MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Copyrighted material
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Announcements - Please read!  
Author Copyrighted material
sandyb
A reminder to everyone

It should be obvious by now that this is not the place to "share" copyrighted materials in any way. (Edit - unless you own the copyright. In which case It's peanut butter jelly time! )

Please don't do it.

If you are uncertain about whether it is, or is not, ok to share a link to some material feel free to contact myself or Muff and we'll have a look.

Thank you all for your understanding regarding this.

sandy
sandyb
bump.
sandyb
another bump for all the new wigglers screaming goo yo
sandyb
and again meh
Kent
I think that we have yet to be clear regarding things wherein the copyright can be proven to have expired. I'd bet that the Devarahi book is in the Public Domain at this point. However, since I own a copy, I can't be arsed to investigate.
nitro2k01
Kent wrote:
I think that we have yet to be clear regarding things wherein the copyright can be proven to have expired. I'd bet that the Devarahi book is in the Public Domain at this point. However, since I own a copy, I can't be arsed to investigate.
Pft, hardly. Maybe in a colloquial moral sense. But by the letter of the law, it's far from out of copyright. Works published in the US after 1978 were originally protected for 50 years after the death of the creator. With the passing of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, that was extended to 70 years after the death of the author. So a good estimate is that it will take 60-100 years still, depending on Devarahi's age and time of death, before the book enters the public domain. This is why I personally have zero respect for the copyrights of such old works (assuming they're not being actively sold anymore.)
bit801
Go to know about the copyright.
shreddoggie
While I think any sensible person would support the policy of not mixing Muffs up in any legal issues by casting this site and its owners in an unintended role of middleman, it must also be mentioned everywhere that copyright is mentioned, that it is not a law of nature or beyond question.

Remember: it was once legal for Caucasians to own Africans in this country, illegal for women to vote, and currently marijuana is a felony in many parts of our fair land. The truth is that laws are only representative of the current wishes of those who have the power to create and enforce them. Nothing else. They are not always right, and they are very often dead wrong.

This could not be more evident than in the outrageous destruction of the creative language and vocabulary of music by those who do not actively participate in its creation and who know nothing of its history or the mechanics of how it works. I am quite literally offended at the stupid, ignorant, and delusionally selfish attitudes of (so called) musicians who support the predatory 'evolution' of copyright law in the last few decades. The psychology of loss aversion makes the appeal of owning our special 3 note riff (so someday we can cash in on it) appealing, but the only thing that will really happen is that someone with money (to pay lawyers) will come along with the same riff and prevent you from ever using it again. This will go on until all 3 note riffs are exhausted.

Ownership of ones creations is enticing and even justified within reasonable limits. Ownership outside of reasonable limits is stifling and only benefits the wrong people. If you disagree with this please learn something about music history - it is available for free all over the internet.
jayfet
I think its important to not throw the baby out with the bathwater when you criticise copyright law. Yes its true that there are certain kinds of IP that take too long to enter the public domain, and yes there are serious intellectual and philosophical faults to the dmca and the sbctea. That said, 70 years vs 50 years is a fairly innocuous difference, and the real issues remain the failure to adequately require the companies who are profiting from digital distribution (isps, primarily) to pay content creators for the value of serving up their content. The invisible middle man is a bigger obstacle to innovation and to people being able to make a living from the distribution of their work than the flaws in copyright term and the pverzealous application of digital ip management strategies.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Announcements - Please read!  
Page 1 of 1
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group