Sign In
Register
Help
Post your comments for BlueBeat Ignores EMI, Still Sells Beatles Catalog Online here
Page 1 of 1
Bluebeat Ignores Emi, Still Sells Beatles Catalog Online
MultiQuote
#3
KBrad 
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 04-November 09
Posted 04 November 2009 - 05:57 PM
Bantry, on 04 November 2009 - 04:35 PM, said:
I hope Apple Corps wins a big settlement against BlueBeat, and closes their site down for this illegal act on their part.
Why do you hope this? Although I am sure this will happen very soon, I couldn't care less. Do you have a financial interest in Apple Corps? Do you dislike the people behind BlueBeat?
My hope is that the Beatles will put up their catalog on a self-financed site, free for all. Heaven knows they've milked it enough over the last few decades.
A couple of apropos quotes:
"Imagine no possessions" -- John Lennon
"Guess I'll have to buy the White Album again" -- Agent K, Men in Black
#4
TJSpyke
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 01-June 09
Posted 04 November 2009 - 06:28 PM
Bantry, The Beatles haven't owned their songs since the 1960s. They couldn't give away the songs for free even if they wanted too (and they wouldn't, they are in it for the money).
I hope this site gets shut down, they are illegally selling songs that they have no legal right to sell. They are violating copyrights on purpose and are in big trouble (especially if the judge orders them to pay a fine for every copy of every song. Say, $10,000 per song. If they sold 25K songs, that would be a $250K fine).
I hope this site gets shut down, they are illegally selling songs that they have no legal right to sell. They are violating copyrights on purpose and are in big trouble (especially if the judge orders them to pay a fine for every copy of every song. Say, $10,000 per song. If they sold 25K songs, that would be a $250K fine).
#5
Poindexter
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 04-November 09
Posted 04 November 2009 - 06:40 PM
TJSpyke, on 04 November 2009 - 06:28 PM, said:
Bantry, The Beatles haven't owned their songs since the 1960s. They couldn't give away the songs for free even if they wanted too (and they wouldn't, they are in it for the money).
I hope this site gets shut down, they are illegally selling songs that they have no legal right to sell. They are violating copyrights on purpose and are in big trouble (especially if the judge orders them to pay a fine for every copy of every song. Say, $10,000 per song. If they sold 25K songs, that would be a $250K fine).
I hope this site gets shut down, they are illegally selling songs that they have no legal right to sell. They are violating copyrights on purpose and are in big trouble (especially if the judge orders them to pay a fine for every copy of every song. Say, $10,000 per song. If they sold 25K songs, that would be a $250K fine).
$250 grand is not even close. How about $10,000 X 25,000 = 250 MILLION? That would certainly get somebody's attention.
#8
Alharzad
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 04-November 09
Posted 04 November 2009 - 07:42 PM
....
that would be stupid.
oldsak, on 04 November 2009 - 07:13 PM, said:
Also, EMI could sue anyone who "purchased" Beatles' songs from BlueBeat.
that would be stupid.
This post has been edited by Alharzad: 04 November 2009 - 07:42 PM
#9
poolboy
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 29-November 07
Posted 04 November 2009 - 08:38 PM
TJSpyke, on 05 November 2009 - 02:28 AM, said:
Bantry, The Beatles haven't owned their songs since the 1960s. They couldn't give away the songs for free even if they wanted too (and they wouldn't, they are in it for the money).
I hope this site gets shut down, they are illegally selling songs that they have no legal right to sell. They are violating copyrights on purpose and are in big trouble (especially if the judge orders them to pay a fine for every copy of every song. Say, $10,000 per song. If they sold 25K songs, that would be a $250K fine).
I hope this site gets shut down, they are illegally selling songs that they have no legal right to sell. They are violating copyrights on purpose and are in big trouble (especially if the judge orders them to pay a fine for every copy of every song. Say, $10,000 per song. If they sold 25K songs, that would be a $250K fine).
haha you got your math wrong!! haha
10k x 25k = 250000000
;D
#10
JillAgain
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 18-April 09
Posted 04 November 2009 - 08:44 PM
Alharzad, on 05 November 2009 - 03:42 AM, said:
....
that would be stupid.
oldsak, on 04 November 2009 - 07:13 PM, said:
Also, EMI could sue anyone who "purchased" Beatles' songs from BlueBeat.
that would be stupid.
JillAgain, on 05 November 2009 - 04:43 AM, said:
Alharzad, on 05 November 2009 - 03:42 AM, said:
....
that would be stupid.
oldsak, on 04 November 2009 - 07:13 PM, said:
Also, EMI could sue anyone who "purchased" Beatles' songs from BlueBeat.
that would be stupid.
That may be, but it hasn't stopped them before
#11
sfrank2470
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 05-November 09
Posted 05 November 2009 - 06:10 AM
Bantry, on 04 November 2009 - 04:35 PM, said:
I hope Apple Corps wins a big settlement against BlueBeat, and closes their site down for this illegal act on their part.
So far every article and comment assumes that Bluebeat has done something illegal. Pretty poor journalism in my view. If they understood anything aobut AV copy right works and royalties paid or about the steps Bluebeat took to insure both DRM technology and copyright patents they wouldn't be so quick to jump on the illegal band wagon. There is a reason the site is still up and why EMI couldn't get an injunction. This is a whole lot bigger than some dumb russian website trying to steal music. Do your homework. This situation is going to change the way we view av/music and what we pay for downloaded av/music material. This is no publicity stunt.
#12
JimH443
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,227
- Joined: 06-May 07
Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:10 AM
sfrank2470, on 05 November 2009 - 10:10 AM, said:
Bantry, on 04 November 2009 - 04:35 PM, said:
I hope Apple Corps wins a big settlement against BlueBeat, and closes their site down for this illegal act on their part.
So far every article and comment assumes that Bluebeat has done something illegal. Pretty poor journalism in my view. If they understood anything aobut AV copy right works and royalties paid or about the steps Bluebeat took to insure both DRM technology and copyright patents they wouldn't be so quick to jump on the illegal band wagon. There is a reason the site is still up and why EMI couldn't get an injunction. This is a whole lot bigger than some dumb russian website trying to steal music. Do your homework. This situation is going to change the way we view av/music and what we pay for downloaded av/music material. This is no publicity stunt.
Here is how copyrights work:
If you do not have a license from the copyright holder, you have no right to make a copy (hence the name "copyright"). Making unauthorized copies violates the law - plain and simple.
#13
sfrank2470
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 05-November 09
Posted 05 November 2009 - 09:13 AM
You are assuming they do not have the copyright based on strictly a audio work. That is not what they are classified as and yes they do have the copyrights on the AV/audio work. Read the disclaimer on the website as to where any objection to their selling of these works is directed. It gives you a very good clue. Do your homework. What they are doing is completely legal. This issue is hardly plain and simple. If it was the site would already be down.
#14
sfrank2470
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 05-November 09
Posted 05 November 2009 - 09:26 AM
Here is a hint...what if the works they are selling are considered "original work" by the patent trade office becuase they have been reworked and Bluebeat holds the copyrights to these re-digitized works. And what if bluebeat actually paid the royalties to use the original recording to make their new "creative work" and what if the US Govt already gave them permission by giving them the copyrights? Now you get an idea of why the site isn't down and why this is hardly plain and simple. It is actually quite legal.
#15
NC1985
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 05-November 09
Posted 05 November 2009 - 01:35 PM
sfrank2470, on 05 November 2009 - 09:26 AM, said:
Here is a hint...what if the works they are selling are considered "original work" by the patent trade office becuase they have been reworked and Bluebeat holds the copyrights to these re-digitized works. And what if bluebeat actually paid the royalties to use the original recording to make their new "creative work" and what if the US Govt already gave them permission by giving them the copyrights? Now you get an idea of why the site isn't down and why this is hardly plain and simple. It is actually quite legal.
You're an idiot. Taking someone else's work and modifying it is called a derivative work, not original. It's not a publishing issue, it's a recording issue. When rappers and other performers sample other songs in their songs they need to get permission from the owner and pay negotiated (as opposed to statutory) royalties to that owner. This is a very time consuming and difficult process which is why many rap albums get delayed. Bluebeat clearly did not do this and is therefore in direct violation of copyright law. Next time do your homework or shut up. Also, don't use the website that is being sued as your resouce. Moron
#16
NC1985
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 05-November 09
Posted 05 November 2009 - 01:37 PM
NC1985, on 05 November 2009 - 01:35 PM, said:
sfrank2470, on 05 November 2009 - 09:26 AM, said:
Here is a hint...what if the works they are selling are considered "original work" by the patent trade office becuase they have been reworked and Bluebeat holds the copyrights to these re-digitized works. And what if bluebeat actually paid the royalties to use the original recording to make their new "creative work" and what if the US Govt already gave them permission by giving them the copyrights? Now you get an idea of why the site isn't down and why this is hardly plain and simple. It is actually quite legal.
You're an idiot. Taking someone else's work and modifying it is called a derivative work, not original. It's not a publishing issue, it's a recording issue. When rappers and other performers sample other songs in their songs they need to get permission from the owner and pay negotiated (as opposed to statutory) royalties to that owner. This is a very time consuming and difficult process which is why many rap albums get delayed. Bluebeat clearly did not do this and is therefore in direct violation of copyright law. Next time do your homework or shut up. Also, don't use the website that is being sued as your resouce. Moron
One last thing, the copyright office (like the patent office) doesn't check to make sure the copyright is legitimate, they just push paper and date stamp it so when lawsuits occur they can give a history. It would be way too time consuming and expense to research every copyright filed. That's ALL they do.
#17
hotdealdave
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 23-November 09
Posted 23 November 2009 - 07:30 AM
sfrank2470, on 05 November 2009 - 09:26 AM, said:
Here is a hint...what if the works they are selling are considered "original work" by the patent trade office becuase they have been reworked and Bluebeat holds the copyrights to these re-digitized works. And what if bluebeat actually paid the royalties to use the original recording to make their new "creative work" and what if the US Govt already gave them permission by giving them the copyrights? Now you get an idea of why the site isn't down and why this is hardly plain and simple. It is actually quite legal.
Haha seems like this convoluted argument isn't holding up so well in court!
This post has been edited by smax013: 23 November 2009 - 02:12 PM
Reason for edit:: Removed personal attack
Page 1 of 1
