What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
When Should I Book My Flight Home for Christmas? view!
bing.com - Bing predicts if your fare is likely to fall by $50 or more within 7 days. Shockingly accurate.
85 Comments
- codyman, on 11/01/2009, -2/+49oh heirs and their claim to fortune
Kind of like the MJ corpse rape that's going on right now in a theater near you - LordByr0n, on 11/01/2009, -0/+34More people trying to make money off of someone elses success. Silly humans.
- Sux4Bux, on 11/01/2009, -0/+29And this is why all music and other media should become public domain when the creator dies. It shouldn't be passed down nor should a corporation be able to posses it.
- tushyd, on 11/01/2009, -3/+31Intellectual property law still doesn't make any sense... why does Bob Marley's family legally have the right to money from his fame? Really, no one but Bob Marley does.
- BREZZZ, on 11/01/2009, -3/+18The pot crowd vs the "There should be no such thing as copyright" crowd. Many have overlaping members, let's see who wins.
- stubear, on 11/01/2009, -0/+10This is a trademark case, not copyright. The trademark doesn't disappear simply because the artist is dead. If that were the case then Disney would be in serious trouble with its name. I really with diggers would actually learn a lot more about intellectual property law before commenting on it.
- borez, on 11/01/2009, -0/+10Aren't they the same people who haven't given a single ***** penny of royalties to the Wailers, even though they were an integral part of Marleys sound?
- rolf, on 11/01/2009, -0/+9That might create incentive to kill someone. If people invent something, they can patent it and have the right to it for only 17 years in most cases.
I think writing and creating something is intensive, but less intensive than inventing something. Instead of the life + 99 years ***** or whatever Disney got Congress to jack it up to, how about just 15 years? That way the author gets his, if he dies, his kids for a short while. But it's insane to have entire family business built around leeching all they can from 1 person's efforts in life and never giving anything back.
The word "artist" has become too loaded, and now everyone wants to be one. A construction worker can't claim royalties from a building he helped make for an eternity. I don't believe even an architect keeps getting royalties out of the use of the same building. I dont see why it should be so for a musician/artist. Let's cut this nonsense down to size. - Laminarcissus, on 11/01/2009, -0/+9If this were Bob Marley himself I agree there might be a cage match, but everyone is going to sidestep the issue and highlight this as money-grabbing relatives trying to profit off something they never had any part in.
Not recognizing of course, that unless they get control over the trademark then they would have no legal basis to stop companies from putting his image on anything -- "Bob Marley's One Love Condoms" or "Bob Marley's 'I Shot the Sheriff' .45 Caliber Shells." - ChaosProfessor, on 11/01/2009, -0/+9http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed-N_kG4DfU
bob Marley rasta tourguide, oldie but goodie - ruckfules, on 11/01/2009, -0/+9As a Jamaican....
What really happened was that he stubbed his toe playing soccer barefoot, the wound became cancerous, and Rastafari in Jamaica shirks (much like the Amish, but not generally to the same, extreme extent) modern medicine and technology. He refused treatment and died. It's that simple. - EddiePotato, on 11/01/2009, -1/+9"who cares if you're acting like an ***** when you can make millions"
In one sentence, you just defined the the careers of most bankers, lawyers, and politicians. - mwtapp, on 11/01/2009, -3/+10"Get Up, Stand Up"
- YourNameHere1, on 11/01/2009, -0/+7Why can't we roam this open country?
Oh why can't we be what we want to be?
We want to be free.
3 o'clock roadblock - curfew.
And I've got to throw away.
Yes, I've got to throw away,
A yes-a I, I've got to throw away
My little herb stalk.
I rebel music - yeah, I'm tellin' you!
I rebel music..... I rebel music, Oh-ooh!
Take my soul, and suss - and suss me out.
Check my life, if I am in doubt, I'm tellin':
3 o'clock roadblock - roadblock - roadblock,
And "Hey, Mr. Cop Ain't got no -
Hey hey! - Hey Mr Cop...
What ya sayin' down there?
Hey, hey! - Hey Mr Cop...
Oh got no birth certificate on me now.
I Rebel Music..... - fragMasterFlash, on 11/01/2009, -0/+6Good luck putting that genie back in the bottle.
- LowHz, on 11/01/2009, -0/+6*****, the Hendrix family has been milking Jimi's corpse for years.
- edstate, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4Ah, yes. Copyrights are ***** until they're YOUR Copyrights.
- drgmdp, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4HAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAA HAAAAAA
- AiR1890, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4I think the cancer started from his toe, I think, they wanted to amputate it, but he said no, since in tradition you were not supposed to remove any part of the human body from yourself.
- EddiePotato, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4"Stand up for your royalties"
Man, that just doesn't have the same ring to it. - awhiteflame, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4A cancer virus from the CIA, you say?
- Sinn3r, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4Che Guevara's family should take note!
- kerwinste, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4"Don't steal my image."
- stubear, on 11/01/2009, -0/+3@vman81,
So Ford should no longer be allowed to have exclusive rights to its name for selling cars? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Trademarks being exclusive are a very good thing in our capitalist economy because they allow a company to trade on their reputation. When I go to buy a car, and if I happen to think that Ford makes good automobiles, I like knowing that only one company has the right to sell Fords and I know the quality of that vehicle is good. I don't have to do a whole lot of research into WHICH Ford automobiles are good and which ones are simply trading off the reputation the original Ford built over time.
What you're essentially asking is for no company to ever be allowed to be named after its founder or proper name. - csm888, on 11/01/2009, -0/+3Marley is Dead (R.I.P.) and all his rights should die with him.
