Home | Search | FAQ
Page
1
2
3
4
Displaying 76-97 of 97 messages in this thread. |
| Posted By | Discussion Topic: O & A - faker than Rocko (Korn) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USA Autoban Head Slap... Swim Move... | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 2:55 PM |    | |||
| O&A Board Veteran Registered: Oct. 00  | You may have some knowledge of copyright law, but to this point you have not displayed it beyond cutting and pasting various statutes and agency decisions. I pulled Section 107 right from the link you posted, where it clearly states that certain use is exempt from enforcement remedies if they are deemed fair use. Again, you are blindly parroting statutory language without giving it the context of how it has been applied. You bandy about the $150,000.00 fine figure when you clearly should have read that it does not apply in this situation. Opie and Anthony did not do this to profit monetarily. Strangely, your Yeti threat unsettles me, because I believe you may have seen one.  | ||||
| Monocracy I watch Courtroom Dramas so I am TEH L33T COPYRIET LAWEYR!!!11 | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 3:07 PM | | |||
| Hanger-On Registered: Nov. 01 | quote: Jesus Christ, what the hell is worng with you? Opie & Anthony get paid to run a radio show which is paid for based on the ratings it receives. O&A played the Korn songs to achieve higher ratings so that they could make more money for their radio stations so that they could be worth more to their booses, who pay them mainly based on their ratings. How can you even suggest that this wasn't done for monetary (commercial) purposes? I left it out of my other post because i thought it was blaringly obvious. Everything done for ratings is done for monetary purposes. You just wait, when Hitler's brain gets done flying his jet plane to lay mind-altering contrails, he's gonna waste your ass. | ||||
| Syndrummer LOOK!! All my "N"s are capitalized!!! | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 3:15 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Mar. 02 | quote: What the fuck are you on? Do you always add idiotic statements on the end of your posts? | ||||
| HyBriD FN Moron is an indian giver!! I had my cool status for about 10 min. then it was gone. GONE! G.O.O.F.B.A.H.G.S. Agent WD40 Licensed to Kill My spoon is TOO BIG. (finally) Hanger-on to the JYDs for LIFE I INVENTED ORANGE MOTHERFUCKER This status is sponsored by: P®oJë©T M@¥hέm | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 3:17 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Sep. 01 | whoa, buttmunch is smart. | ||||
USA Autoban Head Slap... Swim Move... | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 3:17 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Veteran Registered: Oct. 00 | Au contraire... I believe that for purposes of statutory construction, monetary or for profit motives, intent if you will, is to profit directly from the sale of something that is not your work. O&A did not sell these songs. Furthermore, Sony does not necessarily have the right to bring an action for copyright infringement. Can you guess why? If I'm wrong or if you show me otherwise, I'll admit it. I guess it depends on Korn's contract with Sony and if Sony has obtained the right to enforce Korn's copyright. Do me a favor and do some more of that handy-dandy legal research. I know you can find a case or two to prove me wrong. I'm too busy, what with worrying about the rise of the fourth reich and all.  | ||||
| Syndrummer LOOK!! All my "N"s are capitalized!!! | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 3:17 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Mar. 02 | quote: Most of the people don't want to hear a bunch of songs. Thats what Krock is for. | ||||
| Monocracy I watch Courtroom Dramas so I am TEH L33T COPYRIET LAWEYR!!!11 | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 3:21 PM | | |||
| Hanger-On Registered: Nov. 01 | quote: Actually, the comments i am adding at the ends of my posts are an attempt at sarcasm at the people who claim i am a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theories that are out there: aliens, bigfoot, loch ness, Illuminati, ect. don't really compare to a couple of DJs doing fake radio. I'm just making fun of the few of the rabidly loyal fans' views of my observations as conspiracy theories. But i think i'll stop for now, i'm pretty much out of crazy conspiracy theories ... where's IAMWIN when you need him? | ||||
| Monocracy I watch Courtroom Dramas so I am TEH L33T COPYRIET LAWEYR!!!11 | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 3:30 PM | | |||
