Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   To avoid losing their copyright, Sony releases Bob Dylan CD in such limited numbers that they're practically begging for piracy. Guys, have you learned NOTHING from the last decade?   (tech.fortune.cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, sonybmg, Bob Dylan, Sony, SNE, most massive stars, Columbia Records  
•       •       •

2389 clicks; posted to Business » on 10 Jan 2013 at 2:31 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-10 12:33:43 PM  
The people who want a Bob Dylan CD are too old to work a computer.
 
2013-01-10 12:38:50 PM  
I really wish governments that are bought and paid for by corporations didn't have a say in copyright laws. Has any country got copyright laws that are fair?
 
2013-01-10 01:05:03 PM  
I'm disappointed the UK is getting in on the absurdly long copyright bullshiat.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 02:30:55 PM  
If there are only 100 copies each one could have a distinct code in the audio signal and Sony could sue the buyer of the CD that got leaked. These are ancient tapes of somebody who can't sing in the first place. Plenty of room to slip another signal in without hurting audio quality.
 
2013-01-10 02:41:11 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The people who want a Bob Dylan CD are too old to work a computer.


Came here to make this joke, glad I was saved the time.
 
Xai
2013-01-10 02:45:29 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: I'm disappointed the UK is getting in on the absurdly long copyright bullshiat.


I'm disappointed that the UK population has absolutely no say in the copyright bullshiat.
 
2013-01-10 02:49:30 PM  
It is SONY, so, no, sub by, they did not learn anything.
 
2013-01-10 02:54:06 PM  

ZAZ: If there are only 100 copies each one could have a distinct code in the audio signal and Sony could sue the buyer of the CD that got leaked. These are ancient tapes of somebody who can't sing in the first place. Plenty of room to slip another signal in without hurting audio quality.


Guy buys CD. Guy sells CD to someone on the street whose name he doesn't know for cash.(which is still legal, much to the annoyance of our media company overlords).
 
2013-01-10 02:59:53 PM  
The Copyright Extension Collection, Vol. 1

Sony is trolling mankind.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 03:03:50 PM  
SuperT

Judge or jury doesn't believe "I sold it to a stranger" excuse, guy owes statutory damages for each separately copyrighted 30 second fragment of demo track.

The standard is "probably" not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Maybe your kids hacked into your computer... but they probably didn't.
 
2013-01-10 03:09:54 PM  

ZAZ: SuperT

Judge or jury doesn't believe "I sold it to a stranger" excuse, guy owes statutory damages for each separately copyrighted 30 second fragment of demo track.

The standard is "probably" not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Maybe your kids hacked into your computer... but they probably didn't.


I dunno, I think a jury might be on the guy's side. especially if they had zero evidence that he ripped and uploaded the files.
 
2013-01-10 03:20:19 PM  

ZAZ: SuperT

Judge or jury doesn't believe "I sold it to a stranger" excuse, guy owes statutory damages for each separately copyrighted 30 second fragment of demo track.

The standard is "probably" not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Maybe your kids hacked into your computer... but they probably didn't.


ZAZ: SuperT

Judge or jury doesn't believe "I sold it to a stranger" excuse, guy owes statutory damages for each separately copyrighted 30 second fragment of demo track.

The standard is "probably" not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Maybe your kids hacked into your computer... but they probably didn't.


I think "Having the forethought to hide a secret unique signal on each of 100 CD's" might be giving these guys just a wee bit too much credit given how idiotic their move already was....
 
2013-01-10 03:34:36 PM  

Slaxl: I really wish governments that are bought and paid for by corporations didn't have a say in copyright laws. Has any country got copyright laws that are fair?


Not many. The current US law "70 years after the death of the author" or 95 years for work for hire is just absurd and silly. Frankly it just defeats the entire original purpose of copyright law, protecting the creators' ability to profit from their work.

Public domain is incredibly healthy, and numerous long-ignored works (songs, books, music, everything) that no longer make anyone a cent are being lost to time due to antiquated laws. Sure one in every 1000 books published during the 1950's may be profitable still, but it's a tiny minority. We need to revise it to be something like "20 years since last production/publication or life of creator, whichever is longer."
 
2013-01-10 04:14:54 PM  
Seriously the laws need to be changed so the there is a hard and fast limit on copyright protection, once that time is up no extensions no matter what. Also allow for voluntary placement of a copyrighted work into Public Domain, I doubt it would be used much but in some cases it could be desirable to rights holder of an otherwise worthless copyrighted work and once it is public domain it cannot have its rights claimed.

/might be away to voluntarily place something in Public domain already that i am unaware of.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 04:43:04 PM  
grimlock1972

Some book authors have contracts with rights reversion if the book is out of print. If the publisher doesn't keep selling the book the author gets it back. (Such clauses come from the paper book era where keeping inventory and selling copies cost money.) A genuine "use it or lose it" rule for copyright, not the "print 100 copies to win decades of protection" crap we have here, would help a lot.

Unfortunately under U.S. constitutional law public domain status is revocable by act of Congress.
 
2013-01-10 04:51:45 PM  
So they are pretty much admitting to squatting, then.
 
2013-01-10 05:32:15 PM  
My 333rd greenlight.

Hey, Sony, is "333" copyrighted?
 
