Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • How is that abuse?

    • by djberg96 (2603) on 2005.01.27 11:59 (#37840) Journal
      It's not. However, it's total numskullery for any musician/composer/writer to do this. Someone playing your music, to me, is a form of free advertising.

      "Oh, you want to charge us for playing your song? Guess what? We just won't play it. Nyah, nyah". Let them cut their own throats if they like.

      • This sort of ASCAP suit is *not* new, it's at least 50 years old.

        Someone playing your music for themsleves, yeah, that's cool, no problem. Someone playing it for profit, that requires royalties, always has. (Profit - admission, cover charge, or incidental entertainment at a place of commerce.) That's the whole point of copyrighting musical performances and compositions.

        Your music plays on a radio station, they pay ASCAP and ASCAP pays your label/agent/you. Your music plays in a bar, they pay. This is wh

        --
        Bill
        # I had a sig when sigs were cool
        use Sig;
        • "Someone playing your music for themsleves, yeah, that's cool, no problem. Someone playing it for profit, that requires royalties, always has. (Profit - admission, cover charge, or incidental entertainment at a place of commerce.) That's the whole point of copyrighting musical performances and compositions."

          The "incidental entertainment" is where I take issue. Also, I thought the main point of copyrighting music was to prevent illegal copying/plagiarizing, not *playing*.

          • As for the main point, that's been quite obfuscated, and I think that's been deliberate on the part of those who profit from the institution of copyright at all.

            According to the Constitution, the purpose of the allegedly-limited monopolies we grant under the names of copyright, patent, etc. is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." I have a lot of beefs with this. I do not take it as axiomatic that "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts" is even a domain of government,

            --
            J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers