ASCAP Makes Outlandish Copyright Claims on Cell Phone Ringtones - 16 views
started by Jude John on 24 Aug 09
started by Jude John on 24 Aug 09
Start a New Topic » « Back to the New Media Ethics 2009 course group
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/deep-purple-fined-for-performing-their-own-songs-in-russia_1108677
Rockers DEEP PURPLE have been fined for playing their own songs in Russia.
A local court has handed down the fine after Ian Gillan, Ian Paice and Roger Glover failed to clear rights to their tunes in Russia before a concert in Rostov-on-Don last year (Oct08).
According to the court's ruling, the musicians should have obtained a license from the Russian Authors' Society, known as NGO, before the public performance.
NGO represents the rights of foreign performers in Russia.
For every 'unlicensed' song, the court imposed a penalty of 30,000 roubles ($1,000/GBP666) on the organisers of the concert, according to RussiaToday.com.
Not knowing the exact history of the IP laws, I think it is important to look at the original purpose of it being enacted and re-evaluate its current interpretations (hermeneutic?) with a critical stand of course to evaluate the worth of the original purpose in today's context.
Unfortunately, it is never easy to put into practice. hahaha.
Jude John wrote:
> http://www.newmediarights.org/external_feeds/eff_breaking_news/ascap_makes_outlandish_copyright_claims_cell_phone_ringtones
>
> 1. "as part of a ploy to squeeze more money out of the mobile phone companies, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) has told a federal court that each time a phone rings in a public place, the phone user has violated copyright law."
>
> 2. "Worse, these wrongheaded legal claims cast a shadow over innovators who are building gadgets that help consumers get the most from their copyright privileges.
> "Because it is legal for consumers to play music in public, it's also legal for my mobile phone carrier to sell me a ringtone and a phone to do it," said von Lohmann. "Otherwise it would be illegal to sell all kinds of technologies that help us enjoy our fair use, first sale, and other copyright privileges."
>
> In light of this, is it ethical for copyright owners to want to be able to extend control over all forms of expression of their expressions?
> Copyright promoted a behaviour such that an individual's rights over his/her intellectual property take precendence over the rights of others to use them, but where does one find the balance between these rights? At this rate even the IP owners themselves will want themselves to pay for using their own IP! (An exaggeration, but I hope you get my point)
>
> Users too, will will aggrieved at his latest course of action because ultimately they will have to in some way contribute to this added cost. This then adds to the whole piracy issue, as they feel that they have to fight (unethical) fire with (unethical) fire.
Therefore, by saying the capitalist society has actually diminished IP, it is ironic in that in the course of these transactions, the monetary value of IP has actually increased. As is the case of MJ and Sir Paul Mccartney, the value of these 200 songs have grown by over $450 million.
I would therefore argue, that given that monetary terms is the only tangible benchmark for value, is this enough proof that the capitalist society, who is ultimately built on the foundations of Theory of Demand and Supply, has actually added value and not diminished value of IP.
Ang Yao Zong wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> This article actually reminds me of something that I had originally wanted to post onto the forums regarding the singing of the "Happy Birthday" song.
>
> Take a look at this website: http://www.unhappybirthday.com/
>
> The copyright for the "Happy Birthday" song is not due to expire until 2030 after repeated copyright extensions over the past years, and the copyright to this song currently lie with Time Warner.
>
> However for the case of the birthday song, I think common sense and the overwhelming sense of utilitarianism prevailed in the end. I haven't really seen or heard any reports of claims being made against the violation of copyright over ths singing of the birthday song in public (or is it a case of me being ignorant? hahaha...)
>
> Another interesting thought would be how copyrights seem to be transferrable via monetary transaction. One example would be how (correct me if I'm wrong) the late Michael Jackson actually bought over all rights to songs produced by the Beatles by outbidding Sir Paul McCartney. This I feel, would be in close comparison to what Jude mentioned as IP owners having to pay for using their own IP.
>
> In conclusion, has the capitalist society actually diminished the value of IP since a price can even be placed on a product of thought?
>