| Hanger-On Registered: Nov. 01 | quote: You are dead, dead wrong here. I was about to go searching for sources on the net, but i realised i don't need to. If i copied a couple of episodes of Frasier, then broadcast them on a local channel i owned, without permission, but made money from commercials, i would get my ass sued off. It has nothing to do with with "direct" profit. It has to do with making money off of something, whether directly or indirectly (through commercials) ... that is what defines a commercial venture and that is what is being talked about in the copyright laws. | ||||
USA Autoban Head Slap... Swim Move... | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 3:47 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Veteran Registered: Oct. 00 | I'm not so dead wrong. Go looking for your sources. There is a great distinction between your Frasier example and what O&A did. In your case, you were representing to the public that you had the rights to broadcast those shows on the station that you owned for profit, presumably running commercial sponsorship for THAT show. In the O&A case, they obtained the music, presumably from a public source, i.e. internet, (note I am still not believing the conspiracy theory as you present it) and running it as part of their show, while not representing in any way, shape or form that they have the rights to the music. In fact, they disclaimed the rights explicitly. Furthermore, I am sure that WNEW pays a lot of money to BMI for the commercial use of music available to the public, whether released or not. I still don't know for sure about Sony's enforcement rights to the copyright. I do know that there is a discernible distinction between your example and what happened here. | ||||
| Monocracy I watch Courtroom Dramas so I am TEH L33T COPYRIET LAWEYR!!!11 | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 4:01 PM | | |||
| Hanger-On Registered: Nov. 01 | quote: No, i never claimed to have copyright to the show. I could have began the show with a message: "I don't own this show, and i don't have rights to broadcast it, but i'm running it for you anyway", and it would be exactly analogous to the O&A situation, and my ass would be in sling, just like O&A's would be if it weren't fake radio. | ||||
USA Autoban Head Slap... Swim Move... | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 4:19 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Veteran Registered: Oct. 00 | OK, I'll give you another shot to refine and tailor your example. Television stations sell advertising based upon the show they are running. Frasier is a specific show and would probably allow higher advertising rates. Sure, you could run it on your station, preempting some other show to which you did own the rights, but you'd go out of business fairly quickly if you made a habit of it, simply by losing advertisers. The O&A show is an amalgam of "whatever". Advertisers don't know if they are going to get a good show or a bad show or what a particular segment is going to bracket their ad. I submit to you that O&A got the music and decided to play it. Your Frasier example is copyright infringement. The way you present the O&A bit, the way YOU present it, it is not copyright infringement. The way I present it, it is fair use and/or simply not a copyright infringement since they obtained the music from a public source. Either way, your homework assignment is to find me examples that will prove the point either way. I want case law, agency decisions or edicts from god that puts this argument to rest. I am weary and it is the end of the week. I just want to get my drink on and relax. Oh, and go here. | ||||
| Monocracy I watch Courtroom Dramas so I am TEH L33T COPYRIET LAWEYR!!!11 | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 4:23 PM | | |||
| Hanger-On Registered: Nov. 01 | OK, let me try a different tact ... O&A: Ok, we'd like to play some Korn tracks on our show, can we do that? Lawyer: Of course! O&A: But do we have to worry about copyright infringement or anything like that? Lawyer: Of course not, you downloaded it from the internet, right? O&A: Well, yeah ... but why doesn't someone download an episode of Frasier from the internet and play it on TV without the rights? Lawyer: Because you're the FIRST PEOPLE EVER to think about weaseling your way around copyright infringement, and I AM THE BEST LAWYER EVAR!! O&A: HOO HOO HOO, we thought of it first, too bad that tool Rocko didn't think of it ... haha, his fake radio sucks!!! Jesus, Buttmunch, i have already proved, through US copyright law, that O&A would be breaking that law by playing Korn songs without permission. The only defense you have is that O&A is not a commercial venture, or that their source is public (which is not mentioned in the copyright laws, so if you'd like to point out the relative section, i'll believe you). Both are false. You haven't a leg to stand on. | ||||
