Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => Intellectual Property & Law => Topic started by: Fett101 on 30 April 2003, 01:35
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30441.html (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30441.html)
RIAA's Rosen 'writing Iraq copyright laws'
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 29/04/2003 at 01:11 GMT
Chief executive for the Recording Industry Association of America, Hilary Rosen, is helping draft copyright legislation for the New Iraq, according to investigative journalist Gregory Palast.
"Who's really going to win this war? It looks like Madonna," Palast told Democracy Now radio. "Where before, they feared Saddam Hussein, now they have to fear Sony Records will chop off their hands if they bootleg a Madonna album."
Under Iraqi copyright legislation, passed by The Revolution Leadership Council in 1971, a copyright lapses 25 years after the death of the author, but no more then fifty years after the publication of the work. It's shorter for private works, and there are several public interest exemptions.
We wonder which member of The Revolution Leadership Council penned this, or whether someone wrote it for them, but the real author of this enlightened document ought to step forward. Maybe they could help liberate the USA - which extended copyright to seventy years after the author's death - from Hollywood.
(Do we sense a campaign coming on?)
But if true, and Palast has a good record for trade politics, Rosen's dash for Baghdad isn't hard to explain.
Iraq does not have a reciprocal copyright agreement with the United States, which means that US works are not protected.
Hilary will almost certainly be setting to work on the current law's Article 13:- "The author may not prevent a person making one copy of a published work for his own use."
And she will want to stiffen the penalties for infringement:- one hundred dinars, or three hundred for repeat offenders. Maybe she will shoot for something closer to the $97 trillion the RIAA has claimed as damages from the file-sharing students back in the Homeland.
With the effective collapse of the UN's food program, it's nice to see Rosen's humanitarian impulses remain untarnished by war.
A month ago Congressman Darrell Issa (R., San Diego) introduced a bill ensuring that Qualcomm, based in his congressional district, be given a foothold in the New Iraq. Europe and the Middle East use the global GSM standard.
-
RIAA == SCUM
-
By the corporations, for the corporations.
-
quote:
"Who's really going to win this war? It looks like Madonna," Palast told Democracy Now radio. "Where before, they feared Saddam Hussein, now they have to fear Sony Records will chop off their hands if they bootleg a Madonna album."
these copyright regulations appear to have no interest in actually allowing the creator of a work to have control over how liberally their work is distributed. it seems to centre solely on how to make people have a shit time in fact, and make as much money as possible go to those who have the most money already. and that's the american dream, kids, you salute it every morning. lucky iraq that they should get all this wholesome US goodness.
[ May 01, 2003: Message edited by: Calum: crusader for peace & freedom ]
-
Haven't these people suffered enough?
The one country with sane copyright laws and we bomb it. Why? To get rid of weapons of mass destruction! Of which we have so far found [checks newspaper] erm... none. But we're still looking! (Why doesn't Colin Powell just go to wherever he took those pictures of? Because he lied!)
Ok we'll doublethink that weapons of mass destruction bit... It was to free the Iraqi people and establish a democratic American dictatorship! Who will leave after three years when people work out how much this is costing them, leaving the fundamentalist Islamics to duke it out with the hard line communists (who btw are the two most popular Iraqi factions for leadership.)
And just think! We got to kill hundreds of Iraqis a day when we could just have removed Saddam a bit more slowly with less deaths!
SKILL!!!
EditLJust in case anyone mistakes this as anti American, note that I'm an Australian - we're just as guilty of this as you are... :(
[ May 01, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
-
anti-australian! (oh yes, the australian prime minister, 10 points to any non australian who can name him ;) ) actually said anybody who was anti-war was anti-australian)
and the mouth foaming types will just say you are even more anti american because you are an australian. been there.
and the yanks don't need to find any WMD, because everybody knows that whatever happens, the yanks are RIGHT, aren't they? look it up in the dictionary:
"Right: whatever the americans do to anybody else"
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum: crusader for peace & freedom:
anti-australian! (oh yes, the australian prime minister, 10 points to any non australian who can name him ;) ) actually said anybody who was anti-war was anti-australian)
John Howard - Nazi Fscker
-
John Howards an evil little fucker on the outside I'll admit that. But my personal thought is that he is a puppet of the cabinet. ;)
If you want some real evil bastards look at Alexander Downer (hey i'll just threaten east timor into giving us oil...) and Phillip Ruddock (the living dead "kill all refugees" himself.) Man I hate the liberal party. Stupid evil bastards the lot of em.
At least its not like our chat radio hosts - one of whom suggested that the thousands of anti war demonstrators could be "fixed" with some anthrax.
BTW all theres a cool new game you should be able to get over P2P when it comes out of develepment... its a realistic simulation entitiled "escape from woomera." Ruddock is a bit cut about this one to say the least. :D
-
This should be in the lounge.
Any mods care to do the honers?
-
Yes Yes. I had to think a bit about where to put this since there is no plain ole' news section, and there are some non MS reletad news stories in this place.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum: crusader for peace & freedom:
these copyright regulations appear to have no interest in actually allowing the creator of a work to have control over how liberally their work is distributed.
Some copyright laws are out of order but on the whole, do they not attempt protect the artist ? Using music as an example, if the artist intends on making a living from selling music, he can't just give his product away and have anybody with a PC and internet access a means to distribute the artists work for free. Like it or not, music is a commodity that can be bought and sold or if the artist prefers, given away. Where it gets fuzzy, is once the music has been bought by the consumer, can the consumer then distribute it for free or otherwise ?
