What fraction of those who produce and then sell things for a living do you think benefit from the status quo in international IP law?

This isn’t the only band that built up its success on this model. Midnight Oil spring to mind as another excellent example. It’s really rank to see these bands getting all hoity toity about their copyright now that they’re rolling in money.

We spent our childhoods ripping off their albums, but they’re richer by far than any of us. Doesn’t seem to me they have been very badly harmed by our activities. They should be thanking us for our loyalty, not pursuing a new generation of fans who’re just doing the same thing.

It’s fun to slide copyright in there but it really didn’t have anything to do with the thread until you showed up and misunderstood everything.

Iow let’s not discuss the issues raised, let’s just sort ourselves into opposing tribes broadly based on ideology and have a flame war!

Interesting. Apparently their “fans’ glib approach to copyright issues” made them “rich as buggery”?

GMU is being sued for violating a license agreement.

Like I said, I am not all that interested in the merits of this particular claim. It may or may not be legitimate; few above here have been concerned about the details either. They have suggested that Thomson has no right to enforce its copyright/contract terms because doing so is inherently wrong. I just can’t agree with the general point of view. Look at the stories of actors, writers, etc. whose careers were basically made through one television show for which the rights were poorly contracted. I do think that the actors on Gilligan’s Island, e.g., deserve payment when that program is broadcast. Yep, they deserve to be “rich,” or something close to it. Certainly not bankrupt, which is pretty much how things work out these days. Stripping away creators’ rights isn’t going to help that at all.

Umm, formats can’t be copyrighted.

Sigh … the inverse of the “freetard” rant is the “property!” rant.

By the way, Ginger Yellow / #120, I linked to discussion of whether or not they have a case, above – giving my example of what’s potentially crowded-out of mindshare by Wikipedia.
Here’s another good lawyer blog post on the matter:

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/09/licensing_a_wor.htm

That is not the issue in the complaint. GMU is being sued for violating a license agreement.

Metallica made a lot of money and fame in the 80s producing a video (cliff ‘em all – look it up) using bootlegged material they obtained from their fans. Now they are famous and making lots of money they want to stop their fans bootlegging music.

Metallica made their fame and their reputation from fans copying music – recording them in small backyard concerts, taping them in the larger gigs, sharing tapes around their friends and playing them in their homes and offices and cars. Metallica completely depended on open sharing of their copyrighted stuff. They never complained when they were on the up and up thanks to their fans’ glib approach to copyright issues. Now they are rich as buggery they want to stand on their rights? This is bullshit. They openly admitted in their early days that this was the model by which they gained fame.

There may be some validity to the use of copyright to protect artists’ income, but I notice that a lot of bands are pretty happy about having their music shared around when they first start and I think that there’s two sides to the story, and only one side being heard… so yeah, down with metallica, they’ ve sold out, it’s a knife in the back of the fans, etc. etc. gee aren’t I a cliche! Also, the money I paid to watch that great scene in Cliff ‘em all where they play Master of Puppets against a wall of wind and sound? Can I have my money back? Didn’t think so…

Yet to be prominently heard on this website is the voice of anyone who has ever produced and then sold anything for a living—except that the voices of everyone on this blog come from exactly that. I’m all for the Marxist revolution that FL/OSS advocates seem to have in mind, where everything is free and open and nobody pays for anything, because nobody does any work, because companies can’t patent or copyright their materials, etc. Down with Metallica and screw them for wanting money for their songs. They have a responsibility to produce those songs for me, for free, so that I can bittorrent them to my computer which I bought with the… uh, the FL/OSS my dad worked on and … uh…

Thomson’s claim may or may not be well-formed. I really wish that if people wanted to be anti-capitalists they would come up with a legitimate story about how we run society without money, rather than (as it is now) inherent claims that people should work hard on stuff and then give it away for free. Thomson built their format (actually, Niles & Associates did, way back when); if they have it copyrighted, they have a right to have that copyright honored. Most of you will continue to complain until somebody FL/OSSes out your product from under you, or insists that you are obligated to create a movie or music for them for free.

It’s balderdash. Even if the revolution is coming (which I hope for much more than you might think), something besides “free for everybody” has to have value for all of us to pass around. The story FL/OSS advocates tell reminds me of South Park: Step 1, steal underpants—Step 3, profits!

Disclosure: Thomson-Reuters are the primary competitors of my employer.