|
No wonder all tracks sound the same nowadays... (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
How is that the same situation in any way? |
Well, it's the same legal principle.
Basically, labels, or newspapers, or any publishing agency such as youtube do not have a responsiblity to check if material submitted to them is copyrighted or not. That would be impossible for them to do.
They are simply required to take it down or reach some settlement once the copyright holder approaches them and informs them.
Same with labels, they are not required to check if stuff people send to them is copyrighted. Just to take it off the label when it is brought under their attention. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Well, it's the same legal principle.
|
Streaming someone else's work vs. Stealing someone else's work and claiming it as their own? |
|
|
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Streaming someone else's work vs. Stealing someone else's work and claiming it as their own? |
Streaming copyrighted material is also illegal. Hence the 'all rights reserved' most people choose as their copyright.
But just turn it around, say that labels did have an obligation to chek this. If you are a label manager and I sent you this track saying 'Yo, label person dude guy woman, I just created this awesome track.' and you're like 'MITÄ TISSINUOLUUS, TÄÄ ON PERKELEEN KAIKKIKYRVÄN MAHTAVA!' and you want to release it.
How could you possibly check if it were stolen? You would have to listen to every track on the planet and see if they match. So that's why I am legally liable as the artist for lying to you about that it was my original work, and you are not for assuming good faith on my behalf. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Streaming copyrighted material is also illegal. Hence the 'all rights reserved' most people choose as their copyright.
|
Of course it is, but it's still not the same thing as outright stealing. |
|
|
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Of course it is, but it's still not the same thing as outright stealing. |
Morally maybe not. But the law and moral have little to do with each other.
It's the same legal principle that keeps youtube and let's say google alive. A publisher doesn't have to invest resources into investigating copyright, simply because no publisher has the resources to do so. They only have to take it down once they are approached by the copyright holder. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Morally maybe not. But the law and moral have little to do with each other. |
Here's the part where I agree with you but then post something all-the-more screwy like, "look at marijuana and domestic battery laws in the United States. WAAAYYY, way, way too restrictive, IMO." |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by kuollutrunkkau5
Morally maybe not. But the law and moral have little to do with each other.
It's the same legal principle that keeps youtube and let's say google alive. A publisher doesn't have to invest resources into investigating copyright, simply because no publisher has the resources to do so. They only have to take it down once they are approached by the copyright holder. |
Sure enough. But I don't think that really changes my original point. |
|
|
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Sure enough. But I don't think that really changes my original point. |
Well, your original point was that they would get legal troubles if they didn't put on a quality check. But they won't, because it's not illegal to not check.
It's only illegal to not cease and desist after the original copyright holder has informed you of the situation. |
|
|
| kuollutrunkkau5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Last word! |
Mutta rottinettiyhteyksiä ja porojakin on perseessäni.
Ja puhunkin suomea sulle kunnes annat sille vastauksen, tai kerrot miksi et. =( |
|
|
|
|
