Yup, she sure has.Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr
http://tinyurl.com/5o3ru7
What's particularly galling about this is that the fan fiction in this case was an encyclopedia based on the Harry Potter series, a reference guide which amounts to commentary on a piece of fiction. Rawlings complained mainly that it would interfere with her own planned encyclopedia. In other words, a book she hadn't even written yet. (The fan's mistake apparently was to take wholesale quotes from the book.)
I stand corrected. I think her case is also a mistake.
Really??? I mean, really?The musicians only looked like demons to the ones who didn't want to pay for the CDs. Songwriters only make money when the CD/album they appear on sells a copy or is played on public media.
If a songwriter expects remuneration for their work, you think that's communistic? That any creative act should be a part of the public commons? Really?
Anyway, personally I don't have a problem with creative people being able to make money off their product by giving them exclusive rights.
BUUUUUTTTTT... for life of the author plus an additional 70 years? Come on, that's just too long.
In comparison a patent last only 20 years -- even though far more expense and effort may be put into creating something patentable (a new invention which has to be new and different from everything already invented) than something copyrightable (a photograph or song etc - doesn't have to be new or very different from things already created.)
That extention of copyright was the doing of Disney Co who wanted to protect their Mickey Mouse stuff.
If we had a reasonable term for copyright protection much of these disputes would be moot.
If a songwriter expects remuneration for his work, it's capitalistic, not communistic. My point is that it's very difficult for the songwriter to prevent anyone from singing his song, because intellectual property is inherently communistic, and resists privatization.Really??? I mean, really?
If a songwriter expects remuneration for their work, you think that's communistic? That any creative act should be a part of the public commons? Really?
The Napster-fighting musicians didn't look like demons, they just looked ridiculous, because millionaire rock stars threatening their teen-aged fans is ridiculous. There is no good reason rock stars should be millionaires. The fact that they can be is an accident of history, and nothing more.
It used to be that rock bands toured to promote their album sales. That arrangement made rock stars possible, because there was potentially no limit to the number of records they could sell. Post-Napster rock bands upload their music for free to promote their live concerts. This arrangement is far less likely to produce millionaire rock stars, because there is a limit to how many live performances they can give. This is a perfect example of intellectual property resisting privatization.
That's not galling thats clearly and unmistakably copyright infringement.The fan's mistake apparently was to take wholesale quotes from the book.
Disney? Disney did all artist a favor.
Napster? Organized Crime.
Last edited by Kirk Gittings; 28-Jun-2011 at 19:23.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Oh, please. Yes, the lawyer might have been a buddy who did it pro bono.
But it is a reasonable assumption that such is not the case.
Frank's arithmetic is quite reasonable. There is a lot that goes into a civil action, including the initial letters, the demand, the filed lawsuit, the discovery, the expert witnesses (which is the first on this list that is optional in a case like this), and much of this gets spent before a lawyer even knows how good the case is. And that's the basis for deciding how much to demand in a settlement.
It is also quite common for lawyers who work on a contingency fee to get one-third of the settlement or judgment.
I'm NOT one who complains that lawyers don't deserve their share, and my statement in no way means that. They know things non-lawyers don't know, and they worked hard to learn those things. But I have seen many cases firsthand where the size of a settlement was determined by the contingency fee being large enough to cover the lawyer's minimum expectations.
Rick "not seeing this assumption as a statement about character" Denney
Not when it's used as the cover of a music CD. In that application, it's use is purely commercial.
Rick "noting that one standard of fair use is whether the alleged infringement causes confusion in the marketplace" Denney
Actually, patents are good for a 14-year period that can be renewed once.
Rick "who agrees that current copyright periods are at odds with the original purpose of copyright law which was to get IP into the public domain" Denney
First, I don't believe in treating copyright for corporations the same way as individuals. I don't agree with the way Disney has renewed copyrights ad nauseum, but try getting the Court to find otherwise is an exercise in frustration.
Second, life plus 70 years (it used to be around 28 years, I believe) has as its basis the fact that the fruits of a songwriter's business should be able to be passed on to heirs, the same as any other business built by any individual.
Third, while we all exist on the backs of giants to a great extent, the direct use of another artist's work as the basis for a new work that is clearly derivative, is in fact, not creative in the least and is an excuse used by those without original ideas wanting to feel good about their so-called creativity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks