The Roger Miller case is different. In that case there was no previous court decision. In our case we had already been sued in local courts, where after the community property issue was resolved against the widow, she claimed, on appeal, to have renewal rights. The Supreme Court of Purto Rico confirmed that all the rights were ours. She did not appeal to the US Supreme Court as to overturn the local court decision. The rule is that only the US Supreme Court is able to overturn a Puerto Rico lawsuit court decision. Also the legal doctrine of res judicata means that no one has to defend the same issue twice as we had to. In spite if this the district judge, the same one that made the over 200 errors did not apply res judicata, and overturned a local cut decision. Our appeal has already been made and heard at Boston.

Songwriters aren’t neing put out of business by some new technology… just some ‘old fashined’ theft…

Yes, my father and we have been put out of business through plain theft by the cartel, publishers and record companies.

“I couldn’t agree more with your suggestion but there is a problem with implementing it… P2P sites like Gorkster REFUSE to adopt subscription fee business model becasue they will lose their traffic and thus their advertising revenues… ”

Who cares what Gorkster may refuse to do. Laws are not made on the basis of what someone thinks. Laws should be for the benefit of the people, not for a small group.

“Plus they will have to license the music and pay the creators.”
That would be for music downloaded from a server. But that is not p2p, where you download (copy) from anyone in the world. For p2p no licensing scheme will work.

“Using public funds would require a tax and no one will vote for it.”

Are you saying that Americans are so dumb that they will not pay one dollar of taxes to save 2 dollars in buying music? I think that Americans are smart enough to know that to save you sometimes have to spend first.

Also, if people are told that if they want to have art, artists must be paid, they have to pay and that the best the best and most cost effective way is using X method then X method will be adopted by the people through their representative lawmakers. This is why there are so many “free” museums that are financed by taxes. Almost always there no voting by the taxpayers. Lawmakers decide for them.

“Especially while they can steal all the music they want for free.”

You know, anyone get all free meals by visiting relatives and friends frequently at meal time. I personably have never met a person that does that. They may exist, but they are not many. People copy music because it is so easy to do. They do it because the records they purchased are boring. They do it because they dislike the music industry because they sue kids, They do it because records are too expensive. They do it because they do not think they are stealing. And so on. We cannot change any of this.

“The most independent source of figures (I know you won’t accept ANY music biz generated numbers as credible) is the US bureau of labor statistics which shows Songwriter/musician as the NUMBER ONE loser in income in the year 2002-3 (the middle of the Napster illegal downloading rage) ‘nuf said…”

Assuming that songwriters and musicians deserve more money, then a new model is needed to improve the situation. Counting on the cartel to represent the interest of composers and musicians is like counting on the rabbit to watch the carrot patch. If on the other hand musicians are being replaced by synthesizers and recording, that is technology, that cannot be stopped any more that movies could not be stopped because it resulted in a drop for the demand of live entertainers and actors. I wonder what the labor statistics said at the beginning of the 20th century when all the new technology (cars, movies, radio, telephone) began to boom and the telegraph operators started to disappear and suffer economically.

“Many songwriters now own their own publishing and THEY are the best source of how revenues have dropped and believe me, THEY HAVE DROPPED!”

I run a publishing company and have had no revenue at all and we have a great product… a publishers dream. And who shafted us? The publishers. The record companies. The bastards you, defend, perhaps without realizing it.

“You can play semantics and dance around the word ‘Stealing’ all day but downloading a copyrighted music file on a P2P service without the permission of the composer is Theft… plain and simple and if you refuse to admit this then we have no basis for further discussion because you are merely an apologist for theives…”

But the thieves are the publishers that steal song rights and the record companies that are pirates because they either record without licenses, do not pay royalties, or cook the boos to pay less. And then they fight kid “piracy”, like Sony does.

