arstechnica.com— Some of the earliest hits from the British Invasion will fall out of copyright protection over the next few years after the UK decided against extending the term of music copyrights.
Jul 24, 2007View in Crawl 4
I think it depends on the situation of how copyright should be handled. This is why creative common is so necessary. If a person (like a cover band, or a radio station) makes money off a certain song, then they should pay the artists a certain amount of that revenue. But if people just hand it out or use it in a person or educational project then they should be left alone and not sued.You know company's are greedy when they charge water and ideas created from electrical activity's from the mind, or in other words: free natural products or non-existing products!
"Who is the government to say that a song you created is no longer your property?"You're kidding right? It's only because of government created copyright law that a song is your property in the first place. Without the copyright system that both CREATES and protects your rights, what are you going to do? Run around and scream at all the downloaders or the bands doing covers? If someone hears you sing your song on the street, goes home and records his own version, then starts selling it, what are you going to say? Hey, that song came out of my brain and mouth therefore I can stop you from singing and selling it? If you look around, you won't find any rules written in the sky about this. Your "copyRIGHTS" are creations of law. It's sad that you (and so many others) are duped into thinking that the laws of one country and one time are somehow universal rules of nature. In nature, nobody has property rights. If you doubt that, watch some national geographic videos.
toxicvarn90Jul 25, 2007
I think it depends on the situation of how copyright should be handled. This is why creative common is so necessary. If a person (like a cover band, or a radio station) makes money off a certain song, then they should pay the artists a certain amount of that revenue. But if people just hand it out or use it in a person or educational project then they should be left alone and not sued.You know company's are greedy when they charge water and ideas created from electrical activity's from the mind, or in other words: free natural products or non-existing products!
godlikeJul 25, 2007
Yeah but what about copyrights?
techcfJul 25, 2007
Great! Even though it took to long for it to go out of the copyright period, but the pirate party will fix that soon
wooteryJul 25, 2007
"But if people just hand it out"You mean piracy?That doesn't qualify as fair-use.
kurtwinterJul 25, 2007
This account has been closed by the user
goodoldharrisJul 26, 2007
"Who is the government to say that a song you created is no longer your property?"You're kidding right? It's only because of government created copyright law that a song is your property in the first place. Without the copyright system that both CREATES and protects your rights, what are you going to do? Run around and scream at all the downloaders or the bands doing covers? If someone hears you sing your song on the street, goes home and records his own version, then starts selling it, what are you going to say? Hey, that song came out of my brain and mouth therefore I can stop you from singing and selling it? If you look around, you won't find any rules written in the sky about this. Your "copyRIGHTS" are creations of law. It's sad that you (and so many others) are duped into thinking that the laws of one country and one time are somehow universal rules of nature. In nature, nobody has property rights. If you doubt that, watch some national geographic videos.
wooteryJul 27, 2007
But it's not your music to give away, and it could cost someone a sale.Defining 'pirate' as 'violater of licences', both are piracy.