Everything he has done, and all that everyone has done, who are now dead, should belong to all mankind, and not the parasitic, no talent, descendents. - midnightliberty, on 11/01/2009, -0/+3Intellectual property is a figment of the state's imagination. Intellectual rights are not natural rights. There are no rights to images, ideas, etc. This is the definitive book on the subject in my opinion: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/again ...
- Mujokan, on 11/01/2009, -0/+3"It can be copied, you know. But it's not copy do it, it's the feel.... I know that the only purpose it serve is to tell the people about Rastafari" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsfYAJ3dQyY (Not totally relevant, but nice interview.)
- Pinkshisno, on 11/01/2009, -6/+9Since when did Michael Jordan died :(
- schavira, on 11/01/2009, -2/+5Thank God, all of that bootleg Marley merchandise is disgusting, it's not just a disgrace to his career but it consistently ranks among the worst examples of design in human history (literally all of those bootleg shirts that you come across are unwearable because they're so ridiculous). Now if only the Doors and Nirvana would do the same thing.
- Napiertt, on 11/01/2009, -0/+3*music...music
- govsucks, on 11/01/2009, -0/+3This is a tough one for me. I guess this would get rid of patents completely then? Perhaps I will look at this book. AS someone who writes software I have mixed feelings about this. While I agree that no method I write in any language should be protected by copyright, I do think that my software, that I have spent hundred of hours creating, should be paid for by those that wish to use it. I am well aware that stopping piracy of software is virtually impossible, but at the same time, I will rot before I use someone elses creation for my own personal gain without compensating them for what they have created. Its immoral.
However, if I don't want to pay for lets say photoshop, I should be free to write my own image editing application without fear of Adobe suing me because I used bicubic averaging or something stupid like that.
Like I say, I have mixed feelings. SOme of these musical artists work for years to become good musicians and live in poverty for just as long struggling to make it and when they do, we come along and just take their ***** and enjoy it and never "give back" to them?
Same with a photographer. It takes years to become a good photographer. SOme are WAY better than others. What incentive is there to become great at something if people use you like a floor mat and then walk away? - du4l1ty, on 11/01/2009, -1/+3And here I was thinking that Bob Marley's children were going to Somalia to fight pirates =(
- stubear, on 11/01/2009, -2/+4T-R-A-D-E-M-A-R-K...did you miss this part? It's even in the ***** summary so you have no excuse for not knowing this simple, pivotal fact. Trademarks do NOT protect music, it protects the brand of a product. What they are going after, or at least trying to stem, are all those people selling Bob Marley t-shirts and what not without permission to use his likeness. Digg really needs to implement a little quiz for every article about intellectual property law and if you fail to answer the questions correctly you are not allowed to comment on the article. Perhaps then we could get some ***** intelligent discussions going and hopefully get people thinking about ways to solve the problem so ALL parties involved benefit.
- whatthefu, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2If you were an heir of a super-rich guy wouldn't you try too? I'm not defending them I'm just saying who cares if you're acting like an ***** when you can make millions.
- frieddonuts, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2He done gone and died.
- Napiertt, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2Brutalize me with misic
- inactive, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2It is silly to think all creative property should die with the creator.
George Lucas may have "created" Star Wars but it's entire existence is just as much owed to Fox studios, Lawrence Kasdan, the actors, all of it. This is why Disney can make the case for continued ownership of their characters, old Walt didn't draw all the frames and run every department himself. - palehorse864, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2"Stand up for your copyright" would have been good, but this is a trademark dispute.
- asgardshill, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2Yes it did suck, didn't it. That's what I get for trying to post without caffeine.
- inactive, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2People with small minds and no ideas are the first to criticize intellectual property.
- lysdexia, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2I'd fully expect Mr Marley would have wanted his heirs well looked after.
- X9001, on 11/01/2009, -1/+3But I have an entitlement complex and I want music for free
- EddiePotato, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2Please don't dis on my orange and red "Peace, Love, & Killer Ganja" made in China shirt with the fuzzy Bob Marley picture over a pot leaf.
- midnightliberty, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2You seem to be implying that without intellectual copyright there would be no great movies. The burden of proof here is on you. What evidence is there that the production of movies would cease if intellectual copyright was abolished?
There would still be mover's profits to be made. The movie studios would not be able to make money in perpetuity off DVD sales and the like, but there would still be great profits available in producing movies and showing them in theatre.
You also discount entirely that possibility that artists will produce art for the love of it and not the money, or potentially less money than they would with an intellectual monopoly. Do you really think that Bob Marley picked up a guitar to get rich and make tons of money off copyrighted merchandise and record sales? Or did he do it to make great music and spread a message? - digitalArtform, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2Both of which would be awesome best sellers! WANT!
- nepidae, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1Long term copyright actually discourages creativity. Why would Bob Marley's heirs bother being creative if they can make more money off of his work?
- doshindude, on 11/01/2009, -1/+2don't you think if pot cured cancer we would have been on top of that by now? don't be stupid.
- Idonteven, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1@Spire3660
Is that why you're a millionaire/billionaire? - eljitto, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1yup, but 99.999% of us would do the same thing....
aint we ***** up... - tushyd, on 11/02/2009, -0/+1But we're not talking about a company, we're talking about a person...
I don't think your Ford analogy really fits in this case. Ford (the company) was more than just the man, even in the beginning.
But Bob Marley is Bob Marley... sure when he was with the Wailers they were "Bob Marley and the Wailers", so that should be treated differently. -
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is