Music filesharing - a snip at $4.5m

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
ratbert
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 3067
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:15 pm

Music filesharing - a snip at $4.5m

Post by ratbert » Mon Jul 27, 2009 2:05 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicbl ... c-industry

Protection of copyright or a slight over-reaction?

a1
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 3427
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:11 pm

Re: Music filesharing - a snip at $4.5m

Post by a1 » Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:55 pm

ratbert wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicbl ... c-industry

Protection of copyright or a slight over-reaction?
meh

its not that jammie thomas charlie , is it not ?

she has the stupidest brains and stupidester solictor lawyer people ever.

you'dve just paid the $2000 (or $200?) they wanted at first.

the 'fines' have been escalated coz the jurors think shes taking the piss appealing that many tmes.

even the big music folk didnt think it'd go that far.

if you could download the grauiand off bittorrent, i dont think theyd not do nowt similar.

russian roulette fines.

the sistene chapels roof is copyrighted now .

meh

:/

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 24099
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Post by Prufrock » Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:49 pm

I love the fact everyone shrank in fear in a 'do not post on that topic, they are watching' stylee.

Interesting article from Charlie Boi on it here, that sums up my feelings.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

a1
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 3427
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:11 pm

Post by a1 » Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:12 pm

Prufrock wrote:I love the fact everyone shrank in fear in a 'do not post on that topic, they are watching' stylee.

Interesting article from Charlie Boi on it here, that sums up my feelings.
yeah, but the sistene chapel is copyrighted now. even though its billions of years old.

didnt aa millne's family recently sell winnie the pooh to globalmegacorp disney because aa milnes copyright was going to expire because he'd been dead for 70 year and as long as disneycorp is alive (within reason- they have to keep using it) and making money from it , the milnes would be better off doing that.

the photo / painting of a model as art itself should come under either parody or fair use. if carpark or whatever he's called had better info he couldve pushed that angle.

if copyright was that easy (just feed these rules and the info on said case into some computer and a yes or no answer comes out) then they could do that for everything , murder trials and shit. think of the money owd taxpayer would save.

it doesnt look as easy as it seems.

to me anyroad.

bobby5
Reliable
Reliable
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:28 pm
Location: La Villa Strangiato

Post by bobby5 » Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:42 pm

Prufrock wrote:I love the fact everyone shrank in fear in a 'do not post on that topic, they are watching' stylee.

Interesting article from Charlie Boi on it here, that sums up my feelings.
Great article.
"Don't like modern bands. Topman music, innit?"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests