Robocopyright ACTA

This is just too good.

Yoko Ono on the future of the Beatles

This is rich. According to Yoko Ono there will be no digital sales of Beatles songs. Apparently she's got a better idea for distributing music in the 21st century: Selling CD's! Clearly the 60's and 70's brought too much pot-smoking. If nothing else this shows why the existing copyright legislation needs to be changed. Had Yoko not owned the commercial rights to the Beatles' music, everyone would be able to make legal digital copies of their music and spread them throughout the world.

Well, Yoko, don't hold your breath, I won't be buying any of those "best of" or "remastered edition" CD's any time soon.

Photo: Caio do Valle/Public domain

More copyright insanity

Apparently The Beach Boys' record company, Rondor Music (which is - surprise surprise - owned by the "fine" people at Universal Music Group), holds the copyright to the phrase "I wish they could all be California girls", so no other artist can use that phrase in his or her songs without the risk of being sued. This phrase is known from the song "California Girls" which was released in 1965. Yes, 45 years ago. And still the record company insists no one else is permitted to utter these words without the risk of being sued. I guess I'm next in line then.

I'll let Rondor Music get the final punch here, as the following piece of insane logic speaks best for itself:

"Using the words or melody in a new song taken from an original work is not appropriate under any circumstances, particularly one as well-known and iconic as 'California Girls.' Rondor Music…is committed to protecting the rights of its artists and songwriters, and with the support of the writers, that is exactly what we are doing."

(E! Online)

Abusing copyright

Well I guess it's pretty obvious now why Swedish politicians are so reluctant to change today's destructive copyright legislation. The Christian Democratic party, Kristdemokraterna, for instance, are abusing the copyright legislation by registering catchphrases and slogans such as "Verklighetens folk", "the real people".

Remind me again, why the f*ck should anybody at all be able to copyright a phrase, a sentence, a collection of words that are used in everyday speech?

Clearly a revision of the copyright legislation is desperately needed. Unfortunately we can't rely on the traditional political parties to take any action as they're too busy taking advantage of it.

This site is "optimized" for users within the USA

That's what they call it these days...

Because clearly no European user would be interested in any American music. And obviously we wouldn't want to promote that music to fans around the world anyway. They could end up buying a CD or some merchandise, or even - God forbid - go see an artist in concert.

The entertainment mafia just never ceases to amaze me.

Hitler orders a DMCA takedown

The entertainment mafia Hitler orders a DMCA takedown.

Hitler, as "Downfall producer" orders a DMCA takedown from Brad Templeton on Vimeo.

UN abandons human rights - embraces copyrights

There's really no other way to interpret this statement. The United Nations has sold out to the entertainment mafia, abandoning ideals of human rights enforcement and instead embracing the tyrannic fight for stronger copyright enforcement. I'm using the word instead because these two rights don't go very well together. A tighter enforcement of copyright does mean sacrificing human rights.

Way to go ruining your credibility, UN.

Found the link through futuriteter.

Let copyright legislation rest in peace

Couldn't have said it better myself. There is no way to uphold copyright laws on a non-commercial scale without introducing fascism. Which is exactly what is being introduced in Europe and the US at an increasing speed these days.

The mafia declares war on open source software

This sounds too ridiculous to be true, but nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to the "intellectual property" dinosaurs of the world:

According to the International Intellectual Property Mafia Alliance, an umbrella group for the infamous criminals over at MPAA and RIAA, the use of, hell even encouragement to start using, open source software is equal to software piracy, or even anti-capitalism or possibly terrorism.

A joke you say? Unfortunately not. It's the copyright mafia doing what they do best.

I can't stress this enough: Don't feed the monsters. Stop the cashflow.

Can I be an Internet expert too, please?

DN published a letter on what was supposedly freedom and Internet today by a guy called Peter Strömbäck. This wouldn't be a problem if they didn't go ahead and wrongfully call him an "Internet expert", something he's clearly not. His CV suggests he's rather an intellectual property expert and/or a lobbyist, anything really but an Internet expert. And that shows clearly in his letter, where he promotes more regulations and intellectual property protection on the Internet. Because clearly more rules and regulations means freedom. Also the argument on Telia's dividend is a pathetic, classic lobby argument. "Bohoo, the ISP's make billions aiding their customers in commiting copyright infringements and stealing our money". Yeah, right.

Why is it so hard for lobbyists like Strömbäck to acknowledge that the same rules and laws that apply in the "analog" world should also apply on the Internet? It's really as simple as that. The mailman doesn't open your mail every day just in case you happen to engage in any criminal activity per mail. Why should your ISP do that? You are able to walk around freely and anonymously in the "analog" world. No one is registering your every step, asking you for "papieren, bitte!!!" at every crossroad. Why should you have to be traced every step of the way on the Internet? Why do lobbyists and politicians want to uphold a DDR set of rules on the Internet and a Western set of rules in the "analog" world?

- Annoyed Citizen, an Internet expert.

"Don't be evil" my ass

Do you own a blog hosted by blogger or blogspot? I do. And if I weren't too lazy I would move it away from these Googled-owned services asap, since these days they seem to be arbitrary deleting (yes, actually deleting all content, not just suspending the accounts!) blogs that they claim infringe on copyright. You know, if you happen to publish the lyrics to the chorus of your favorite song, or a picture you took at a concert. Those kinds of nasty crimes.

If you're like me, too lazy to actually move your blog, at least do a proper backup in case Google decides to go ahead and just delete it.