On our site you can download many mp3 files. You have no way of knowing if your downloading is legal or no. You can download the song Genesis. Genesis (and other songs) is registered to this day at ASCAP, illegally, by Peermusic, an infringement that they have refused to stop, even after being told by the court that they infringed that song by licensing the song. I have told your friend at ASCAP, your organization that they are infringing our rights and must remove the song from the repertoire. ASCAP has refused to remove the song. I assume that you as a member of ASCAP are responsible of what your association does. Your association is also a thief, and you are concerned about the theft of kids? You, without realizing it are an an apologist for ASCAP, the publishers and the record companies that have shafted us. Please…

What I defend is the non criminalization of the copying of digital files becaus that cannot be technically stopped. Industry is fighting the windmills, but not out moral conviction but because they want to continue selling overpriced, lousy products.

“BTW the guy who sold Bill Gates DOS got 50 grand as I understand and he thought he was making the ‘Deal of a lifetime” As it turned out he was… Once again you can’t protect people from their own bad decisions.”

Yes but the law/constitution does not say that author rights be created for authors that are not suckers. There are no exception in the copyright law for people that make bad decisions. I think you missed my point and I apologize if I was not clear.

Also… the distinction between professional and amateur is not a hard line on a case by case basis but in the macro-view there is a MASSIVE difference… between say, the Eagles or U2 and the garage band down the street. You know it and so does everyone else…. that’s why when faced with the choice of downloading free amateur music that is all over the web and stealing copyrighted PROFESSIONAL music on P2P services like Grokster people overwhelmingly choose to steal the professional stuff…

You make distinctions between “professional” and “amateur” that does not exists. What happens is this: Many great artists know how difficult, sacrificed and uncertain is the profession. Being musician may even be dangerous (like in Some Like it Hot). So they remain “amateurs”. Some of the better singers and musicians I know are a school teacher, and engineer, a jeweler, and a music teacher. The music teacher, an occasional concert, is the best classical guitarist I know of. I think that he has never recorded. These artists I am talking about are the ones that prefer a steady salary to the glory in being “professional. I am sure in your neighborhood it is the same.

Because of new technology these amateur artists are coming out of the closet, With almost nothing and a synthesizer anyone can make a fairly good recording. Should synthesizers and pc based recording studios be prohibited so as to protect the professionals or the cartels? Of couese not.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Glad to see that we can agree that Grokster should burn in hell!

As to your many legal difficulties, I wish you well, but your Step mother (the 5th) will own much more than 1/5 of one percent at the end of your appeal… the American precedent is 50% of the TOTAL (set in the Roger Miller case.) So you might have thought twice before appealing and let her keep her original 20%

“Many industries have dissapeared as new technologies emerged. ”

Somgwriters aren’t neing put out of business by some new technology… just some ‘old fashined’ theft…

“As a solution I propose that p2p sites be financed with either subscription or with public funds and that the money then be distributed among performers, orchestra directors, arrangers, songwriters and reord producers (but not through record producers or publishers). Some of the money may be set aside for an artist retiremeent fund. This way the middlemen are eliminated, music will be less expensive and the money saves in distribution costs can be spent spent on other things, such as concerts, education, etc. and that will create new jobs and oppotunities, including for musicians.”

I couldn’t agree more with your suggestion but there is a problem with implementing it… P2P sites like Gorkster REFUSE to adopt subscription fee business model becasue they will lose their traffic and thus their advertising revenues… Plus they will have to licens the music and pay the creators. Using public funds would require a tax and no one will vote for it. Especially while they can steal all the music they want for free.

“That sales have plummeted, I say again “show the numbers”. If they do drop as they may in the obsolete future of physical distribution at high prices, then let it be so. ”

The most independent source of figures (I know you won’t accept ANY music biz generated numbers as credible) is the US bureau of labor statistics which shows Songwriter/musician as the NUMBER ONE loser in income in the year 2002-3 (the middle of the Napster illegal downloading rage) ‘nuf said…

Many songwriters now own their own publishing and THEY are the best source of how revenues have dropped and believe me, THEY HAVE DROPPED!

