Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Hardball legal tactics. Was: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear

Expand Messages
  • Steve Watkins
    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
    Message 1 of 23 , Aug 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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"
      <bordercollieaustralianshepherd@...> 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>
      >
    • Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage
      ... No. At this point my own philosophy is settling on the total respect for ... Me too... I have a special place in my heart for those who want to push
      Message 2 of 23 , Aug 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > 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]
      • Ron Watson
        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
        Message 3 of 23 , Aug 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          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
          k9disc@...

          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"
          > <bordercollieaustralianshepherd@...> 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]
        • Adrian Miles
          around the 1/8/07 Steve Watkins mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: ... you re right, old law. as discussed here recently, in Australia this been the norm for
          Message 4 of 23 , Aug 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            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
          • Steve Watkins
            In a different thread Adam Quirk said: I have a special place in my heart for those who want to push anything farther than most. Creativity, freedom, even
            Message 5 of 23 , Aug 3, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              In a different thread Adam Quirk said:

              "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."

              Yes I ponder that a lot all the time. I wanted to do risky stuff but I
              struggle because I am a chickenshit, get paranoid, intimidate myself lol.

              I have commented not so long ago that a lot of edgy stuff Ive seen in
              my life has been on UK television.

              But Ive got a few examples of stuff I think is edgy on the net that I
              wasnt aware of till recently:

              Better Bad News (god knows why I only just saw this amazing stuff)

              Pat Condell on Youtube (attacking religions with comic truth, whoa)


              I dont know if its harder to stumble over the edge these days, maybe I
              am looking for the wrong edge. Would Lenny Bruce and Bill Hicks have
              been edgy if they were of the vlogging era? Is it harder to be edgy on
              the net?

              Are conspiracy theory talking heads edgy?

              Oh I just dont know, so much of this is about cultural taboo's, we
              have seen that comments about Thailands king are definately edgy if
              you are vlogging such things in Thailand where he is revered and there
              still seem to be widespread belief in that sort of deference and respect.

              I suppose a reason to expect more edgy stuff on the net, is that such
              things may not traditionalyl get on TV due to financial and legal
              risks. So maybe youd expect a floodtide of such stuff on the net
              because it doesnt currently suffer those barriers much.

              Also I guess its about audience, Janet Jacksons nipple can cause a
              storm if it slips out to the masses at a certain time of day,
              meanwhile look at whats available on the net.

              Cheers

              Steve Elbows
            • Bill Cammack
              ... Yeah... I ve TRIED not to laugh at Better Bad News , but I haven t seen an episode of it yet where I haven t gotten at
              Message 6 of 23 , Aug 3, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@...> wrote:
                >
                > But Ive got a few examples of stuff I think is edgy on the net that I
                > wasnt aware of till recently:
                >
                > Better Bad News (god knows why I only just saw this amazing stuff)
                >
                > Cheers
                >
                > Steve Elbows
                >

                Yeah... I've TRIED not to laugh at "Better Bad News"
                <http://betterbadnews.blip.tv/>, but I haven't seen an episode of it
                yet where I haven't gotten at least two decent laughs out of it.
                There's obviously a lot of writing work ?improv work? that goes into
                that show.

                --
                billcammack
                http://reelsolid.tv
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.