[Brenda]

I used to work at a bar, and we had to pay even when I brought my own music. Store bought. BUT, since it was "broadcasted" in a public place, the authors and musicians had a right to the be paid...

[DrCaleb]

Yup. See, in the old days, when you worked for a living, you got paid for doing a job. I don't get paid forever when I fix things, I have to keep fixing them if I want to keep getting paid.

But if I write a song! Now that seems like quite the cash cow! All I have to do is get the government to declare it an intangible good; make sure no one can use it without paying me for it's use; and then legislate myself an artificial market shortage where any attempt to use my hard work that doesn't result in me getting paid for it's use results in jail time for the offender, and I too can get paid forever for only working once!

I really love the ones where the composer died before the concept of copyright came into legal being, and all you have to do is record their work, and you own that recording forever! All you had to do was play an instrument! Now show me the money! $cha-ching$

[herbie]

They won't be happy until they nail someone who let the kids at Billy's birthday party watch a Disney movie for 'broadcasting'.
Why there were 9 friends over so they should have bought 9 extra "licenses" to watch that DVD.........
Your Honor that porn DVD only entitled him to watch it by himself. If he wanted his girlfriend to watch it too, he should have paid the extra $10.99 for the multi-user edition.

[bootlegga]

Brenda wrote:

I used to work at a bar, and we had to pay even when I brought my own music. Store bought. BUT, since it was "broadcasted" in a public place, the authors and musicians had a right to the be paid...

That still doesn't make it right. Why should anyone pay twice for something? What makes music special?

[Brenda]

bootlegga wrote:

Brenda wrote:

I used to work at a bar, and we had to pay even when I brought my own music. Store bought. BUT, since it was "broadcasted" in a public place, the authors and musicians had a right to the be paid...

That still doesn't make it right. Why should anyone pay twice for something? What makes music special?

That is my point too. I already paid their rights when I bought it. I mean, a CD was not cheap, while burning one is about $0.10... If you have to pay $25, I think everything is paid for in full, right?

[DrCaleb]

Brenda wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Brenda wrote:

I used to work at a bar, and we had to pay even when I brought my own music. Store bought. BUT, since it was "broadcasted" in a public place, the authors and musicians had a right to the be paid...

That still doesn't make it right. Why should anyone pay twice for something? What makes music special?

That is my point too. I already paid their rights when I bought it. I mean, a CD was not cheap, while burning one is about $0.10... If you have to pay $25, I think everything is paid for in full, right?

Nope. They want 25 cents every time you sing the tune to yourself, because you are still 'rebroadcasting' it, and it's not an authorized copy until they get paid.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb wrote:

Yup. See, in the old days, when you worked for a living, you got paid for doing a job. I don't get paid forever when I fix things, I have to keep fixing them if I want to keep getting paid.

But if I write a song! Now that seems like quite the cash cow! All I have to do is get the government to declare it an intangible good; make sure no one can use it without paying me for it's use; and then legislate myself an artificial market shortage where any attempt to use my hard work that doesn't result in me getting paid for it's use results in jail time for the offender, and I too can get paid forever for only working once!

I really love the ones where the composer died before the concept of copyright came into legal being, and all you have to do is record their work, and you own that recording forever! All you had to do was play an instrument! Now show me the money! $cha-ching$

Ahhh but here's the rub. This law doesn't protect the artists, it protects the recording industry. And this ACTA is only going to ensure that AMERICAN business interests take precedent over Canadian sovereignty and law. We are actually going to change our laws to placate a foreign industry, not individual artists that actually do all the work that we pay to listen to.
And what does this mean for streamed radio stations such as CKA's??


George is gettin' upset!!

[DrCaleb]

Absolutely PA9. It's never been about the Artist. ACTA isn't going to be about Music, video or software Piracy. It's about protecting a revenue stream. If the Artists want money after they finish paying costs on their new CD, they can damn well tour and earn it.

The new 'DMCA' that has been so (un)successful down south that Harper wants us to bow down to, will ensure the little peons are forced into accepting the media companies terms on how we use what we rightfully pay for.

And CKA radio will be but a legend.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Actually, there may be a loophole for streamed radio like CKA. Gonna look into it a little more but it just might work

[RUEZ]

Everyone is so concerned about the artists. Yet they refuse to pay for their work. Nice.

[LetThemEatCake]

For anyone interested here is a interesting look at copyright and copyright law.
Its by a Canadian and is in reaction to recent events.
It takes a reasonably balanced look at the issues that surround copyright and trying to inforce/legislate it.
http://heywriterboy.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... ebate.html