| Dj Eclipse | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 5:06 PM | | |||
| Hanger-On Registered: Mar. 02 | Ok, Now you 2 are doing exactly what the layers would do if Sony actually took O&A to court. You both have shown us the law as it is written and twisted it in your favor to prove your point. I'm not sure if the bit was fake or not, but Monocracy does have a good point when he says that it is fake. Which if it was fake would be a big deal since they are always saying how much fake radio there is out there and they take pride in bringing you "real" radio. The man with the plan!  | ||||
I have Cool-Mod-Powers and can read the Cool-Mod-Forum, then I drive home in my Cool-Mod-Car UFC | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 5:22 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Oct. 00 | My god you are a complete idiot aren't you Monocracy? I'll grant you, something like this is a concieveable publicity stunt... but your arguments are moronic. First off.. MTV Collaborating with NEW for a publicity stunt is ridiculously inane. A: So they're owned by the same company.. SO IS K-ROCK nimrod!! If ANY NY station was going to pull a stunt involving a rock album in collaboration with THE major TV Music station, it would have been K-Rock, not NEW. B: The article is bogus? You know NOTHING! If MTV printed an, as you claim, "bogus" article in their music news it would RUIN them, they would loose ALL reliability as a reliable source for music news and become nothing more that a musical tabloid.. oh, did you know that journalists who publish false stories get in a lot of trouble too? the only reasons tabloids get away with it is because their stories are blatant fiction, and everyone knows it.. and they STILL pay huge amounts in lawsuits and settlements each year. Oh.. and I see you reciting copyright laws to a LAWYER and trying proove him wrong?? you do know lawyers like.. well.. STUDY this stuff for a living, right?? Well.. since you're losing so viciously arguing the defendandts side of copyright infringement... allow me to show you where the artist stands in this situation.. oh, yeah.. I'm familiar with this side of copyright because, well... I'm an artist.. If an Artist's work is reproduced without permission in order to create a profit, then the artist is entitled to a share of said profit plus recompense for infringement. If an Artist's work is reproduced with credit for the work going to another, the Artist is entitled to recompense for infringement due to plagiarization, as long as the reproduction was not a parody. If an Artist's work is reproduced for no profit, and the artist is given credit for the work, there is, in reality, little the artist can do legally to obtain compensation for the use of their work. As no profit was made, and the artist credited, it amounts to free advertising for the artist. If the artist pushes, they may acquire a small usage fee, but it is generally not worth the effort. Many artists (and other businesses such as law firms) will participate in this sort of arrangement intentionally, for the free advertising, this is referred to as "pro bono" work. So, quite simply, speaking from the artist's standpoint, since O&A did not specificaly ADVERTISE that they were going to be playing new Korn until the show itself, when they were ALLREADY playing it, they were not specificly presenting the work for profit. Since O&A clearly stated these were songs from "Korn's New Album" the artist was most certainly credited. Basicly, if lawsuits were presented, all Korn could reasonably expect to see out of this situation is a share of O&A's advertising profits from THAT DAY ONLY (ie: how much money they were paid for commercials and reads during that one particular show), since what O&A did amounts to free advertising, any damages fines would be relatively inconsequential. Essentially, the blame lies with the record company, because Korn would rely on their publishers to keep unrealeased work under wraps until it was ready, and somehow that information, which was in the hands of the record company, was made public, Korn could conceivably sue their publishers for breach of contract (correct me if I'm wrong BM, but that's how it was explained to me in college)  No! I am NOT a Goth Dude!! "I'm gonna change my name to Pimp Daddy Payne!" | ||||
| M-ACE G.O.O.F.B.A.H.G.S. Ur-Quan Dreadnought Commander | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 5:27 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Jul. 01 | Magus, how did you do in college when you played video games all day? www.centralwow.com - AIM: wow mace or click on my sig for fun | ||||
