copyright – Page 2 – Lykle de Vries

Artists Sue Major Record Labels For Pirating Music and Get Back Millions

“We’re so Big, we don’t have time for that. We’ll fix it some day.” Or: stuck in a system that obviously no longer works and is costing everybody a lot of money…

Amplify’d from www.newrockstarphilosophy.com

The four major record labels that comprise the Canadian Recording Industry Association – EMI Music Canada Inc., Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc., Universal Music Canada Inc. and Warner Music Canada Co. – have agreed to pay $45 million to settle one of the largest copyright class action lawsuits in Canadian history.

As part of the settlement, the labels will pay approximately $45 million to settle the copyright infringement claims. It also establishes a new mechanism to help ensure that artists are paid more promptly.

The press release indicates that everyone is pleased with the settlement, though it is striking that it took a class action settlement to get the record labels to address their own ongoing copyright infringing practices in paying artists for the use of their works. (via Michael Geist)

Read more at www.newrockstarphilosophy.com

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/e2c1z6

Angry Racer game online

Is Copyright a Barrier to Creativity?

Ten great discussion topics, from a group of highly recommended people.

Amplify’d from ruthdaniel.net

With the approach of the 300th anniversary of the Statute of Anne, we would argue that in essence the idea behind copyright, rewarding and protecting authors is one we support. However, what we do question is whether copyright in its present incarnation is fit for the current age and actually hinders creativity rather than encourage it.

For our contribution we want to look at just one aspect of copyright: access to, and knowledge of, ownership of work.

We propose some new ways of thinking about copyright, for discussion:

1. Creation of a central, online register of copyright works that is free, open and unambiguous.

2. The development of a resource for bands to independently sign up to and submit their music and copyright information.

3. The release of commercially inactive or economically unviable works into the public domain under a ‘use-it-or-lose-it’ copyright clause.

4. The reduction of copyright term, but each term renewable for active commercial works, so as to reward creators without lockdown of cultural works in the process.

5. Strong fair use and non-commercial use provisions.

6. Permission for non-commercial use assumed for all orphan works.

7. Strong copyright exceptions for libraries & scholarship.

8. Active expansion, promotion and propagation of the public domain.

9. Audit of major record label back catalogue to discover and liberate lost works.

Read more at ruthdaniel.net

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/e0o1JS

What do we want copyright to do?

Amplify’d from www.guardian.co.uk

Short of this wildly unlikely regulation, full employment in the arts is a beautiful and improbable dream. Certainly, no copyright system can attain this. If copyright is to have winners and losers, then let’s start talking about who we want to see winning, and what victory should be.

In my world, copyright’s purpose is to encourage the widest participation in culture that we can manage – that is, it should be a system that encourages the most diverse set of creators, creating the most diverse set of works, to reach the most diverse audiences as is practical.

Rather than having the right to specify who may use your works, you merely get the right to get paid when the use takes place.

Now, on hearing this, you might be thinking: “Good God, that’s practically Stalinist! Why can’t a poor creator have the right to choose who can use her works?” Well, the reason is that creators (and, notably, their industrial investors) are notoriously resistant to new media. The composers damned the record companies as pirates; the record labels damned the radio for its piracy; broadcasters vilified the cable companies for taking their signals; cable companies fought the VCR for its recording “theft.” Big entertainment tried to kill FM radio, TV remote controls (which made it easy to switch away from adverts), jukeboxes, and so on, all the way back to the protestant reformation’s fight over who got to read the Bible.

So a balanced and evidence-based copyright policy is one that requires creators to show a need for protection, and also that the protection sought will deliver more benefit than the cost it implies.

Read more at www.guardian.co.uk

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/fg5CsW

vzlomat-whatsapp