Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Gideon, what you are failing to realize is that copyright protects the creator/owner of he music from having it used in a fashion that they do agree with.
Here are three quick examples.
Moby. Moby licenses his music to a ton of products and companies, but he explicitly says he will not license his music to companies that make weapons or do any kind of animal testing/animal cruelty. If Smith and Wesson decided to use his song on a video they made, he could sue them and he would win. It makes no difference if they making money off the video or not, he doesn't want to be associated with them and he has that right.
Your girl Marie Digby. You bring this girl up every time people talk about music copyrights. So say Marie writes an original song that I like. I decide to use it in my newest movie Sodomy Sluts #4- Return of The Ass Fuckers. Marie decides she doesn't want to be affiliated with Sodomy Sluts #4. She can sue me and will win. It doesn't matter if I am not hurting her sales.
Political campaigns. Often politicians will adopt a "theme song", a song they play at all their rallies and appearance. Many times they don't ask permission to use this song, they just do it. There have been a few different cases in recent years where the artists didn't want to be affiliated with that politician and sued to make them stop using their song and won. Again, it makes no difference if they didn't cost the singer a sale or harm them in any way, the singer doesn't want it affiliated with that person and they have that right.
Remember copyright allows the copyright owner control over the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. It doesn't always have to be about money.
|
No it doesn't
section 106 of the act says
Quote:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
|
and section 107
Quote:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ?
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
|
you will notice that political agreement of principles/personal desire of the copyright holder is not one of the conditions.
fair use doesn't allow this type of exclusion, it is an abuse of the law that should be invalidated just like previous court established fair uses like timeshifting and format shifting.
Quote:
|
I know you don't care and I know you will give me a 12 point post on the VCR and the Diamond Rio and you will splatter 18 kinds of shit against the wall in a circular argument in an effort to confuse everyone into thinking you are right, but in this case you are wrong. If you use someone's music in your movie without getting permission/paying the licensing fee and they decide to sue, you are fucked. Especially when they use your music in a for profit venture which is exactly what is happening here.
|
again censorship is a completely different issue from loss of revenue.
fair use prevents the censorship aspect, it does not prevent the lost revenue aspect.
BTW
i find it interesting how you keep refusing to give me permission to exclude you from my work. As i pointed out in the previous thread (and here too) fair use would prevent me from invalidating your affiliate sales to any program that used my techniques(my copyright)
i asked you for permission to do that, to claim your money as my own. If you truly believe i as a copyright holder should have such a right, why do you refuse to give me such permission.