The Pirate Bay gets raided.

[Righ]

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004679.php

Not even in the same room as the figurative rocker.

The problem is that the EFF represents vested interests too. So, while this bill may well be good for some, and ultimately a distinct improvement for music consumers, its clearly not good for the RIAA, nd not good for whomever the EFF feels are its clients at this point in history.

[bhodi]

The problem is that the EFF represents vested interests too. So, while this bill may well be good for some, and ultimately a distinct improvement for music consumers, its clearly not good for the RIAA, nd not good for whomever the EFF feels are its clients at this point in history.

Well, two thirds of their clients are people like me: individual doners doing their part to try and stave off (or at least match) corperate and special interest groups.

[Krakrok]

Then it's a very, very stupid concept. You are essentially saying that a creator either has to sell their copyright directly to a distributor, or do the whole distribution thing themselves. Either that or you are not explaining it well at all.

He isn't explaining it well as far as I can tell. I think he means he'd like to restrict copyright creators from transfering their copyright to a third party (such as a corporation). AKA no more 'work for hire'.

[HaemishM]

Then it's a very, very stupid concept. You are essentially saying that a creator either has to sell their copyright directly to a distributor, or do the whole distribution thing themselves. Either that or you are not explaining it well at all.

He isn't explaining it well as far as I can tell. I think he means he'd like to restrict copyright creators from transfering their copyright to a third party (such as a corporation). AKA no more 'work for hire'.

Now, see that's something I could get behind.

Except, the comics industry would be fucked and fucked hard, since almost their entire business is predicated on owning characters as brands.

[Roac]

Then it's a very, very stupid concept. You are essentially saying that a creator either has to sell their copyright directly to a distributor, or do the whole distribution thing themselves. Either that or you are not explaining it well at all.

He isn't explaining it well as far as I can tell. I think he means he'd like to restrict copyright creators from transfering their copyright to a third party (such as a corporation). AKA no more 'work for hire'.

Now, see that's something I could get behind.

That would suck.  There are a number of people who are very creative, and very shitty at business.  It would give both them, and their company, the shaft. 

[Righ]

That would suck.  There are a number of people who are very creative, and very shitty at business.  It would give both them, and their company, the shaft. 

Less so than today, when the clever businessmen in the record companies give artists who are shitty at business the shaft. English band XTC have sold millions of records, and they've never made a single penny from record sales, over a generation of recording under abusive contract. Eventually they went on strike for several years, until Virgin released them. Mike Oldfield famously put Morse code into his Album Amarok - "Fuck off RB".

Being herded into an abattoir and having a steel pin fired through their brains would be kinder than the treatment that a HUGE number of artists have faced from shitty contracts with the businessmen you are championing.

[Roac]

Being herded into an abattoir and having a steel pin fired through their brains would be kinder than the treatment that a HUGE number of artists have faced from shitty contracts with the businessmen you are championing.

I don't champion them.  I do think that if the artists hate the situation they are in, they should handle the business end of things themselves.  But don't enter a contract eyes open, then piss and moan that the contract sucks.  Sounds like they were shit for business to start with, though.