| Filzy Stand up straight Stomach in Shoulders back SOUND OFF!!! | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 5:28 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Sep. 00 | Between Buttmunch using his Legal wit that he learned in college, and Lord Magus and his face value facts, And then Monocracy's nerdy whiny conspiracy theory trying to just prove he's right, I think I now have a brian aneurysm. Excuse me while I go drink myself into a stupor so I can laugh at monocracy later because he wears a tin-foil hat and tries to contact the mothership. When Buttmunch and Lord Magus point out the fact and Monocracy calls them liars, then it's time to call the squirrel farm.  "I'm proud that I've never had a drug problem or complained that sucess sucks and shot myself like Kurt Cobain did. Sorry, but sucess is something people like me dream about. ~Chuck Schuldiner b.05-13-67 d.12-13-01 R.I.P. [Email]Filzy_metz@hotmail.com[/Email] | ||||
USA Autoban Head Slap... Swim Move... | posted on 04-05-2002 @ 5:33 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Veteran Registered: Oct. 00 | First, thanks Magus for taking up some of the slack. I appreciate your angle of the argument. I will state for the record that I am not involved whatsoever in entertainment law. Second, Monocracy, you are adept at creative story telling. I gave you a chance to change your example and you sure did. quote: First, quoting copyright law is not proof. You haven't proven anything without showing me (I'll repeat myself) how that law is applied in the courts. Second, nowhere did I even imply that O&A are not a commercial venture. My example is a programmer building their billing around a copyrighted show (Frasier) vs. a "whatever" show incorporating something with a copyright into their show. Again, I refer you to the fair use section (17 U.S.C. 107), which I have shown you. I'm not pulling that out of my ass. I haven't researched this, I'm just using my dusty memory of intellectual property laws. | ||||
| NJshawn I've Never Heard Better than Eddie Vedder! | posted on 04-06-2002 @ 11:28 AM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Sep. 00 | I don't know if this was posted but I am to hung over to look. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1453230/20020402/korn.jhtml | ||||
| Monocracy I watch Courtroom Dramas so I am TEH L33T COPYRIET LAWEYR!!!11 | posted on 04-07-2002 @ 6:40 AM | | |||
| Hanger-On Registered: Nov. 01 | Buttmunch, if you are a lawyer, you must be bottom of the barrel. You are completely ignorant of law. I stated that O&A infringed on Korn's copyright for commercial purposes, WHICH IS TRUE. Then i quoted the sections of copyright laws which dealt with this. You quoted Fair Use laws, but not once did you show how O&A's use of Korn's material was fair use. I read the section you quoted and it did not apply to what happened. A judge would laugh you out of the courtroom. Lord Magus, i never said that MTV collaborated with O&A, i just said they all worked for the same company. MTV reporters that see right through O&A's bit aren't going to call them out ... they're going to say nothing, they don't want to attack their own company. MTV reporters who ARE fooled by O&A's bit are going to write an article about it. And also, the article by MTV never said whether it was fake radio or real radio ... it just explained what happened. O&A played Korn songs and O&A CLAIMED to be served with a C&D order. That is completely true. But it still never says whether the bit was fake or not. quote: They were playing Korn's work for future ratings, which is FOR PROFIT. Just because someone doesn't profit from something at that exact moment, doesn't mean they aren't trying to get future profits from it. That is the basic business model ... build a company that will continue to earn profits in the future. You guys may be two-bit lawyers, but it's obvious that you've never taken a business course in your life. quote: Wrong. Korn could be awarded statutory damages, up to $150,000 (per violation, i assume). Since Korn is one of the biggest "metal" bands around today, and half of their album was played without permission, i'm sure that Korn would get a huge settlement out of this. But since this is all fake radio, you won't hear anything about it again, except when O&A brag in the future about how they were cool enough to play 5 songs from the Korn album before they were officially released. I just can't wait until Anthony rolls Opie down the hill in a barrel. | ||||
| Filzy Stand up straight Stomach in Shoulders back SOUND OFF!!! | posted on 04-07-2002 @ 8:19 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Sep. 00 | I guess Monocracy also believes in the lame-ass whole Zionist conspiracy too. Can we say, "Nuts"? I sure can. :rolleyes: "I'm proud that I've never had a drug problem or complained that sucess sucks and shot myself like Kurt Cobain did. Sorry, but sucess is something people like me dream about. ~Chuck Schuldiner b.05-13-67 d.12-13-01 R.I.P. [Email]Filzy_metz@hotmail.com[/Email] | ||||
| JohnSlack
| posted on 04-07-2002 @ 8:45 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: May. 01 | I can't believe I'm agreeing with this asshole again, but he is right. 1. O&A violated Korn's copyright. period. End of story. There is no debate here. Yes his fraiser analogy sucks - here's a better one: If O&A play michael buffer saying "lets get ready to rumble" he can (and would) sue them. (he's done it before; he very agressively protects his moneymaking catchphrase) Or how about letterman on wednesday night getting a hold of the new friends episode and playing clips throughout his show? same difference. 2. the only possible defense would be fair use. this does not consititue fair use or parody - especially because it was unreleased. basically sony went through the motions because they are required to by law - if they don't defend a copyright someone else could sell the same korn cd and do it legally. O&A knew that nothing was ever going to happened to them, but went along with it - as did mtv. it creates a great story and a good 'bit' but in the end - its just a bogus radio bit.  "Philly: It's Camden - with a bell." - Jim Norton | ||||
I have Cool-Mod-Powers and can read the Cool-Mod-Forum, then I drive home in my Cool-Mod-Car UFC | posted on 04-08-2002 @ 2:22 AM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Oct. 00 | quote: First off.. I, MUCH LIKE YOU, am NOT a lawyer. Second, you most certainly have no clue what you're talking about, because I have a nice little sheet of paper hanging on my wall that quite CLEARLY states I have a modicum of knowledge of copyright law as it relates to intellectual property, this was a requirement of my major (which of course boiled down to the creation and sale of such property), and in fact HAVE taken quite a FEW business courses ON TOP OF THAT. Thirdly, to quote YOUR OWN QUOTATION of remedies, quote: Which, if you had a BRAIN, you would realize I AGREED WITH, but tried to point out your error in interpretation. Here.. I'll make it in small simple words so you MIGHT understand. DAMAGES equals any money LOST from product sales because of O&A playing those songs. Unless Sony/Korn had an exclusivity contract with another station (ie: some other station had paid sony/Korn for exclusive rights to premiere songs from the album) Sony technicly LOST no money because of this leak, the publicity actually equates to money GAINED because of this incidence, more people are now interested, and will probably end up purchasing the album when released. And I allready said if they pushed they could get a share of the days advertising profits. The Statutory damages statement is where your idiocy TRULEY shines through.. you keep walking around saying "$150,000" this and "$150,000" that, and you obviously didn't even read the laws you quoted. Note, the exact phrasing is "UP TO $150,000", that means a MAXIMUM, or, NO MORE THAN, said amount.. it does NOT MEAN EXACTLY that much, it does not mean AT LEAST that much, it means, simply that that is the maximum inferable penalty. And that is ONLY if Sony/Korn proves that O&A were WILLFULLY infringing their copyrights, which would require that O&A were playing the songs with the express purpose of generating a profit FROM THOSE SONGS. Once again, no matter HOW this incident may effect their ratings, O&A did NOT advertise they were going to play those songs, they DID NOT (I hope lol) sell advertising based on the premise those songs would be played, and thus they made NO PROFIT FROM THOSE SONGS. The simple fact of the matter is that an intangible effect on ratings is not proveable based on one incident, nor is it quantifiable, so it has no bearing in a court. Thus your "up to $150,000" argument is reduced to an "up to $30,000" argument. Do you honestly think a multi-million dollar company is going to waste the time and effort it would take for a mere $30k, especially when court and lawyer costs would probably exceed that? If you do, you know even less about business than you claim I do. Not that it would surprise me, you're obviously an egomaniacal anally fixated suppressed kid toucher who took one too many hits from daddy's tire-iron for eating your own feces as a child. But I won't hold that against you. No! I am NOT a Goth Dude!! "I'm gonna change my name to Pimp Daddy Payne!" | ||||
| Page
1
2
3
4
Displaying 76-97 of 97 messages in this thread. |