-
What part of the Iraqi law let people "pirate" an artists new song? All it meant was that after 25 years of profit it became public domain. 25 years is more than enough time to bleed the customers dry, come on!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
What part of the Iraqi law let people "pirate" an artists new song? All it meant was that after 25 years of profit it became public domain. 25 years is more than enough time to bleed the customers dry, come on!
Why, because you say so ?!! I'm sure Yoko Ono would disagree along with the rest of the people that have a finger in the Beatles pie.
As far as I am concerned, anybody listening to Madonna's little dittys should get their ears chopped off, we would be doing them a favour !!
:D
-
I agree re the madonna thing.
Come on, who the hell would *listen* to Yoko Ono sing? The only reason she gets money is because she gets to ride the Beatles 4000+ year copyright. That isn't the artist profiting, it's just blatant profiteering.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
I agree re the madonna thing.
Come on, who the hell would *listen* to Yoko Ono sing? The only reason she gets money is because she gets to ride the Beatles 4000+ year copyright. That isn't the artist profiting, it's just blatant profiteering.
Fuck, no one want to hear Yoko sing. She is however in control of John Lennon's estate and his assets, i.e. his music.
In most cases, commercial music is shite anyway but, the artist went to the bother of recording it (whther it's music or a book) and the artist should determine the longivity of the copyright, not "you" or the publisher, e.g. Walt Disney Sony Music. The artist should also be incontrol of how his work is distributed. If the artist does not want his work to be freely available on the internet, what is the problem ? There are tons of musicians who publish their work on the internet for free and frankly, most of that is shite too. I agree that a copyright should not last indefinately but again, the consumer should not dictate when that is.
-
quote:
The artist should also be incontrol of how his work is distributed.
Agreed. They should be able to choose whether it is distributed freely, or not at all.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Agreed. They should be able to choose whether it is distributed freely, or not at all.
That's the choice ? Free or not at all ? :confused:
-
Yes. That's the way it should be.
-
Some choice. :eek:
-
Everyone should get as many people as they can to agree not to buy CD's as gifts for christmas.
Do your part to fight back.
I think I read in the fuckmicrosft.com write up that
it was started by people connected with Salshdot?
If so get slash dot to post the same message on their site. No CD's over Christmas.
-
This belongs in the Lounge.
The Iraqi people have just finished with a war and many of them, not all, but many, are suffering still from it. Was the purpose of this war really liberation? If so, then the Iraqi people should have the right to democratically write their own laws. The absolute last thing they want or need is American special interest shoved up their asses. Rosen has shown time and time again that she does not really care about common people at all, and believes content holders should have unlimited control over their content. Putting someone who represents a special interest group in charge of writing any of Iraq's laws is just evil. Iraqi copyright laws should be determined by Iraqi opinion, perhaps influenced by *world* opinion. But absolutely not by the opinion of one who represents a small handful of business owners in the US. Its these issues that mark the difference between liberation and occupation.
And I could really care less about Yoko Ono. Current copyright laws, 70 years past the life of the author, guarentee that Yoko Ono's grandchildren will live very lavish lives. If is wasn't for these laws, they would probably have to *gasp* get jobs! The wolud have to go to school, and become productive members of society, *Oh the horror!* If copyright laws were set to only 25 years past the life of the author, Yoko Ono would still be far far richer than most people could ever hope to be. And all because she married John Lennon, thats it, she dosn't really have to lift a finger ever again. Good thing, cause if it wasn't for the fact that copyright goes so far past the life of the artist, she might acutally have to *make music thats good!* and if she can't do that she would be forced to *OH MY GOD!!!* get a fucking JOB!
V
-
Does the RIAA protect american labels only or do they affect any label sold in the US of nay :confused:
-
My belief is that the generally only protect their onw labels, leaving smaller and indy records alone. But many of the laws they push affect all records, sometimes for the benefit of, and sometimes to the detriment of the smaller guys. But they try to push their will over the whole world, not just the USA, trying to protect their content wherever its sold. Also, I know at least two of the 5 big lables that make up the bulk of the RIAA are not American companys, Sony and Bertlesman.
-
Doctor V, "you dropping wisdom home boy," (well said)
Flap why should people have to give out their music free? I mean these people need an income and I see no problem with rewarding them for their art. Of course "some" bands (cough backstreet boys) may be in need of a bit of "free software style improvement" but it is technically an artistic work. Would you "improve" a Rembrant? Would you rewrite Anthony and Cleopatra? There is nothing wrong with an artist making some cash if it's fairly priced.
-
Here we go again...
The "free" is about freedom, not price. An artist/developer should have the right to sell their cd, or painting, or software, for a million dollars if they want, but they *shouldn't* be allowed to prohibit other people from sharing their work once they have obtained it.
Free software isn't (unlike Open Source) only about having the source code available; it's about giving users the right to redistribute and share. People should have the right to share music/art, but the right to modify it isn't particularly important, as you say. You seem to be confusing the purely practical principles of Open Source with the ideological principles of free software. As I've said before, one of the reasons why open source isn't very good is that its ideas aren't applicable to anything other than software. The ideas of freedom, on the other hand, are directly applicable to works of art such as music.
-
Flap why should people have to give out their music free?
An artist/developer should have the right to sell their cd, or painting, or software, for a million dollars if they want
oh look you agree with me :D
-
Yes, I agree with you on that point. I've never said otherwise.
-
It is puzzling in that all that has happened in Iraq over the years that copyright "laws" are at or near the top of the agenda for US lawmakers. It would seem that US business just sees a new market opening up.
I thought Yoko was a no' bad singer myself like but that's just me :D