3 ms·

Piracy Advert Used Stolen Music

62 points by boyter 14y ago

pyre 14y ago
What we really need to do is make take these things out of the realm of the tech press, and into the realm of the main stream media. Make sure that every person in America, from the average Joe to the Congress-critter on Capitol Hill, knows that the MPAA/RIAA are hypocrites when they talk about IP rights to benefit all IP holders. They care nothing to the rights of others, and will run roughshod over everyone that they can, so long as they aren't called on it. Not only this, we need to make sure that the execs at the MPAA, the RIAA, and the studios/labels that they represent feel personally embarrassed over these incidences. Then we might see some change. Otherwise, we're just rah-rah-ing ourselves while they take what they want.
- mattgreenrocks 14y ago
  No they won't. The populace doesn't care. Even on issues that affect far more people, they're relatively mum. Most people don't have strong opinions about the *AA, and there isn't enough controversy to justify any sort of news coverage.
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
Surely the MPAA are on the hook for this. It doesn't matter if they bought it legitimately as they'd still be infringing - in the same way the MPAA can claim that your download of a torrent of a movie [made by employees of one of the companies it represents] is infringing despite the torrent site not having informed you that it's not a legally acquired work. If the argument "we didn't know" works for them then surely that sets precedent for everyone else. If it doesn't work then damages of 10¢ for every instance of infringement of the work would seem reasonable. That's for every DVD they make with it on, for every showing in a movie theater, for every use in advertising ... though it looks like the MPAA have already set a damage level of $30k per instances [TorrentSpy case as reported at arstechnica]. Now last week the top ten selling movies [which may not be all MPAA ones of course, nor carry the infringed work, but this is just for scale] had sold collectively about 15 million units in the US. From that I'd expect damages of the order of 30k * 10 * 15M = 4.5 trillion, or 25 years of the MPAA's total revenue [as reported on their website] to be reasonable. /tongueincheek
digitalengineer 14y ago
It's even worse. When the artist complained during a TV interview [the Dutch MPAA board member] Gerrits suggested that the composer should sign his track over to High Fashion Music, a label owned by the board member himself and one that would take 33% of Rietveldt’s royalties for its trouble."

62 points by boyter 14y ago

pyre 14y ago

What we really need to do is make take these things out of the realm of the tech press, and into the realm of the main stream media. Make sure that every person in America, from the average Joe to the Congress-critter on Capitol Hill, knows that the MPAA/RIAA are hypocrites when they talk about IP rights to benefit all IP holders. They care nothing to the rights of others, and will run roughshod over everyone that they can, so long as they aren't called on it. Not only this, we need to make sure that the execs at the MPAA, the RIAA, and the studios/labels that they represent feel personally embarrassed over these incidences. Then we might see some change. Otherwise, we're just rah-rah-ing ourselves while they take what they want.

mattgreenrocks 14y ago
No they won't. The populace doesn't care. Even on issues that affect far more people, they're relatively mum. Most people don't have strong opinions about the *AA, and there isn't enough controversy to justify any sort of news coverage.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

Surely the MPAA are on the hook for this. It doesn't matter if they bought it legitimately as they'd still be infringing - in the same way the MPAA can claim that your download of a torrent of a movie [made by employees of one of the companies it represents] is infringing despite the torrent site not having informed you that it's not a legally acquired work. If the argument "we didn't know" works for them then surely that sets precedent for everyone else. If it doesn't work then damages of 10¢ for every instance of infringement of the work would seem reasonable. That's for every DVD they make with it on, for every showing in a movie theater, for every use in advertising ... though it looks like the MPAA have already set a damage level of $30k per instances [TorrentSpy case as reported at arstechnica]. Now last week the top ten selling movies [which may not be all MPAA ones of course, nor carry the infringed work, but this is just for scale] had sold collectively about 15 million units in the US. From that I'd expect damages of the order of 30k * 10 * 15M = 4.5 trillion, or 25 years of the MPAA's total revenue [as reported on their website] to be reasonable. /tongueincheek

digitalengineer 14y ago

It's even worse. When the artist complained during a TV interview [the Dutch MPAA board member] Gerrits suggested that the composer should sign his track over to High Fashion Music, a label owned by the board member himself and one that would take 33% of Rietveldt’s royalties for its trouble."