4 Jul
2003
4 Jul
'03
3:35 p.m.
On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 08:57, Daniel James wrote:
Yeah. I agree completely there. It's just ripping off the RIAA's
member organizations (a very talented bunch I'm sure you'll agree ;)
What's really interesting is that the RIAA and MPAA are constantly
bitching about p2p ripping them off but in almost all of the big cases
recently (Harry Potter, Madonna) the cat's been out of the bag before
the film or CD was even released. So yes, they get p2p traded, but DRM
wouldn't have helped a bit. They need to police their own people a bit
more carefully. I actually don't understand the MPAA's position on
DeCSS. They deliver a good product for a fair price (2 DVDs, special
features, liner notes, sometimes a poster for about US $20). As I said
above, their stuff is pirated long before it gets to a DVD.
I haven't seen this, however, if they were using the name Mickey Mouse
and/or making the character look almost exactly like Mickey Mouse then
that's not a parody and they should lose.
Not a bit. Each song, with the exception of near duplicates (My Sweet
Lord) is a unique work of art. Whether you like his work or not, Andy
Warhol was an artist. Did the guy that originally did the Campbells
Soup labels sue him?
Exactly.
Jan
Bo Diddley
listened to (and borrowed from) every other blues
musician around at the time.
Of course. He did have some original contributions to make, but he
just didn't get the financial rewards for them. So when I hear the
industry moaning that p2p is ripping off musicians, I sense
hypocrisy.
The fairy
tales *are* public domain, Mickey Mouse was an original
creation.
I think you'll find that there was little original about Steamboat
Willie.
You can legally parody Mickey Mouse any time you
want
(it's been done a million times).
Actually Disney have a long history of suing parodies - Air Pirates
being the most famous I think:
http://reason.com/links/links011703.shtml
My point was
that
*everyone* has had it bad at some point in their life. No one has
exclusive rights on suffering. I get real tired of hearing that
old line - you can't play blues because you're A) white, B) not
poor, C) didn't grow up during the depression, D) not an
alcoholic/addict, E) not from Mississippi, F) fill in your reason
here.
I think Clapton et al have every right to play the blues, just not to
claim ownership of them. To illustrate the point, the RIAA could now
sue an original Delta bluesman with a freely downloaded Clapton track
on his hard drive. Doesn't that possibility, albeit theoretical,
strike you as a bit odd?
Music, of any
genre, is not the sole property of any one
group of people. You can still play and write good reggae even if
you're not from Jamaica ;-)
Clapton also covered I Shot The Sherriff of course. Ironically, UB40,
who are from the UK, partly white, and therefore not authentic enough
for most white reggae fans, were massive in Jamaica.