[Sunday Business Post] Irish music industry hit by downloading (1 Viewer)

[Vinnie]

You sure about that?

Yes.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Copyright is not some abstract gift of society of the artists any more than the gift of that title deeds to a homeowner is.

Isn't that exactly what the title deeds to you house are. Do you think there was much use for title deeds before the enclosure acts?

 

[coast to coast]

Just to be clear. Breaches of copyright are illegal as an infringement of property rights. We've been through all this before. Copyright is not some abstract gift of society of the artists any more than the gift of that title deeds to a homeowner is.

I wasn't ever disagreeing with this. Then again property rights, not to be glib, are underminable too in terms of the where the legitimacy in them is generated historically, as in - when you go back though all the people who sold it or inherited, where does ownership of land first become legitimate?

Obviously I'm not saying that we own all land equally and all the messy anarchic crap that that idea entails, but I am saying that all rights are pragmatic solutions and I don't think any of them are inalienable.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Yes.

Singing Happy Birthday in a public place is public performance of a copyrighted work. Stealing obviously.

 

[mr pharmacist!!!!1]

 

[coast to coast]

Well in!

This thread needed a Simpsons reference!

 

[Squiggle]

Isn't that exactly what the title deeds to you house are. Do you think there was much use for title deeds before the enclosure acts?

I think we've discovered the problem - you want this place

I feel I should warn you that not all of them agree that nobody has the right to 'own' anything, but you might feel slightly more comfortable there. Before you go would you mind signing over your paycheque and letting me 'borrow' your computer.

(You do understand that money doesn't actually have a value, it's just paper and base metals... the values assigned were made up, which renders your career meaningless)

This reasoning could be carried on ad-nauseum, downloading music without the permission of the copyright holder is illegal - end of! Whether the law is enforcable is a different question entirely.

 

[egg_]

Singing Happy Birthday in a public place is public performance of a copyrighted work. Stealing obviously.

No dude. The venue owner is paying IMRO for a licence to allow public performance of copyrighted works on the premises, so that's legal. If he's not then it's him that's acting illegally, not the singer

 

[Vinnie]

Singing Happy Birthday in a public place is public performance of a copyrighted work. Stealing obviously.

Facts Nailer. Get them straight first.

 

[egg_]

I think we've discovered the problem - you want this place

Ah now you're being silly.
All value is assigned by the market, that's pretty
fundamental economics and not some punk/hippy claptrap

downloading music without the permission of the copyright holder is illegal - end of!

I don't think so. Mass civil disobedience has led to changes in the law in the past

 

[Flux]

No dude. The venue owner is paying IMRO for a licence to allow public performance of copyrighted works on the premises, so that's legal. If he's not then it's him that's acting illegally, not the singer

I actually get money from IMRO for listening to copyrighted works performed in such venues.

 

[TenRabbits]

This is all very interesting. I'm firmly of the opinion that the digitising of music combined with t'internet is a pandora's box that is now with us forever. The record industry as a general rule, seem to be trying to pretend it never opened and carry on regardless.

So the real debate is in how musicians can pursue careers which enable food to be put on tables, whenever anyone can and will download their music the second it's available in any format?

 

[Mormon Nailer]

I think we've discovered the problem - you want this place

I dont think they'd have me.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

Facts Nailer. Get them straight first.

Which bit do you disagree with?

 

[broken arm]

Whether the law is enforcable is a different question entirely.

someone i worked with did a master in Intellectual Property law - she had some interesting view on enforceability . Something along the lines of - a law is only of use if inforceable and copyright and IP law is only enforceable in certain contexts i.e. B2B patent rights etc.

she was leading to the point about similar legal mechanisms not being applicable in music sharing but then I fell asleep.

 

[broken arm]

So the real debate is in how musicians can pursue careers which enable food to be put on tables,

they never have and never will. they can put drugs in their veins alright.

 

[TenRabbits]

So there we go - the solution to the whole problem is cheap drugs.

Hurrah!

 

[Mormon Nailer]

No dude. The venue owner is paying IMRO for a licence to allow public performance of copyrighted works on the premises, so that's legal. If he's not then it's him that's acting illegally, not the singer

Singing happy birthday contradicts no copyright laws. Fucks sake.

Sort it out amongst yourselves.

The song is copyrighted and like egg says there are royalties due if it's sung in a public place.

 

[Vinnie]

Which bit do you disagree with?

Sigh.That's it's not a breach of copyright to sing happy birthday or any other song unless it's for commercial distribution so the example you gave is moot.

I think I might be done with this thread now.

 

[Flux]

Myspace or someone should pay 99c every time a tune is played on our pages. I could live off a fiver a day.