You had me until “accept that music is free”. And exactly how the @#$% do I pay the musicians, the recording studio… oh, & my bills, dumbass? What about those of us who produce music without the benefit of a major label, or any safety net at all? Should we just do it for your sake?

It’s the notion that music should be free, that something which you value but don’t think you should have to pay for, that has hurt everyone and our society.
The new paradigm has become “control” of our work, which is anathema to those of us who want to make a living just from creating.

The labels be damned for their asinine pursuit of punishment, rather than trying to educate people; but people with your attitude are a bigger part of the problem than the RIAA will ever be.

http://www.thei...ic-industry-rip

“The right to life means that every individual has a right to his own independent life, that your life and property belong to you, not to others to use as they see fit.

Which part of the quote above that you don’t understand? “

You’ve brought this quote up twice now, but it’s not relevant. The phrase “Intellectual Property” did not exist at the time of Jefferson and Washington, and is in fact only came into common usage in the past 20-30 years.

Stallman says it best:

“[The phrase intellectual property] systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion”

You are obviously one of the people very confused by this term. And, as Stallman points out, this is entirely by design.

1) The infringement was going on for at least a year and they never issued a take down notice. If it was so detrimental to their business then why let it continue for (at least) a year? The only logical explanation is that they wanted to build up a case against Hi5, hoping for an eventual windfall with the courts. This tactic is sickeningly dirty, and shows that they’re grasping at straws because their real business is failing.

2) Remember, that we’re talking about music videos. Having a video seen more widely can only help record sales not hurt them (do you agree?). So again, this goes to show that EMI is simply hatching up a dirty scheme, that will not benefit their musicians in the end.

3) Do you not agree that Hi5 did not violate anyone’s copyright but in fact their users (allegedly) did? This is something very important that you’ve yet to acknowledge you understand. If all network operators were suddenly responsible for the actions of their users then the internet as we know it would come to a screeching halt (this is the innovation I speak of). It simply won’t work. If you disagree then you must also believe that phone companies should be responsible for crimes committed over their lines as well. Is that your position?

4) Bringing physical world analogies into this shows a lack of basic understanding. Physical and Intellectual properties have entirely different sets of laws (eg, Eminent Domain, Fair Use, Copyright Expiration, Patent Expiration, and so on). They are not, and were never intended to be the same thing. If you can’t discuss the topic without resorting to real world analogies then you’d best leave it someone else to argue the point for you.

Look, I’m not against intellectual property rights at all. But this lawsuit is unnecessary and painfully dishonest. There are very reasonable provisions in the law for this sort of thing. If these provisions are not reasonable (in EMI’s view) then that is a matter for the Lawmakers not the courts.

EMI’s money would be much better spent on investing in a new business model, not blocking up the courts and stifling innovation.

The right to life means that every individual has a right to his own independent life, that your life and property belong to you, not to others to use as they see fit.

Which part of the quote above that you don’t understand?

You can spin it how you like, but you can’t change the fact that what you own is yours (EMI) and not to others (Hi5, VideoEgg and the rest) to use as they see fit. If you can see the reason here, then there is nothing further to be argued about, since EMI had the right to pursue legal action as they’re doing (or intending to do now).

a) Notify the network where the infringement is taking place so that they can remove it before it causes harm

Now, this is probably why EMI is taking legal action, because (if you read what I said in my previous messages) we, the general public don’t know how long this infringement had been going on. Let me ask you. Do you know how long this has been going on? If you do , please let us know. It could have been months, years, who knows? Court action is the appropriate ways to do it.

Knowingly let the infringement continue without protest for a year or more and then launch a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

Again, do you know that if EMI knowingly let this infringement went on for months, years, … ? Just let us know if you have inside info from EMI.

Hi5’s users may have violated the copyright, which is exactly what the DMCA

EMI wouldn’t take a legal action if their lawyers think that there is no grounds. If you think that they have no grounds according to the DMCA safe harbour provisions you’ve stated, then please state it here, so that I can tip the EMI legal team about it. Can you do that for me please?

EMI DID NOT issue a DMCA notice of infringement!

This is not an obligation but an option? Besides you don’t know how long this infringement has been going on for? If it is a day or two, then it is reasonable that the best approach is to issue a DMCA notice of infringement, don’t you think. Again if you know the time length, then please tell us. If you don’t know, then EMI might know something that you & me don’t know about and that is fact. I don’t know, do you?

Look, I’m not American but I love many, many things about America. Your litigious culture is one thing that I find abhorrent. Particularly when it stifles innovation and competition.

I am not American either (from New Zealand), but can you show what innovations had been stifled ? I mean examples that don’t violate property rights of the legal owners.

“Here is a scenario. Michael will request (perhaps thru his lawyer) that I take down all the materials that I have deliberately copied from TechCrunch , in fact the materials that I stole because my action is stealing of theft. I Ignore Michael’s request and get to keep making money out of the advertisements which I had placed on my site with Michael’s contents. “

This is not at all what took place, please re-read the article! EMI DID NOT issue a DMCA notice of infringement! That’s the whole point here. Hi5 complies with all such requests (as they are required by law to do).

So you’re hypothetical example above is even more irrelevant than your “I break into your house” example. But keep trying, sooner or later you might come up with something.

Wow. You’re still stuck in the physical property is the exact same thing as intellectual property phase of thinking on this? I’m not even going to bother trying to explain the difference. Your failure to at least acknowledge the difference points to your total lack of understanding of the complexities involved. You even brought up the old classic “It’s the same as someone breaking into your house” thing. Sigh.

You also had this gem:

“What you’ve just said wouldn’t change the fact that Hi5, VideoEgg violated EMI’s copyrights. Deal with the facts.”

Not a fact at all. You just made this “fact” up (Is that what you learned from the Ayn Rand Institute?) Hi5’s users may have violated the copyright, which is exactly what the DMCA safe harbour provisions are supposed to address. Again, you clearly don’t understand some very basic points about this issue.

Are you suggesting that all network providers should be legally responsible for what their users do on their networks? And if so, how are they supposed to police their networks when no-one reports a problem? How far does this responsibility extend? Should AT&T be responsible for over-the-wire fraud? Should the USPS be responsible for illegal goods transported through their ‘network’? Where does it stop?

So again, I ask you if the infringement was so damaging (as you claim), why not just file the notice immediately and be done with it?

It’s really quite simple, but let me make it even more simple.

When faced with someone infringing your intellectual property rights, you:

a) Notify the network where the infringement is taking place so that they can remove it before it causes harm (as they are required by law to do). The end result is zero-sum (no gain/no loss).

Or…

b) Knowingly let the infringement continue without protest for a year or more and then launch a multi-million dollar lawsuit. The potential upside here could be in the millions if you can convince a judge how badly you were damaged. If you lose, the lawyers (who are ones advising EMI what action to take) still make out like bandits.

Which would you pick?

Look, I’m not American but I love many, many things about America. Your litigious culture is one thing that I find abhorrent. Particularly when it stifles innovation and competition.

Here is some reading for you:

en.wikipedia.org / wiki/DMCA
en.wikipedia.org / wiki/Safe_harbor
http://www.guardian.co.uk / technology/2008/feb/21/intellectual.property

PS. I posted this earlier today but the comment appears to be still awaiting moderation (probably because of the included hyperlinks which I’ve since removed)

That is the name of an Australian kids TV show. (http://hi5.ninemsn.com.au/)

Basically it is kids who did not make the “make me a Britney or New Kids” mall tryout got a gig singing to 3-5 year olds.

(my 3 yr old LOVED them while we lived in Singapore years ago)

And your argument is?

NONE.

mean to be:

Michael and his business associates