Text 7898, 123 rader
Skriven 2008-10-15 16:48:14 av Earl Croasmun (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Dan Ceppa
Ärende: RE: Commom Ground
=========================
~>  EC> "Almost all recording artists make their songs available for use via a
~>  EC> "blanket license" from firms such as ASCAP (the American Society of
 
~> Do you have a clue as to what entails as the rights provided by that 
~> "blanket license"?  Apparently not, as it does not include synchronization
~> rights as they want you to believe.  

If you had any idea of what you were talking about, this thread would never
have started.  But I kept encouraging you to GET a clue and to try to get
up to speed on the subject.  If you had done that, you wouldn't have
confused synch rights with the right to play the song at a public
performance.  I will ONCE AGAIN direct you to the ASCAP website, including:
"The ASCAP license does not provide the right to record copyrighted music,
or change the lyric of a copyrighted work and use it in a commercial jingle
or station promotion. These are known as "mechanical" and "synchronization"
rights and you should deal directly with the copyright owners for
permission to record music or change a song."  And you could learn about
WHAT synch rights ARE: "A synchronization or "synch" right involves the use
of a recording of musical work in audio-visual form: for example as part of
a motion picture, television program, commercial announcement, music video
or other videotape. Often, the music is "synchronized" or recorded in timed
relation with the visual images. Synchronization rights are licensed by the
music publisher to the producer of the movie or program."

You say that "THEY" want ME to believe that the license to play the song at
a rally includes synch rights.  Regardless of who your "THEY" might be,
that is obviously false.  You made it up out of thin air.  Did you do that
out of ignorance, or out of mendacity?

~>  EC> eligible for a blanket license, the efficiency of the system would be
~>  EC> destroyed. The McCain campaign has continued to play "Barracuda" since
 
~> Check out the web site.  There are various categories that they market 
~> depending on the type of business involved.  None of those categories 
~> provides the right to use a song as part of an ad.  

Actually the ASCAP radio and TV licenses include "The right to perform
music in commercials and jingles," but your misstatement is irrelevant in
this case since this is about playing the song at a public rally.

~>  EC> Ha ha ha!!  There were no "opinions" in the part that I quoted.  There
~>  EC> were facts.
 
~> Earl, what you quoted is not from a hard news piece.

They offer their own expert opinions on the subject elsewhere in the essay,
but as I already pointed out there were no opinions in the part that I
quoted.  There were facts.  Unrefuted facts.

~>  EC> "Are you aware" that the essay was written by TWO people?
~>  EC> "Are you aware" who they are?
~>  EC> "Christopher Sprigman is an associate professor at the University of
~>  EC> Virginia School of Law. Siva Vaidhyanathan is an associate professor
~>  EC> of media studies and law at the University of Virginia."

~> So?  It's their opinion.  What they wrote is not based on case law.

If you could offer a single shred of case law that supports your absurd
belief that a high school nickname that someone may have had 26 years ago
somehow dramatically alters the fundamental copyright law about licensing
of music for public appearances . . .  ah, heck, why even bother to finish
the sentence.  You haven't.  You won't.  You can't.  You and Sauer repeated
some silly claims off a political blog, you got called on it weeks ago, and
you haven't offered a single coherent defense yet.  You are wrong.  Live
with it.

~> "the law should be 
~> changed so that artists can't sue political groups.  I wonder why he'd
state 
~> that...  Oh, that's right.  They can sue for copyright infringement!  

Actually you made up a bogus quote there.  And you did it for nothing! 
There has never been any disagreement at any point in this thread that
artists CAN sue for copyright infringement!!!  But, as I pointed out to you
MANY MANY TIMES now, if they paid for the license, they can play the
song!!!  Did you REALLY not follow the thread AT ALL?

~>  EC> But if you prefer blogs, you should at least seek out blogs of
~>  EC> qualified and credible people who know the subject.  For example:
~> 
~>  EC> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2008/09/17/mccain-campaign-copyrig
~>  EC> h t/
~> 
~> Did you also notice that he states
~> the McCain PROBABLY would win?

Did you actually READ it?  "Some of the objections come from those whose
songs get played at rallies or events — such as blasting Barracuda by the
band Heart to welcome “Sarah Barracudaö Palin to the ticket at the GOP
Convention. But apparently the campaign has purchased traveling blanket
licenses from ASCAP and BMI. That provides public performance rights to
almost any mainstream tune the Republicans might want to play at a live
event. This is pretty much open and shut in McCain’s favor, at least on
copyright issues."

Do you need to look up the meaning of "open and shut?"

~> And, note the response later on.  The 
~> original author is rethinking his position.  

No kidding, Dan, you really SHOULD read what it says before you say such
things about it!  What position was he "rethinking?"  "On the copyright
issue, my main point was simply that McCain is probably not violating
copyrights, and repeated assertions that he did were inaccurate. (I have no
reason to doubt the campaign’s assertion that they have the necessary ASCAP
and BMI licenses; if they don’t then it’s a different story). You make a
different point about whether the blanket licenses are normatively a good
idea."  The comment does not say that McCain violated a license!  It
disagrees with the very idea of a blanket license!  Do you have ANY IDEA
just how meaninglessly empty your point really IS???

~> Got the dates, places, venues of those additional uses of _Barracuda_?  

Answered several times, so obviously you aren't reading along with your own
thread!  I pointed out a string of them AFTER the group's complaint.  I
showed several news stories saying the campaign continues to use it.  I
answered your question.  I showed that you are unable to answer your own
question.  And, most importantly, I TRIED, goodness knows I TRIED, to get
you to make some POINT as to what an answer to the question would prove! 
You cannot do it!
 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)