|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
almost Cycling News
AMuzi writes:
On 3/22/2019 4:28 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: writes: On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 8:21:46 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:34:58 -0000 (UTC), news18 wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:39:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote: https://www.si.com/edge/2019/03/19/p...t-150-million- copyright-infringement-unlicensed-songs As it turns out, stealing is wrong. This is news to some people apparently It wasn't "stealing" as nothing was taken from anyone. The failures were in "licensing the performance" and in the taste of Peleton. Which means the revenue due to the artists, composers, etc., was stolen from them by Peloton. How is that not immediately understandable to you? There are laws governing copyright, royalties, mechanical licenses, etc. Tim, if they simply turned a radio station on that plays that sort of music no one could have a beef. Radio stations pay license fees to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, some trickle of which goes to the original artists (who are generally not the copyright holders). But there are plenty of beefs to go around, for example playing the radio for customer entertainment in a restaurant or other business without additional licensing is a problem. I do hesitate at the word "stealing". Copyright infringement may be unlawful, wrong, dishonest &c, but it's not literaly stealing. If someone steals your bicycle, you no longer have that bicycle. If someone uses your copyrighted material without license, you may have lost some potential income from it, but it's not obvious how much. If you look into this, defendant is accused of producing and selling videos (packaged with their product) using materials they did not create and had not paid to use. No different from hijacking a copy of software without paying, sneaking into a theater without a ticket, etc. Both of those are good analogies, practices dishonest and not to be countenanced. They're not exactly stealing, though. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
almost Cycling News
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 21:45:03 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote: AMuzi writes: On 3/22/2019 4:28 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: writes: On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 8:21:46 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:34:58 -0000 (UTC), news18 wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:39:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote: https://www.si.com/edge/2019/03/19/p...t-150-million- copyright-infringement-unlicensed-songs As it turns out, stealing is wrong. This is news to some people apparently It wasn't "stealing" as nothing was taken from anyone. The failures were in "licensing the performance" and in the taste of Peleton. Which means the revenue due to the artists, composers, etc., was stolen from them by Peloton. How is that not immediately understandable to you? There are laws governing copyright, royalties, mechanical licenses, etc. Tim, if they simply turned a radio station on that plays that sort of music no one could have a beef. Radio stations pay license fees to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, some trickle of which goes to the original artists (who are generally not the copyright holders). But there are plenty of beefs to go around, for example playing the radio for customer entertainment in a restaurant or other business without additional licensing is a problem. I do hesitate at the word "stealing". Copyright infringement may be unlawful, wrong, dishonest &c, but it's not literaly stealing. If someone steals your bicycle, you no longer have that bicycle. If someone uses your copyrighted material without license, you may have lost some potential income from it, but it's not obvious how much. If you look into this, defendant is accused of producing and selling videos (packaged with their product) using materials they did not create and had not paid to use. No different from hijacking a copy of software without paying, sneaking into a theater without a ticket, etc. Both of those are good analogies, practices dishonest and not to be countenanced. They're not exactly stealing, though. "Steal" is a legal term, at least under British common law, and is described as: "(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly. So sneaking into a theaters is not "stealing" per se. Nor is illegally using a copyright document, that is "copyright infringement". However colloquial use is probably to call both stealing or maybe piracy. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
almost Cycling News
On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 10:58:48 PM UTC-4, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 21:45:03 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote: AMuzi writes: On 3/22/2019 4:28 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: writes: On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 8:21:46 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:34:58 -0000 (UTC), news18 wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:39:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote: https://www.si.com/edge/2019/03/19/p...t-150-million- copyright-infringement-unlicensed-songs As it turns out, stealing is wrong. This is news to some people apparently It wasn't "stealing" as nothing was taken from anyone. The failures were in "licensing the performance" and in the taste of Peleton. Which means the revenue due to the artists, composers, etc., was stolen from them by Peloton. How is that not immediately understandable to you? There are laws governing copyright, royalties, mechanical licenses, etc. Tim, if they simply turned a radio station on that plays that sort of music no one could have a beef. Radio stations pay license fees to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, some trickle of which goes to the original artists (who are generally not the copyright holders). But there are plenty of beefs to go around, for example playing the radio for customer entertainment in a restaurant or other business without additional licensing is a problem. I do hesitate at the word "stealing". Copyright infringement may be unlawful, wrong, dishonest &c, but it's not literaly stealing. If someone steals your bicycle, you no longer have that bicycle. If someone uses your copyrighted material without license, you may have lost some potential income from it, but it's not obvious how much. If you look into this, defendant is accused of producing and selling videos (packaged with their product) using materials they did not create and had not paid to use. No different from hijacking a copy of software without paying, sneaking into a theater without a ticket, etc. Both of those are good analogies, practices dishonest and not to be countenanced. They're not exactly stealing, though. "Steal" is a legal term, at least under British common law, and is described as: "(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly. So sneaking into a theaters is not "stealing" per se. Nor is illegally using a copyright document, that is "copyright infringement". However colloquial use is probably to call both stealing or maybe piracy. When I was a little kid my dad told me that if I had something that I or another family member didn't buy and give to me it wasn't mine then it was stolen. Thus according to him, taking songs or videos from the internet where either song or video was copyrighted was stealing. Cheers |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
almost Cycling News
Sir Ridesalot writes:
On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 10:58:48 PM UTC-4, John B Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 21:45:03 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote: AMuzi writes: On 3/22/2019 4:28 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: writes: On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 8:21:46 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:34:58 -0000 (UTC), news18 wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:39:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote: https://www.si.com/edge/2019/03/19/p...t-150-million- copyright-infringement-unlicensed-songs As it turns out, stealing is wrong. This is news to some people apparently It wasn't "stealing" as nothing was taken from anyone. The failures were in "licensing the performance" and in the taste of Peleton. Which means the revenue due to the artists, composers, etc., was stolen from them by Peloton. How is that not immediately understandable to you? There are laws governing copyright, royalties, mechanical licenses, etc. Tim, if they simply turned a radio station on that plays that sort of music no one could have a beef. Radio stations pay license fees to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, some trickle of which goes to the original artists (who are generally not the copyright holders). But there are plenty of beefs to go around, for example playing the radio for customer entertainment in a restaurant or other business without additional licensing is a problem. I do hesitate at the word "stealing". Copyright infringement may be unlawful, wrong, dishonest &c, but it's not literaly stealing. If someone steals your bicycle, you no longer have that bicycle. If someone uses your copyrighted material without license, you may have lost some potential income from it, but it's not obvious how much. If you look into this, defendant is accused of producing and selling videos (packaged with their product) using materials they did not create and had not paid to use. No different from hijacking a copy of software without paying, sneaking into a theater without a ticket, etc. Both of those are good analogies, practices dishonest and not to be countenanced. They're not exactly stealing, though. "Steal" is a legal term, at least under British common law, and is described as: "(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly. So sneaking into a theaters is not "stealing" per se. Nor is illegally using a copyright document, that is "copyright infringement". However colloquial use is probably to call both stealing or maybe piracy. When I was a little kid my dad told me that if I had something that I or another family member didn't buy and give to me it wasn't mine then it was stolen. Thus according to him, taking songs or videos from the internet where either song or video was copyrighted was stealing. What about if the wait staff at your birthday venue sang "Happy Birthday" to you -- stealing? It took years of litigation to establish that the copyright to "Happy Birthday", aggressively enforced though it was, was totally bogus. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
almost Cycling News
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 22:21:40 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:34:58 -0000 (UTC), news18 wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:39:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote: https://www.si.com/edge/2019/03/19/p...t-150-million- copyright-infringement-unlicensed-songs As it turns out, stealing is wrong. This is news to some people apparently It wasn't "stealing" as nothing was taken from anyone. The failures were in "licensing the performance" and in the taste of Peleton. Which means the revenue due to the artists, composers, etc., was stolen from them by Peloton. How is that not immediately understandable to you? There are laws governing copyright, royalties, mechanical licenses, etc. It wasn't "stolen". The artists, etc still have their material. Very fundmental difference. In reality, they would have probably only revieved a fraction of a cent for its use anyway. Have you totally missed the complaints by artists etc of all the kerfuffle over their royalties of the companies that do distribute their "creations"? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
almost Cycling News
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 09:58:43 +0700, John B Slocomb wrote:
So sneaking into a theaters is not "stealing" per se. Nor is illegally using a copyright document, that is "copyright infringement". However colloquial use is probably to call both stealing or maybe piracy. It is part of the political program of that ancient "recording distributin industry". Also a good test of the people you deal with in life. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
almost Cycling News
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 02:24:09 -0700, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 10:58:48 PM UTC-4, John B Slocomb wrote: However colloquial use is probably to call both stealing or maybe piracy. When I was a little kid my dad told me that if I had something that I or another family member didn't buy and give to me it wasn't mine then it was stolen. Thus according to him, taking songs or videos from the internet where either song or video was copyrighted was stealing. Cheers Lots of concepts are simplified to enable chidren to grasp basic ideas. There is no excuse for an adult not to understand the difference. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
almost Cycling News
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 08:39:33 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/21/2019 10:21 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:34:58 -0000 (UTC), news18 wrote: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:39:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote: https://www.si.com/edge/2019/03/19/p...t-150-million- copyright-infringement-unlicensed-songs As it turns out, stealing is wrong. This is news to some people apparently It wasn't "stealing" as nothing was taken from anyone. The failures were in "licensing the performance" and in the taste of Peleton. Which means the revenue due to the artists, composers, etc., was stolen from them by Peloton. How is that not immediately understandable to you? There are laws governing copyright, royalties, mechanical licenses, etc. Everyone here who has written and sold software understood it. Yep, but the whoe concept gets dicey very quickly when the programmers, et all, "re use" that software to sell to another company/buyer. OTOH, linux and Free Software. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
almost Cycling News
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
cycling news | AMuzi | Techniques | 5 | May 7th 13 01:40 PM |
What's up with Cycling News? | ilan[_2_] | Racing | 1 | February 10th 11 02:58 PM |
Cycling News | Sandy | Racing | 8 | May 25th 07 06:05 PM |
More cycling news | Tim Hall | UK | 18 | December 7th 06 01:28 PM |
Cycling News RSS | Ewoud Dronkert | Racing | 7 | September 28th 06 09:59 PM |