touche

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » September 25, 2003, 1:54 am

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/09 ... index.html

This is too funny. I hope they win this case.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 25, 2003, 1:17 pm

Not that funny, i mean when the industry is getting embaresed every single week, it kinda gets old

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 25, 2003, 1:25 pm

The Recording Industry Association of America called Sharman's "newfound admiration for the importance of copyright law" ironic and "self-serving."

The irony of that statement is fucking killing me!

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 25, 2003, 1:29 pm

hehe you noticed that little gem too huh?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 25, 2003, 1:57 pm

lol fuck the recording industry for trying to protect their property and investments.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 25, 2003, 2:26 pm

kyoukan wrote:lol fuck the recording industry for trying to protect their property and investments.

It's ironic because they're the ones who first manipulated copyright laws in their favor, and they're the most self-serving industry in existance. Turnabout and all that.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 25, 2003, 2:30 pm

what copyright laws did they manipulate and how did they manipulate them?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 25, 2003, 2:38 pm

NO YOU CANNOT TOUCH ME NO MATTER HOW FRENCH YOU PRONOUNCE IT!!!

(preedit, yeah yeah I know what touche is, and how to pronounce it, but I am bored)

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 25, 2003, 2:41 pm

IIRC, they pioneered laws to allow them to buy a song in perpetuity without having to give the author a cut beyond the duration of their contract.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 25, 2003, 4:42 pm

Ive never heard of a recording artist who doesn't make royalties off songs even decades after the fact.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 25, 2003, 4:56 pm

Kyoukan, TLC for example got their royalties (very small for an up and coming group) upfront and ended up filing for bankruptcy even though they had the number one R&B album in the country. Bad business decision on their part? Maybe, it's a tricky call to make for a band just starting out. A no brainer for an established artist though.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 25, 2003, 5:05 pm

That isn't copyright law though; that would be signing a contract without a decent lawyer looking over it first.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » September 25, 2003, 6:31 pm

It doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong. The recording industry is going to lose in the end. Hell, they lost the day Napster was a household name. They're just delaying the inevitable.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » September 25, 2003, 6:58 pm

Hrm, don't I remember that artists lose rights to a piece if they don't perform or use the song in some way after 15 years?

Seems I remember comments about Jimmy Buffet just hanging on to the song 'Mexico' by recording it himself just short of the deadline.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » September 25, 2003, 9:26 pm

Shouldn't be because of basic copyright I don't think Fallanthas.

Basic copyright for anything created January 1, 1978 or before is life of the author plus 70 years (before that it looks like it is a bit more complicated see http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.html for details).

Of course, since copyright establishes the work as the property of the author, they can sell it and there could be a stipulation like that in the contract.