01-28-2012, 07:20 AM
I am afraid I should have got on this at the beginning, and disagreed line by line. I find there is simply too much now, and I doubt anyone would want to read page after page of me being right.
I do see that it is an immediate issue for some, in a way that it is not for me. However, much of what has been said, appears to me to have been driven, not by what might or might not be right or wrong, or even whether the law says some of the outlandish things claimed, but by the fact that it appears to be in our personal interest to have it so. That is rather like a murderer telling his friends that murder is OK, just because he did it. Or a thief.
Dale is under the impression that copyright is not intellectual property, and not a matter for law. Plainly, it is, and it is. It has also been suggested that merely adding a jot or a tittle to some ancient work, brings it back to copyright. The courts would look at the facts, and if that were so, dismiss any claim as de minimis. An excerpt would depend on how long the excerpt. If I write a new, and obviously highly insightful, preface to the works of Shakespeare-- no, if you want it, but it. If you want to cite a line or two, demonstrating my flashing brilliance perhaps, no Judge is going to uphold a copyright claim. But remember-- I wrote this, not you. If you quote in extenso, you will be well fucked in the courts.
Much has been made of musicians making money from gigs and merchandising. I see no reason why they should be obliged to do either, but as for the latter, I can tell you, it is not so simple. My sister is a painter. She has some arrangements with a bloke that does merchandising, and she earns money from that -- but across the net, there are people offering unlicensed copies etc, from which she gets zilch. Unless I have completely misconceived the points made by others, you are on the side of the pirates. Why does she take no legal action? She is here, in the UK, and they are around the world, largely in America.
I reverence you all, of course
I do see that it is an immediate issue for some, in a way that it is not for me. However, much of what has been said, appears to me to have been driven, not by what might or might not be right or wrong, or even whether the law says some of the outlandish things claimed, but by the fact that it appears to be in our personal interest to have it so. That is rather like a murderer telling his friends that murder is OK, just because he did it. Or a thief.
Dale is under the impression that copyright is not intellectual property, and not a matter for law. Plainly, it is, and it is. It has also been suggested that merely adding a jot or a tittle to some ancient work, brings it back to copyright. The courts would look at the facts, and if that were so, dismiss any claim as de minimis. An excerpt would depend on how long the excerpt. If I write a new, and obviously highly insightful, preface to the works of Shakespeare-- no, if you want it, but it. If you want to cite a line or two, demonstrating my flashing brilliance perhaps, no Judge is going to uphold a copyright claim. But remember-- I wrote this, not you. If you quote in extenso, you will be well fucked in the courts.
Much has been made of musicians making money from gigs and merchandising. I see no reason why they should be obliged to do either, but as for the latter, I can tell you, it is not so simple. My sister is a painter. She has some arrangements with a bloke that does merchandising, and she earns money from that -- but across the net, there are people offering unlicensed copies etc, from which she gets zilch. Unless I have completely misconceived the points made by others, you are on the side of the pirates. Why does she take no legal action? She is here, in the UK, and they are around the world, largely in America.
I reverence you all, of course