8 ms·

I understand that people want access to information, but what Google is trying to do is completely against copyright law. Copyright, as the name says, is a righ

I understand that people want access to information, but what Google is trying to do is completely against copyright law. Copyright, as the name says, is a right given to someone over a property (an intellectual property). You cannot remove that right by just advertising that you should opt out if you don't want that to happen. The debate has to be much bigger than this, and if necessary copyright law needs to be changed so that other uses are possible by anyone (not just Google).

ghshephard 16y ago
I fail to understand (conceptually) how this is any different than what ASCAP has already negotiated with songwriters, composers, lyricists and music publishers . Do you oppose what Pandora does? See: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/about.html http://www.ascap.com/licensing/about.html A brief excerpt: "It is impossible for individual composers and publishers to monitor the hundreds of thousands of businesses that use music. It would be equally difficult, time consuming and expensive for business owners to locate and negotiate with all the owners of the music that might be used. There is a simple, fast and reasonably priced alternative. Through ASCAP, in one simple transaction, businesses can obtain the right to perform the millions of songs created or owned by more than 400,000 of America's and hundreds of thousands of the world's best songwriters, composers, lyricists and publishers. Founded in 1914, and still owned by and managed for its writer and publisher members, ASCAP grants businesses the permission they need to perform music publicly. The money collected is distributed, after deducting operating costs (currently 11.3%), directly to ASCAP members and to affiliated foreign performing rights organizations for their members. "
- bugsy 16y ago
  "what ASCAP has already negotiated with songwriters, composers, lyricists and music publishers" There is a huge difference. ASCAP represents ASCAP members, who choose to join the organization. ASCAP then becomes a legal agent regarding collecting royalties for the musician. Many musicians join BMI instead. But crucially, many do not join either organization. Neither organization is a publisher, they are a music licensing organization that works for its members. For this to be comparable, ASCAP would become the representative of musicians whether they want that or not, and would be able to publish musician's works without permission. That is certainly not what ASCAP does now.

ghshephard 16y ago

I fail to understand (conceptually) how this is any different than what ASCAP has already negotiated with songwriters, composers, lyricists and music publishers . Do you oppose what Pandora does? See: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/about.html http://www.ascap.com/licensing/about.html A brief excerpt: "It is impossible for individual composers and publishers to monitor the hundreds of thousands of businesses that use music. It would be equally difficult, time consuming and expensive for business owners to locate and negotiate with all the owners of the music that might be used. There is a simple, fast and reasonably priced alternative. Through ASCAP, in one simple transaction, businesses can obtain the right to perform the millions of songs created or owned by more than 400,000 of America's and hundreds of thousands of the world's best songwriters, composers, lyricists and publishers. Founded in 1914, and still owned by and managed for its writer and publisher members, ASCAP grants businesses the permission they need to perform music publicly. The money collected is distributed, after deducting operating costs (currently 11.3%), directly to ASCAP members and to affiliated foreign performing rights organizations for their members. "

bugsy 16y ago
"what ASCAP has already negotiated with songwriters, composers, lyricists and music publishers" There is a huge difference. ASCAP represents ASCAP members, who choose to join the organization. ASCAP then becomes a legal agent regarding collecting royalties for the musician. Many musicians join BMI instead. But crucially, many do not join either organization. Neither organization is a publisher, they are a music licensing organization that works for its members. For this to be comparable, ASCAP would become the representative of musicians whether they want that or not, and would be able to publish musician's works without permission. That is certainly not what ASCAP does now.