[bct] Re: Copyright issues and the talent show

  • From: "J Garcia" <j.garcia235@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 07:47:01 -0800


As incredibly simplistic as this may seem, if we were all to live "by the
letter of the law" nothing would ever progress or get done in our lives. For
example, couldn't a skilled lawyer argue that you are conveying legal advice
without licensure? You are public stating case law, publically dispensing
advice, and publically formulating legal conclusions based on opinion and
not authority. The gray area here is whether you did it with intent or "out
of the kindness of your heart." I have worked with some great, great legal
minds overlooking the pacific ocean in Malibu at the top of 30 floors--these
men and women are very financially successful, and one thing I have learned
is that the legal system is nothing more than a canvas limited only by the
artistry of the lawyer. You should see the madness that goes on during
depositions. In other words, we will never prove who is right or wrong until
we enter a courtroom and see who can convince the jury that we are right.
Then again, what would probably happen with a case we're talking about is
that a judge will say: "I can't believe you're wasting my time with this
nonsense... both of you leave... I'm throwing this case out. ...Weird Al an
artist--yeah right."

J Garcia
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "The Scarlet Wombat" <coconut@xxxxxxx>
To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:09 AM
Subject: [bct] Re: Copyright issues and the talent show

> J, most often, "you are" statements, quotes around you are, are
> incorrect.  I am not indulging in black and white thinking at all, I am
> too aware of the current propensity of people and organizations such as
> ASCAP and BMI to sue for what seems like stupid reasons.
> We are dealing with the spirit and letter of the copyright law here.  The
> spirit of the law is to protect intellectual property.  A person using
> copyrighted music in a podcast that is not for profit does not violate the
> spirit of the law in my opinion.  However, with the new copyright laws,
> called the Digital Melinnium Copyright Actof 1999, the letter of the law
> far more strict than ever before and courts are enforcing the letter, not
> the spirit of the law.
> The truth, of course, lies someplace between the letter and spirit.  It is
> quite true that skilled attorneys can often prove most anything, or
> disprove such, but who wants to have to hire one.
> I do not approve of this letter interpretation at all, but I pass it on so
> people will avoid running afoul of the law.
> You are correct that the odds are nobody would be prosecuted nor sued for
> minor infractions.  However, the operative dictum on the internet is never
> post anything anywhere you do not want on the front page of the New York
> There are a myrid of ways in which to express creativity that do not
> infringe on anyone's intellectual property.  We are safer knowing the
> parameters than not knowing them.  After that, it is up to us to pay
> attention or not, but on a list and web site like blind cool tech, there
> more responsibility than just that of the individual poster.
> The courts are coming down with seemingly ridiculous and draconian
> decisions about copyright infringements.  I am not advocating their
> just noting the decisions.
> As for parodies, the Supreme Court has actually made it pretty clear what
> they are, and the common definition is operative here.
> Dan
> __________ NOD32 1.1427 (20060303) Information __________
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com

Other related posts: