Felonious Spunk
Grant
Digitals downstairs to push the anal logs upstairs
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by Felonious Spunk on Nov 2, 2019 2:49:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mintyjackhole on Nov 2, 2019 3:43:29 GMT
No amount of sweet sweet yoga instructor loving could fill the hole of being owned that hard by grtaN.
|
|
|
|
Post by mudflapslim on Nov 2, 2019 4:59:57 GMT
I doubt anyone who gets rid of a Beagles CD keeps a backup copy.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoffa_nagila on Nov 2, 2019 13:11:43 GMT
I doubt anyone who gets rid of a Beagles CD keeps a backup copy. Those files receive an instant "shift+delete." |
|
|
|
Post by FabGear Prophylactic on Nov 5, 2019 4:13:10 GMT
Good smack, but lawyers don't have friends.
They often, though, have people in other fields who are stuck with working with them and consequently hate them.
Anyway, Rfreeman is clearly thinking like a lawyer: confusing *the actual text of a regulation/legislation* with the temporary stated objective of the elite most lawyers worshipfully serve. In this case, yes, some in the entertainment industry want a world where no consumer ever owns a copy of a recorded performance. Instead, the music/film/book etc. is merely "rented". And with each listen/watch/read etc., economic rent is obtained by the rights holder. For the music industry, the ideal model would be a jukebox. Or, I suppose, a streaming service. Rather than a single sale of a cee dee for $15, think of, I dunno, a cumulative fee of 15 cents per track played, which they clearly think would be much more lucrative.
I don't think American law (among other jurisdictions) is anywhere near achieving UniversalWarnerMegacorps' intent. But maybe someday it will. One prerequisite would be the kind of state administration that keeps tabs on the inmates to the point where "illegal art consumption" can be readily detected and disciplined. Eek!
|
|
|
|
Post by Brick Wall on Nov 5, 2019 12:11:40 GMT
Speaking of our fave rave rocking lawyer, who is paying ASCAP and BMI for all those covers The Beagles are making money (I assume) playing? I figure the major issue with that would be that the cacophony generated "songs" being in performance must actually be de facto recognizable as covers as such, to wit (lawyereze). A not necessarily straightforward, apparent distinction as pertains to the Beagles. |
|
Felonious Spunk
Grant
Digitals downstairs to push the anal logs upstairs
Posts: 1,192
|
Post by Felonious Spunk on Nov 5, 2019 15:11:50 GMT
Speaking of our fave rave rocking lawyer, who is paying ASCAP and BMI for all those covers The Beagles are making money (I assume) playing? I figure the major issue with that would be that the cacophony generated "songs" being in performance must actually be de facto recognizable as covers as such, to wit (lawyereze). A not necessarily straightforward, apparent distinction as pertains to the Beagles. Ah, there’s the rub. But, g his constant self promotion and YouTube postings, we know what the songs are supposed to be. Is “intent to cover” a legal thing? |
|
|
|
Post by Brick Wall on Nov 5, 2019 15:43:50 GMT
According to my solicitor, Rudy G., even with constant self promotion and Twitter YouTube postings, it is not a quid pro quo an intent to cover per se. But even if it were it would be ok and is not punishable.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoffa_nagila on Nov 5, 2019 16:58:06 GMT
You libs need to give up this #witchhunt. You can't indict a sitting band leader.
Oh, wait, he's not sitting. Just short and crouching. Carry on, then.
|
|
