Copy"right" out of control: another example

[roarde]

Ok, everybody whistle or hum the flute solo from Men At Work's 80's hit Down Under while I replenish my coffee supply.

Did it again. Got in a rush and missed the filter with most of it. Kinda pleasantly chewy in a weird way. Sorry about the delay.

Oh, yeah --- the flute solo. Recognize bits of it? It's bars 3 and 4, with the same two bars basically repeated in 7 & 8. Get it? Like most, I never, ever caught it. Turns out it's Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree. Once you're told, you faceslap. "Yeaahh, riiight!"

The song was written without the flute solo. Somewhere along the way, the flute player, who is neither of two authors of Down Under, slipped in the flute break we know from the recording at a live performance. The recording was made later, with that solo.

The author of Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree, Marion Sinclair, was alive when Down Under was a big hit, but has since passed on. She never knew, or never cared, or was complemented by the reference to her song. No one knows.

The rights to Kookaburra have since passed to a music publishing company. From there, the rest is a foregone conclusion, no? The rights administrator has sued Colin Hay and Ron Strykert, Down Under's authors, and the song's rights holder, EMI, to recover "damages".

Mr. Hay's comments here: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=30538035&blogId=528967870

In short, though details aren't sorted out, EMI and Mr.'s Hay and Strykert did not prevail to say the least. Once again, copyright, originally an idea for protection of the creative, is just a tool for greed. They get the money only because it's there and because they can.

[sledgehammer]

If this is the song, available on youtube:

A Land Down Under - Men at Work

I agree with you. 

[Triarius Fidelis]

On mediafire, I have a collection of about 300 ebooks of a retail value approximately equal to 70,000 US dollars which I share with a few select friends. Cuz uh yeah **** the establishment

[roarde]

Wouldn't be the way I'd go, Triarius. Sure, most income from those books would go to the establishment. But the books also have creators, who rightfully (literal not legal definition) can set the terms for their distribution and use. The author can also assign custodianship, and usually is forced to by inability to uphold rights, or just make an income, him/herself.

But writing a book and having a character mock another by saying, "Big Brother is watching you" is no reason the house that holds the 5th assignment of Orwell's 9th cousin's "rights" should successfully sue for 80 or 90 million.

Cuz uh yeah **** the establishment

No need to go to the trouble. They're doing a fine job of it on their own. May be fatal for them within my lifetime.

Can't wait.

[Triarius Fidelis]

Income derived by authors and publishers if I pirate: $0.

Income derived by authors and publishers if I don't pirate: $0.

What I am doing is really not much different from going to the LU library and reading their books

[roarde]

Triarius Fidelus:

I disagree with all three points. Not going to back up my disagreement, though. Everyone here's seen the arguments, and few if any minds will change.

Most will agree that there definitely needs to be a different model. So, what I am curious about is this: Given an author who uploads work you like, which you can just download for free; if you met the author would you cook him dinner? Wash her car? Same questions if you ran into the webmaster, copyeditor, etc.

Now either dinner or a car wash is, IMO, just a bit much for a book unless it's good and rare in the extreme. On the other hand, you're only going to come this close to a very small percentage of those who create your reading material. So, what about taking care of the author you meet in lieu of sending money for each and every book?

Keep it real - - - an author or some such may magically appear to cash in. You have your books. Does just one of those who made them get your food, your time?

[Triarius Fidelis]

Triarius Fidelus:

I disagree with all three points. Not going to back up my disagreement, though. Everyone here's seen the arguments, and few if any minds will change.

Most will agree that there definitely needs to be a different model. So, what I am curious about is this: Given an author who uploads work you like, which you can just download for free; if you met the author would you cook him dinner? Wash her car?

Well first I'd have to determine whether they're a dick or not.

I'm thinking at least 80% of all humans past and present have been dicks in my estimation. Perhaps much more. So idk man it depends, it depends.

Consider this: all the extant works of Aristotle are in the public domain. But he was a really nationalist person. I don't like nationalists. I wouldn't give him the time of day much less wash his car.

[nitehawk]

 

wouldn't give him the time of day much less wash his car.

...but I'd wash his chariot.

[retired1af]

Shame on the producers for not obtaining permission in writing first. Would have alleviated all the BS later. They knew better, and failed to cover their butt. I don't feel sorry for them, although the current copyright holder is being an ass. But that's neither here nor there. The producers are well aware of the copyright laws, and they blew it.

Regardless of whether you think you're stealing income from the author's or not, you're still breaking the law. If you get caught, don't come crying here as to how unfair it all is. You know you're doing wrong, and you've gloated about it in a public venue. Considering there are bots designed specifically to sniff out such things, crowing about how you're sticking it to the man is pretty dumb.

[tomh38]

Copyright infringement is also the reason why you don't hear the "Happy Birthday" song in restaurants anymore.  The restaurant owners would have to pay fees/fines if they used the song in their restaurants.

That's fine with me, since I hate that song.

[Triarius Fidelis]

Regardless of whether you think you're stealing income from the author's or not, you're still breaking the law. If you get caught, don't come crying here as to how unfair it all is. You know you're doing wrong, and you've gloated about it in a public venue. Considering there are bots designed specifically to sniff out such things, crowing about how you're sticking it to the man is pretty dumb.

Wait are you suggesting that the bots in question "sniff out" verbal admissions of guilt? In natural language? Is that how you think they work? Just how advanced do you think NLP is at this point? And these bots are magically going to find a cache on a file sharing site I've never shared in public? When most of the ones that are public never get taken down? Wow. Is that a Fire Scout drone I see bearing down on location?

Also: I did lol. I'm not fibbing. You're trying really hard to make me toe the line. This "I'mma lurrn yew good boah" rhetoric is hilarious. I'm sweating bullets man. And no I'm not sharing with you. Only cool people get to see my cache.

[retired1af]

I could care less if you toe the line or not. And you think it's cool? Crowing about breaking existing laws only shows you for what you truly are. Cool isn't one of the adjectives I'd use.

[Triarius Fidelis]

I could care less if you toe the line or not.

I'm sure.

And you think it's cool? Crowing about breaking existing laws only shows you for what you truly are. Cool isn't one of the adjectives I'd use.

It's a law that almost nobody cares about. Probably justly. It's a lot like (widely-flouted) criminal (not civil) laws against the use of cannabis. Don't tell me you don't have at least one friend who does have or has had some kind of pot habit.

Here's a dialog with a physicist I know:



I guess she's also a loser for having partaken. "Cool isn't one of the adjectives I'd use." What were you thinking? "YER JES SUM PUNK AN THUH LAWGH'S GUN GITCHEW HWUN UV THESE DAYS BOOOAAAHHH" Get real.

ps congratulations on having attained Stage I morality.

pps I have quite a few titles on evolutionary biology. They're probably sorely needed in whatever state it is that you live in. Perhaps in more than just one way.