First the censorship scandal in China, and now this? "Don't be evil" my ass.

Reversed "pay per click"

When it comes to retarded suggestions on how to regulate the Internet in order to maximize the profit of the media industry nothing surprises me anymore. Not even the insane suggestion from the media industry in Germany who want to get paid from anyone linking to (meaning generating traffic to) their websites in "commercial use". A sort of reversed "pay per click" policy, where the websites generating traffic to the media websites will have to pay for the traffic they generate. Just like if the newspapers had to pay the advertisers money for every person who bought a product from these advertisers after reading the ad in the newspaper. Because, clearly:

"Intenet kan inte längre vara en upphovsrättsfri zon"

Yeah, right.

This ludacris suggestion is apparently backed up by severily technologically impaired German politicians.

Who knew Warner Brothers owned Casablanca...

Threats and lawsuits are in no way a new invention in the entertainment industry, and Warner Brothers have a long and proud tradition of harassing their customers, peers and actors:

Dear Warner Brothers,
Apparently there is more than one way of conquering a city and holding it as your own. For example, up to the time that we contemplated making this picture, I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers. However, it was only a few days after our announcement appeared that we received your long, ominous legal document warning us not to use the name Casablanca.
It seems that in 1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, your great-great-grandfather, while looking for a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and, raising his alpenstock (which he later turned in for a hundred shares of common), named it Casablanca.
I just don’t understand your attitude. Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.
You claim that you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without permission. What about “Warner Brothers”? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were. We were touring the sticks as the Marx Brothers when Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor’s eye, and even before there had been other brothers—the Smith Brothers; the Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brothers, an outfielder with Detroit; and “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?” (This was originally “Brothers, Can You Spare a Dime?” but this was spreading a dime pretty thin, so they threw out one brother, gave all the money to the other one, and whittled it down to “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?”)
Now Jack, how about you? Do you maintain that yours is an original name? Well it’s not. It was used long before you were born. Offhand, I can think of two Jacks—Jack of “Jack and the Beanstalk,” and Jack the Ripper, who cut quite a figure in his day.
As for you, Harry, you probably sign your checks sure in the belief that you are the first Harry of all time and that all other Harrys are impostors. I can think of two Harrys that preceded you. There was Lighthouse Harry of Revolutionary fame and a Harry Appelbaum who lived on the corner of 93rd Street and Lexington Avenue. Unfortunately, Appelbaum wasn’t too well-known. The last I heard of him, he was selling neckties at Weber and Heilbroner.
Now about the Burbank studio. I believe this is what you brothers call your place. Old man Burbank is gone. Perhaps you remember him. He was a great man in a garden. His wife often said Luther had ten green thumbs. What a witty woman she must have been! Burbank was the wizard who crossed all those fruits and vegetables until he had the poor plants in such confused and jittery condition that they could never decide whether to enter the dining room on the meat platter or the dessert dish.
This is pure conjecture, of course, but who knows—perhaps Burbank’s survivors aren’t too happy with the fact that a plant that grinds out pictures on a quota settled in their town, appropriated Burbank’s name and uses it as a front for their films. It is even possible that the Burbank family is prouder of the potato produced by the old man than they are of the fact that your studio emerged “Casablanca” or even “Gold Diggers of 1931.”
This all seems to add up to a pretty bitter tirade, but I assure you it’s not meant to. I love Warners. Some of my best friends are Warner Brothers. It is even possible that I am doing you an injustice and that you, yourselves, know nothing about this dog-in-the-Wanger attitude. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to discover that the heads of your legal department are unaware of this absurd dispute, for I am acquainted with many of them and they are fine fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits and a love of their fellow man that out-Saroyans Saroyan.
I have a hunch that his attempt to prevent us from using the title is the brainchild of some ferret-faced shyster, serving a brief apprenticeship in your legal department. I know the type well—hot out of law school, hungry for success, and too ambitious to follow the natural laws of promotion. This bar sinister probably needled your attorneys, most of whom are fine fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits, etc., into attempting to enjoin us. Well, he won’t get away with it! We’ll fight him to the highest court! No pasty-faced legal adventurer is going to cause bad blood between the Warners and the Marxes. We are all brothers under the skin, and we’ll remain friends till the last reel of “A Night in Casablanca” goes tumbling over the spool.


Sincerely,
Groucho Marx

Source.

A conviction at any cost

Have a look at Peter Sunde's blogpost on how the dutch branch of the entertainment mafia, Brein, are committing a serious crime fabricating evidence in a desperate attempt to convict some people of something that shouldn't even be considered a crime, in a country these people have no connection to whatsoever.

So, what's worst? Fabricating evidence to get people wrongfully convicted, or possibly aiding in copyright infringement by providing an infrastructure that lets people communicate and share files with each other? Who should really be on trial here?

Of course the outcome of this ridiculous case is already given. Brein's fabricated evidence will be accepted without and questions by a court consisting of people with close affiliation to copyright lobbying organizations, and another miscarriage of justice will be committed.

If anyone's interested the documents are available at wikileaks.

Copyright is worth standing up for

According to the British Minister of Communications, Technology and Broadcasting, Mr. Stephen Carter, the copyright legislation is worth standing up for.

Human rights and civil liberties, however, are not, as they stand in the way of increased surveillance, censorship and passing new and obtrusive laws in the name of maximizing the entertainment industry's profit.

Money first, human rights second. Glad that's settled.

In case you're wondering, this buffoon has a history working in the entertainment industry. Big surprise.