decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
And they are | 457 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
And they are
Authored by: Wol on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 04:21 PM EDT
a MAJOR medium for enabling the content moguls to pirate anything they like the
look of.

One only has to look at stupid cases where somebody tried to set up an indie
internet radio station. The ONLY stuff he was going to broadcast was where he
had an agreement in place with the copyright holders.

The performance people tried to argue (they tried to get a law passed) that he
HAD to pay them a pretty hefty licence fee - allegedly so they could compensate
the copyright holders - despite the fact it was pretty obvious the real
copyright holders wouldn't receive a penny!

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Re: MPAA & RIAA
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 10:24 PM EDT
Neither represents creative persons.

RIAA is the trade industry association of the record
producers. Despite their statements, they do not represent
any artists - the artists (vocalists, musicians,
songwriters, etc) work for them. They represent the record
labels, which are involved in production and distribution.

MPAA represents the motion picture producers. Again, the
large companies involved in production and distribution.
They do not represent writers, actors, songwriters,
directors, or other creative people.

Interestingly, both came into power because of the
limitations on production and distribution in the past.
They represent what used to be a bottleneck in the system -
but one that is now open due to the reduced costs of
production and distribution thanks to computers and the
internet. However, that means the companies both represent
face obsolescence unless they can re-establish a bottleneck
that no longer exists. Which maximalist copyright
interpretation, combined with their member companies owning
the copyright, would enable.

There are none so blind as those who are paid not to see
(don't know who said it first, but it seems to be true).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )