussion of the issue

Legalese:

[quote]The Constitution grants to Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. We have often recognized the monopoly privileges that Congress has authorized, while "intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward," are limited in nature and must ultimately serve the public good. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429, 104 S.Ct. 774, 781, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984). For example, in Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156, 95 S.Ct. 2040, 2043, 45 L.Ed.2d 84 (1975), we discussed the policies underlying the 1909 Copyright Act as follows:

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly . . . reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." (Footnotes omitted.)

Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Billster] #1822638 10/10/07 01:11 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,307
E
Eric Iverson Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
E
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,307
Back to the original post, does anyone ELSE think that think $9,250 per song, totalling $220,000 is a little bit of overkill?

I agree that illegal downloading is ripping off both record companies and artists, but shouldn't the punishment fit the crime??

I read that in other similar lawsuits, the person was fined a couple thousand dollars or so, which seems more reasonable.

I guess they were trying to make an example of her.

Last edited by Eric Iverson; 10/10/07 01:12 PM.
Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Eric Iverson] #1822668 10/10/07 02:00 PM
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,378
Billster Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,378
 Originally Posted By: Eric Iverson
Back to the original post, does anyone ELSE think that think $9,250 per song, totalling $220,000 is a little bit of overkill?


The penalties are calculated by estimating the amount of times it was shared, not the value of the single song.

 Originally Posted By: Eric Iverson
I read that in other similar lawsuits, the person was fined a couple thousand dollars or so, which seems more reasonable.

I guess they were trying to make an example of her.


Lawsuits that settle usually do so for less than what a jury might award. But then again a jury might award nothing (or a lot more as in this instance). This woman chose not to settle, she spent the few thousand on a lawyer.

These lawsuits aren't about the money. If you fail to enforce your rights, there's a risk that the Courts will deem that you forfeited them. That plus intimidation.

Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Kramer Ferrington III.] #1822739 10/10/07 04:13 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,772
Chris Kemp Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,772
 Originally Posted By: Kramer Ferrington III.

If anything, if orcherstras had to pay royalties, they might just be tempted to commission more work from present day composers.

Yeah, because orchestras everywhere are just RAKING in the cash. ;\)

More likely, if orchestras had to pay royalties on everything they performed there would be fewer orchestras than there are now (not to mention that community orchestras would probably vanish altogether...).

Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Billster] #1822772 10/10/07 05:19 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,867
fantasticsound Offline
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,867
 Originally Posted By: Billster
Neil, you know some other facts that aren't detailed in your post there.

The band that sees "major label deal" as THE route to success signs away major body parts when afforded the opportunity. This despite what are well known and obvious flaws in the deals. Such as...

The artist pays for everything. The label may advance the money, but the advance is paid back out of gross sales before the artist sees anything. And the labels would be nice and point out that the advance gets paid back faster if you sign over merchandising, publishing, first-born children, etc. Once upon a time, a band might have a huge hit with their fourth record, and all it does is pay off the debts of making four records and the band is still dirt poor. And without ownership of their rights.

This model worked great for the record companies with capital to spend, but left the majority of artists in a bad position.

Modern recording technology has lowered the overhead on marketable product (I'll leave artistic merit out of this screed), and a band that can build a regional fan base can finance their own recording and then shop for a suitable distribution deal and touring opportunities. If their national breakout fails, at least they aren't in debt and they still own the rights to their work.

So if the record company can't skim at every level, they play it very conservatively on what new material they distribute, and grab everything they can by re-packaging back catalog.


You are correct sir. I think the entire business model of the record industry is horsesh*t, always have. I think in the next 10 to 15 years the record companies will eventually disappear as bands learn ways to go viral and deliver high quality product without a record company.

Today we entered a brave new world in this arena with the release of Radiohead's new album direct from the band's website as freeware. You decide what it's worth and pay them directly... down to absolutely free. No copy protection. No restrictions on private use. This is gonna be a great experiment that, succeed or fail, I believe will herald the leading edge of an entirely new paradigm for musical product sales.


It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

Soundclick
fntstcsnd
Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Billster] #1822848 10/10/07 08:34 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,412
Kramer Ferrington III. Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,412
 Originally Posted By: Billster
 Originally Posted By: Kramer Ferrington III.
BTW: Why don't you and Dr. Lessing go and tell the Coca Cola company that they've held on to their name for far too long and that they should let you guys market softdrinks using the Coca Cola name and logo and see how far you both get.


