High Court orders British ISPs to block "The Pirate Bay"

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, really . There's an excellent summary of the (very complicated) way that it all works here, if you're interested in learning more.

Think about the creative expressions that go into the song playing on your iPod. First, there is the underlying song, the musical work. Let’s say the song playing on your iPod is “All Along the Watchtower”, written by Bob Dylan. As the songwriter, Bob Dylan has a copyright in the musical work. Every time “All Along the Watchtower” is broadcasted on the radio or internet, performed publicly, recorded by others and reproduced into consumer copies, Dwarf Music, Bob Dylan’s publishing company, is paid. In this context, it makes no difference which version of the song is being disseminated. Whether it’s the original version from the John Wesley Harding album or a cover version by another artist – Bob Dylan is paid as the songwriter.

As you see in the example for the musical work, Dwarf Music gets paid i.e. a company owns the copyright. Bob Dylan is paid because he owns the company.

[forsooth]

Originally Posted by gweeks

This is almost never the case in music anymore. It still is the case for most fiction books. Non-fiction is all over. Publishers are trying to change it though so that authors can never get their rights back even in fiction.

Greg

Please explain "non-fiction is all over"

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

As you see in the example for the musical work, Dwarf Music gets paid i.e. a company owns the copyright. Bob Dylan is paid because he owns the company.

That's technically incorrect. Dwarf Music pays Bob Dylan a royalty for the work's use. For any profit, over and above the royalty rate (if any), the company keeps the profit for it's shareholders - which in this case is also Bob Dylan. (But it doesn't have to be the artist, and often isn't). Inasmuch as Bob Dylan get his money either way, he can choose <how> he wants it paid to him...(Taxes...taxes...taxes...)

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We're perhaps talking about two different things here.

The "musical work" copyright is held by the person who wrote it.

And has statutory required licensing. The author can't keep ANYONE from recording it. Does that sound like the copyright for anything else?

Greg

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by forsooth

Please explain "non-fiction is all over"

Sure. Academic publishing almost always give the copyright to the publisher. This is starting to change I think. Non-fiction by a single author where the author writes everything and then shops for a publisher is almost always kept by the author. There is no common contract type. Who ends up owning the copyright depends on the contract.

Greg

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

That's technically incorrect. Dwarf Music pays Bob Dylan a royalty for the work's use. For any profit, over and above the royalty rate (if any), the company keeps the profit for it's shareholders - which in this case is also Bob Dylan. (But it doesn't have to be the artist, and often isn't). Inasmuch as Bob Dylan get his money either way, he can choose <how> he wants it paid to him...(Taxes...taxes...taxes...)

The question was who is the copyright owner, and in this case, since according to the article Dwarf Music gets the money, in means that Dwarf Music owns the copyright.

To start on this point from the beginning: I noticed that all the URLs removal requests come from companies as copyright owners and I commented on the fact that authors aren't the owners (and copyright was introduced to support the authors, bla... bla... bla...). HarryT insisted that authors are still the copyright owners because in the case of music both the songwriters and the performers get copyright. What he seems to miss is the fact that both songwriter copyright and performer copyright can be transferred to companies.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The question was who is the copyright owner, and in this case, since according to the article Dwarf Music gets the money, in means that Dwarf Music owns the copyright.

To start on this point from the beginning: I noticed that all the URLs removal requests come from companies as copyright owners and I commented on the fact that authors aren't the owners (and copyright was introduced to support the authors, bla... bla... bla...). HarryT insisted that authors are still the copyright owners because in the case of music both the songwriters and the performers get copyright. What he seems to miss is the fact that both songwriter copyright and performer copyright can be transferred to companies.

Can - but not necessarily must....

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Can - but not necessarily must....

I don't understand what point you are trying to make with this statement.

[HarryT]

Why the obsession with who owns the copyright? It doesn't change the fact that these are sites which show a complete contempt for the law, and that blocking access to them is absolutely the right thing to do.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why the obsession with who owns the copyright? It doesn't change the fact that these are sites which show a complete contempt for the law, and that blocking access to them is absolutely the right thing to do.

You either take the legal argument, and if the sites are not under the jurisdiction of a court that finds their activity illegal, it means that they are not breaking the law; or you take the moral argument, and you should be upset that authors now have less rights than before the copyright laws came into existence. Yes, authors don't have to sell their rights, but if they don't they are rarely able to make a living.

[HarryT]

I'm afraid you've completely lost me when you say "authors now have less rights than before the copyright laws came into existence". It's copyright law that makes being a commercially-successful author possible, by granting legal protection to the author's work. In what way do authors have fewer rights than they did prior to the introduction of copyright laws?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why the obsession with who owns the copyright? It doesn't change the fact that these are sites which show a complete contempt for the law, and that blocking access to them is absolutely the right thing to do.

The question is which law and where.

Does the law of one nation override the law of another nation? Or vice versa?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I don't understand what point you are trying to make with this statement.

The point is that I, Ralph Sir Edward, can own at musical copyright, either song or performance, in my own name, if I created said copyright. I may also choose to let a corporation own it. I, as creator, choose under what terms I create. (If they are unfavorable, I still chose them...)

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid you've completely lost me when you say "authors now have less rights than before the copyright laws came into existence". It's copyright law that makes being a commercially-successful author possible, by granting legal protection to the author's work. In what way do authors have fewer rights than they did prior to the introduction of copyright laws?

No, it's not. Authors were able to make a living out of their work before copyright law. Not all authors, but it will never be possible to have all the authors make a living on their work.

Copyright law was made to protect authors from publishers. The general public lost their right to do with the work as they pleased for a limited amount of time in order to have the legal means to give this protection. The rights belonged to the author until they went back to the general public.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The point is that I, Ralph Sir Edward, can own at musical copyright, either song or performance, in my own name, if I created said copyright. I may also choose to let a corporation own it. I, as creator, choose under what terms I create. (If they are unfavorable, I still chose them...)

Once upon a time people were able to sell themselves into slavery. Just because they could choose to do this, doesn't mean that they had more rights.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Copyright law was made to protect authors from publishers. The general public lost their right to do with the work as they pleased for a limited amount of time in order to have the legal means to give this protection. The rights belonged to the author until they went back to the general public.

Yes, but how does copyright law REDUCE the rights of authors? Copyright law gives authors rights that they don't have without it; it doesn't take any rights away from an author. And what on Earth does any of this have to do with what we're discussing here?