2013-01-10 05:36:58 PM  
"This isn't a scheme to make money," a Sony Music source told Rolling Stone..." "The whole point of copyrighting this stuff is that we intend to do something with it at some point in the future," the Sony exec told Rolling Stone.

Yeah, like sell the rights. To make money.

I wonder if there's an official guide to becoming an executive of a large corporation. "Chapter 3: How to Tell a Barefaced Lie Without Batting an Eye."
 
2013-01-10 06:16:41 PM  

valkore: "This isn't a scheme to make money," a Sony Music source told Rolling Stone..." "The whole point of copyrighting this stuff is that we intend to do something with it at some point in the future," the Sony exec told Rolling Stone.

Yeah, like sell the rights. To make money.

I wonder if there's an official guide to becoming an executive of a large corporation. "Chapter 3: How to Tell a Barefaced Lie Without Batting an Eye."


Err, that is the intended function of the copyright system, so it isn't a lie. The longevity of the copyright system is way too long, and the principle that you can "refresh" copyrights on existing works by republishing them seems fairly stupid, but that doesn't make trying to make money from copyrighted material wrong. The corporatization of many parts of the creative system is also regrettable, and made there is a chance that will reduce in future given much easier potential distribution methods (but corporations as a whole tend to be fairly resilient to losing control of industries as a whole, even if most of the individual corporations are often short sighted and miss the boat), but also doesn't seem a valid reason to be against the system.

/personally I would go with something like a 20-30 year copyright system, no extensions, no benefit from republishing in a slightly different form, etc., with a related system to protect characters (or other constructions such as worlds, organisations, etc.) being reused (outside of obvious parody) without the author/creators consent (and potential licensing) until after they are dead.
 
2013-01-10 06:41:01 PM  

xria: Err, that is the intended function of the copyright system, so it isn't a lie.


The guy first said it wasn't the limited release wasn't a scheme to make money, but that they intend to do something with the works later... And that something will be an action that will make money. So it is a scheme to make money. Just not right now.
And I agree with the rest of your post. The copyright system is now just a way for mega-corporations to indefinitely lock up intellectual capital and sue the Bejeezus out of any violators. It's great if you're a lawyer, though.
 
2013-01-10 07:56:58 PM  

Slaxl: Has any country got copyright laws that are fair?


Ethiopia.
Link

Artist dies? Public domain.
 
2013-01-10 09:40:22 PM  
Here's my copyright plan from the school of "when I become king":

1 Your copyright will be honored, free of charge, until your death.
2 Upon your death (or you decide to sell/transfer it to some other person or business) it may then be renewed ONCE by a new party or business. You can sell it beforehand or in your will if you desire.
3 Costs for this new, second owner are one penny the first year.
4 That price will be doubled every year afterwards, for as long as they continue to pay.
5 Once this second copyright owner gives it up, it's gone forever.

Corporations holding copyrights will be held to the one penny, double every year rule from the start. Let them start saving their cash to hold out for those years 20+.

Mickey and Coke and the rest of the consumer mascot shiat out there? fark 'em, invent something new.
 
2013-01-10 10:22:01 PM  
".....-- including many rare bootlegs -- >"
Aren't there some laws against profiting from crimes?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-10 10:54:35 PM  
mrlewish

My understanding is the law punishes the making of bootlegs by giving copyright to the performer. Whether Dylan or Sony owns the rights to the bootlegs depends on their contract.
 
2013-01-11 12:30:48 AM  

Any Pie Left: It is SONY, so, no, sub by, they did not learn anything.


Exactly what I came in to say.
 
2013-01-11 01:10:45 AM  

valkore: "This isn't a scheme to make money," a Sony Music source told Rolling Stone..." "The whole point of copyrighting this stuff is that we intend to do something with it at some point in the future," the Sony exec told Rolling Stone.

Yeah, like sell the rights. To make money.

I wonder if there's an official guide to becoming an executive of a large corporation. "Chapter 3: How to Tell a Barefaced Lie Without Batting an Eye."


I think that's a requirement in filling out a Harvard Business School Application.
 
2013-01-11 03:42:30 AM  
Isn't there a "if you haven't used recordings from 1962 for 50 years, fark you" clause in copywrite law?
 
2013-01-11 04:29:04 AM  

Xai: FirstNationalBastard: I'm disappointed the UK is getting in on the absurdly long copyright bullshiat.

I'm disappointed that the UK population has absolutely no say in the copyright bullshiat.


and I am disapointed I can't copyright an invention instead of patenting it
 
2013-01-11 08:16:37 AM  
Maybe they learned that our copyright (not to mention patent) laws are so farked up that it's easier to make a successful business extorting people by threatening them with lawsuits until they settle than it is to make a business selling a competitive product or service.

ModernLuddite: Isn't there a "if you haven't used recordings from 1962 for 50 years, fark you" clause in copywrite law?


That's the point. They have no intention of selling it right now because it's not going to be a money-maker for them, they're just extended the copyright on a technicality so that they can retain the rights to it in case it ever has value in the future.
Or, the tl;dr version: Sony is, as always, just being a bag of dicks.
 
2013-01-11 09:17:01 AM  
By walking down the street in such a skimpy outfit, she is practically begging to be raped.

By waiting at the bus stop without adults, the kids are practically begging to be kidnapped.

...

/ yada yada yada
// It doesn't mean it's not a crime just because one is enticed
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report