Forums | MacLife

ScifiterX wrote:

I am aware due to various cultural, legal, and lingual differences between our countries record companies may not be able to pull the same crap over there that they do over here even if it is the same item and as a result their can be labeling differences that reflect that.

Bat wrote:

In Europe, artists can veto where their music is played in public spaces. The catch here is the inability for Gray to veto the use of his music in an American territory when it is being used by the military. It would also be next to impossible for any music publisher to pursue the military for royalties.

Thank you, Bat. It couldn't have been much better timed. to emphasize my point.

ScifiterX wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

I am aware due to various cultural, legal, and lingual differences between our countries record companies may not be able to pull the same crap over there that they do over here even if it is the same item and as a result their can be labeling differences that reflect that.

Bat wrote:

In Europe, artists can veto where their music is played in public spaces. The catch here is the inability for Gray to veto the use of his music in an American territory when it is being used by the military. It would also be next to impossible for any music publisher to pursue the military for royalties.

Thank you, Bat. It couldn't have been much better timed. to emphasize my point.

And what, pray tell, does that minor difference in copyright have to do with artists selling away their intellectual propert on some significant scale?

You're moving the goal posts, here.

.tsooJ

I am not being obtuse, and frankly, I am quite appaled at that suggestion.

I never disputed that there are (minor) differences in copyright law between countries. I fail to see, however, how such a minor difference as the one described above supports your assertion that thievery of intellectual property is somehow a widespread and common business model of record labels and/or movie studios. You have so far failed to do so, instead concentrating on accusing me of being ignorant of the (supposed) differences in copyright law between the US and Europe and suggesting that I would be unable to take such differences into account, were they to exist.

The mere fact that, in some countries, copyright law states that rights holders have more say over the use of their works than others, does not equate to ownership of a work differing from one jurisdiction to the next.

You made an outlandish claim, now you can either find the evidence to support it, or let it go. If Johnnie is the owner of copyrighted work in the US, Johnnie is the owner in the EU, too, minor differences in copyright law notwithstanding. Unless Johnnie signs away his rights, he is the owner, no-one else. Anyone who infringes on his rights can be sued by Johnnie. If you claim otherwise, as you seem to have done, excuse me if I won't take your word for it.

.tsooJ

I'll also remind shady practices are hard to prove because those whom practice them tend cover their tracks and wide spread need not even be a majority of cases. If there are a billion opportunities for someone to screw people over a certain way in any time frame and only 0.1% of them are used (I doubt it's that low considering the griping of many artists) then you have a million too many incidences of it occurring. Maybe a thousand incidents could be considered a more reasonable number of incidents but even then policing the actual offenders is necessary. Permitting that is a wrong now matter how you look at it and every piece of evidence shows the RIAA labels would rather police others and rather not police themselves.

Honestly I do have a fair amount of bootleg music. A lot is ripped from import CDs & some I purchased off of the Japanese iTunes music store. However lord knows if they were sold here through more legitimate channels I'd be more comfortable with that solution.