View Single Post
Old 18-10-2007, 19:42   #33
danielf
cf.mega poser
 
danielf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,687
danielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden aura
danielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden auradanielf has a golden aura
Re: RIAA targets Usenet/Newsgroup Provider

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry View Post
It is actually even illegal to distribute silence in a recorded work, the precedent for this was set in 2002 . I didn't say there was anything illegal in distributing the title of copyrighted works - copyright affords no protection to song titles due to their relative lack of uniqueness. What you were suggesting initially was "impersonation" which could be construed by the popular band, group, artiste in question as a wilful attempt to undervalue or misrepresent their copyrighted works.

You cannot create an "original" MP3 of anything that is not covered by existing copyright laws. Once something is created, copyright applies automatically (your copyright, admittedly). Putting something which is the result of a creative endeavour in the public domain and claiming it is not copyrighted would not be factually correct and the creator (copyright holder) would be well within his / her / their rights to sue.

It would not, however, make sense for you to sue yourself but you can rest assured, as evidenced in the Batt case referenced above, "Where there's a hit there's a writ".

It's a very convoluted area of law, but law nonetheless.
Ah, but presumably this means that in order to bring proceedings against someone for distributing copyrighted materials (without the permission of the copyright holder), it still has to be proved that this person was indeed distributing said materials. Which would be kind of hard unless a copy of the materials was actually obtained? Unless reasonable suspicion is sufficient that is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Angry
That'll be £48.70 + VAT thanks.
Oh... You didn't actually say you wanted it did you? I genuiney thought you just wanted to know if I had it
__________________
Remember kids: We are blessed with a listening, caring government.
danielf is offline   Reply With Quote