Trade secrets vs. patents & copyrights



Actually, my point was that the "Coca Cola" name has yet to enter the public domain, no matter that the company is over 100 years old. If their name and logo (a piece of graphic art, really) are not part of the public domain by now, why should music and other works of art be forcibly pushed into the public domain?

 Originally Posted By: Billster
You're welcome. Civil discussion is fun.


Yup!


 Quote:

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly . . . reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." (Footnotes omitted.)


Yes, but I still don't see why something needs to be in the public domain for it to be available to the public. I think the actual intention was to encourage people to produce ideas. It doesn't said that ideas should be free. Look at a real-life example, we have a new #1 pop hit on the charts just about every week, movies are relased, best selling books are published all the time... and the public has no problems accessing them even though they are not on the public domain.

I even question the actual "availability" of these works.

Admittedly, we now have things such as Project Gutemberg, but if I want to buy a copy of "Oliver Twist", I still have to PAY for it. If I want to buy a Mozart record, I still have to pay for it. All that "public domain" does, in most cases, is benefit smaller publishers. For the public, all that changes is the logo on the cover.

"The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good."

Yes, I can see the point of this, and can now understand why copyrights don't last over 100 years. Quite simply, as I understand it, it's not expected that the author of the work will live for longer than publication date + 100 years, and there's no point protecting the creativity of a dead man. The survivors are free to live on whatever money was earned and invested during the author's lifetime. With all due respect to the US Congress, I still have issues with that, because other capital goods, such as a shop, or a tractor, don't pass into public ownership upon the death of the owner. Why should a song pass into the public domain? Surely it is as much of a capital good as a tractor?

But going back to Dr. Lessing... we're not talking about Mark Twain here. We're talking about people whose songs were published well under a hundred years ago. Why should they have to declare they wish to maintain copyrght over their work, even by something as simple as clicking on a mouse? If the same thing was demanded from say, farmers, ("click on the mouse every five years or we'll give your farm away to the first guy that turns up") there would be a major outcry.

And anyway, I don't really see how changing the copyright laws is going to do anything for the P2P'ers. After all, they are not swapping obscure works by 17th century composers: they are swapping stuff that came out this morning.

Added:

 Originally Posted By: fantasticsound
Today we entered a brave new world in this arena with the release of Radiohead's new album direct from the band's website as freeware. You decide what it's worth and pay them directly... down to absolutely free. No copy protection. No restrictions on private use.


Neil, I wonder if that isn't legally challengeable. Due to Radiohead's massive following, it looks a lot like commercial dumping. Mind you, there's only ONE Radiohead (alas, poor Muse) and it'd be hard to prove that Radiohead is competing unfairly against Jazz musicians or rappers.

Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Kramer Ferrington III.] #1823050 10/11/07 10:08 AM
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,378
Billster Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,378
 Originally Posted By: Kramer Ferrington III.
Yes, I can see the point of this, and can now understand why copyrights don't last over 100 years. Quite simply, as I understand it, it's not expected that the author of the work will live for longer than publication date + 100 years, and there's no point protecting the creativity of a dead man. The survivors are free to live on whatever money was earned and invested during the author's lifetime. With all due respect to the US Congress, I still have issues with that, because other capital goods, such as a shop, or a tractor, don't pass into public ownership upon the death of the owner. Why should a song pass into the public domain? Surely it is as much of a capital good as a tractor?


Well, again there's a difference between real property and intellectual property.

 Originally Posted By: Kramer Ferrington III.
But going back to Dr. Lessing... we're not talking about Mark Twain here. We're talking about people whose songs were published well under a hundred years ago.


Well, in some cases we are. The big laugh line right now is the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" of 1998, which was seen as mostly a ploy to prevent the copyright on Mickey Mouse from expiring. The original concept of copyright was that it allowed ownership for the life of the author, plus some certain amount of time. But as copyrights have ended up as business assets, businesses are looking to extend time ad infinitum.

 Originally Posted By: Kramer Ferrington III.
Why should they have to declare they wish to maintain copyrght over their work, even by something as simple as clicking on a mouse? If the same thing was demanded from say, farmers, ("click on the mouse every five years or we'll give your farm away to the first guy that turns up") there would be a major outcry.


