View Single Post
Old 12-07-2009, 01:38 PM   #11
Ralph Sir Edward
Gentleman & Cynic
Ralph Sir Edward ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ralph Sir Edward ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ralph Sir Edward ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ralph Sir Edward ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ralph Sir Edward ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ralph Sir Edward ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ralph Sir Edward ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ralph Sir Edward ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ralph Sir Edward ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ralph Sir Edward ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ralph Sir Edward ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Ralph Sir Edward's Avatar
 
Posts: 5,727
Karma: 13899548
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: 5 generation native Texan
Device: BeBook/Openinkpot, CYbook 3rd gen awaiting RTF software upgrade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga View Post
I have to say, while I appreciate the irony and exposure of hypocrisy, I really don't see how this is a criticism of copyright per se. If anything, this is an argument in favor of copyright, as the aggrieved artists are using copyright laws in order to redress numerous contract/copyright violations by the music industry.

True, the recording industry frequently cites copyright as the mechanism by which they protect artists' content, has pushed for excessively punitive laws, and has flailed blindly during the transition to digital. But even if copyright laws were significantly relaxed, there's a good chance the record companies would find some other loophole to exploit. The root issue is the record companies allegedly violating their contracts, not abusing copyright. I see no particular indication that whatever system replaces the record labels will necessarily result in artists being treated any better, or that the people involved will act in a more ethical fashion.



What does she have to do with this?

I mean, she's not a great poster girl in the "copyright wars" anyway. She did nothing to support the artists whose work she distributed in an infringing manner; two juries have concluded that she egregiously lied in her denials of culpability. She also had numerous opportunities (and still does) to settle for a smaller sum, and apparently refuses to settle. The laws may be too strict and the judgment outlandish in her case, but she's not exactly an innocent victim who is pure of heart or intent.

By the way, it's pretty well known that the record industry (and labels both large and small) frequently indulges in shenanigans like this -- and apparently the movie industry is even worse. AFAIK this type of conduct is far less prevalent in book publishing though.

The Corporations involved have had both the time (over 20 years) and the resources to have prevented this situation. They want more and more Draconian controls, lobby left and right to get longer and longer copyright extensions, litigate people with no hope of meaningful recovery (because they have nothing to seize) - all in the name of "protecting the creative artists", whom they are cheerfully robbing of their small royalties. These are the people to whom we should look to for fair and equitable answers to copyright issues?

Life + 50 to Life + 70 doesn't benefit one creative artist - by definition. Dead people don't create! But corporation keep milking and milking and milking....
Ralph Sir Edward is offline   Reply With Quote