Well, that's one of the more radical ideas. But you do have to declare your intent to continue operating a store or farm by filing tax returns and so on and so forth.

 Originally Posted By: Kramer Ferrington III.
And anyway, I don't really see how changing the copyright laws is going to do anything for the P2P'ers. After all, they are not swapping obscure works by 17th century composers: they are swapping stuff that came out this morning.


It is kind of unrelated, but at this point we are discussing why copyrights need to expire. Here's an example:

"West Side Story" is obviously "Romeo & Juliet" set in ethnic gangs of New York. If the creators of West Side Story had to pay tribute to ShakespeareCorp™ (The successor business entity to the heirs of the William Shakespeare Estate), would they have produced such a work? Would it be right for a corporation with no real connection to the original author to benefit in perpetuity because of an accounting trick?

There are no "right" answers, just a view on what benefits society and culture. Is it better to have freely accessible works for further extrapolation, or is it better to have tight control of ideas, where everything is "owned" by someone or something?

Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Kramer Ferrington III.] #1823072 10/11/07 10:40 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,867
fantasticsound Offline
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,867
 Originally Posted By: Kramer Ferrington III.
...
 Originally Posted By: fantasticsound
Today we entered a brave new world in this arena with the release of Radiohead's new album direct from the band's website as freeware. You decide what it's worth and pay them directly... down to absolutely free. No copy protection. No restrictions on private use.


Neil, I wonder if that isn't legally challengeable. Due to Radiohead's massive following, it looks a lot like commercial dumping. Mind you, there's only ONE Radiohead (alas, poor Muse) and it'd be hard to prove that Radiohead is competing unfairly against Jazz musicians or rappers.


Are you joking, Vince? If not, I don't understand what you mean.

Last edited by fantasticsound; 10/11/07 10:41 AM.

It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

Soundclick
fntstcsnd
Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Kramer Ferrington III.] #1823191 10/11/07 02:36 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
G
Griffinator Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
Offline
TPS cook & bottle washer
20k Club
G
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
 Originally Posted By: Kramer Ferrington III
Neil, I wonder if that isn't legally challengeable. Due to Radiohead's massive following, it looks a lot like commercial dumping. Mind you, there's only ONE Radiohead (alas, poor Muse) and it'd be hard to prove that Radiohead is competing unfairly against Jazz musicians or rappers.


There is no one to challenge Radiohead's decision. They're no longer on a label. They own the copyrights, they can make the decision legally to relinquish their rights under the new laws.

I think it's a maverick move, but until more young starry eyes are opened to the realities of the record labels, it's an empty move.

Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: Griffinator] #1823291 10/11/07 05:33 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,867
fantasticsound Offline
10k Club
Offline
10k Club
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,867
I don't think that's what he means, Griff, but I'm still not sure I fully understand the comment myself, if he's serious.


It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

Soundclick
fntstcsnd
Re: RIAA Awarded $220,000 in PP Case [Re: fantasticsound] #1823451 10/12/07 12:29 AM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,412
Kramer Ferrington III. Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,412
 Originally Posted By: fantasticsound
Neil, I wonder if that isn't legally challengeable. Due to Radiohead's massive following, it looks a lot like commercial dumping. Mind you, there's only ONE Radiohead (alas, poor Muse) and it'd be hard to prove that Radiohead is competing unfairly against Jazz musicians or rappers.


Are you joking, Vince? If not, I don't understand what you mean. [/quote]

Well, if I own a large supermarket chain and decide to put the mom and pop grocers out of business by giving my stuff away for free in selected areas, I can probably be succesfully sued for unfair trading.

Now, that's not going to happen to Radiohead simply because their stuff is not a commodity. Just because they can give their record away for free, it doesn't mean that the sales of other artists will be hurt because not everyone needs or wants a Radiohead album. But if a label did it across the board, it'd be an interesting case, simply because so many labels have similar artists in competition with each other.

Bill: Re West Side Story... I thought one couldn't copyright a concept? If the story is set away from Fair Verona and the characters have different names and circumstances, it's hard to see how the produces of West Side Story would be infringing copyright.

And... good point about showing intent to continue business by filing a tax return. Hadn't thought of that!

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3