You can play semantics and dance around the word ‘Stealing’ all day but downloading a copyrighted music file on a P2P service without the premission of the composer is Theft… plain and simple and if you refuse to admit this then we have no basis for further discussion because you are merely an apologist for theives…

BTW the guy who sold Bill Gates DOS got 50 grand as I understand and he thought he was making the ‘Deal of a lifetime” As it turned out he was… Once again you can’t protect people from their own bad decisions.

Also… the distinction between professional and amateur is not a hard line on a case by case basis but in the macro-view there is a MASSIVE difference… between say, the Eagles or U2 and the garage band down the street. You know it and so does everyone else…. that’s why when faced with the choice of downloading free amatuer music that is all over the web and stealing copyrighted PROFESSIONAL music on P2P services like Grokster people overwhelmingly choose to steal the professional stuff…

The question is based on a false premise and characterization. I do not claim that copyrights are worthless. I do think that they should benefit the creators, not the copyright hogs (the cartel) that hijack the copyrights.

The widow was the estate executor and as such assigned all the music rights to us children of the composer. Shortly thereafter she was “convinced” by publisher ACEMLA that she was, as widow, the owner of the rights. She then agreed to assign the rights to all the songs to ACEMLA and married an ACEMLA executive. ACEMLA then went into action to do business with our songs. We complained about to ACEMLA it and were immediately sued by the widow so as to protect ACEMLA’s non existent rights, alleging tortuous interference and that she owned all the music because it was community property.

We suspect that that lawsuit from the widow really came from ACEMLA and not the widow. Of course on a paper you can write any name you want.

The widow was my father’s 5th, wife but strangely she claimed ownership of all the the songs, including the many (majority) he composed before he married her. She based her claim to ownership in community property law. She lost the lawsuit. The court stated that the music was not community property and that anyway she had assigned already the rights to the Venegas siblings.

ACEMLA decided to ignore the decision of the court and continued to claim ownership and continued to license the songs. In the process they received royalty payments from their licensees or 100,000 dollars (confirmed through discovery documents). I suspect the actual amount is over 400,000 dollars since royalties from a confirmed 5 million copy seller CD produced by Sony was paid to ACEMLA.

We then sued ACEMLA and the widow for copyright infringement, since ACEMLA, under authority of the widow was illegally exploiting the songs of my father.

The story about our trying to take the widows rights is propagated by ACEMLA and is pure nonsense. The ownership is ours as decided by the courts (state and federal). The federal court here decided that the widow has a 20 percent ownership on 8 renewal period songs. We believe that that ownership was decided in our favor in local courts and that the federal judge is wrong and we have appealed. If the appeals fails she will own and estimated 1/5 of one percent of all the rights, but anyway, she and ACEMLA will have to compensate us for the songs that may have been lost because she gave the song (unknown to us at this time) material to ACEMLA.

“Why bother getting rights back, if as you say, you can’t stop people from stealing the songs wholesale and distributing them on P2P networks for free global distribution?”

We are not bothering to get our rights back because they have always been ours, after our father passed away. There are a few songs (about 20) where Peermusic claims they own the rights. If that were so we would then be the beneficial owners. Were claim (not want) 100 percent of those rights because they are ours. Additionally we do not want the name Peermusic associated with our music. Peermusic is publisher that does not publish and does not promote the songs and does not pay any royalties. In 1997 Peermusic recognized us as owners of those songs and asked new assignments from us, when they could not or want to show how the songs were acquired. Now we know that the songs were acquired in a less than honest way (remember the “without the author” suspecting letter?).

Maybe the question should be: Why if Peermusic never earned any money with 20 or so Venegas songs they want to own them? Why have they spent a million dollars in legal fees if as they says the songs they now claim to own were no liked and that is why they only earned less than 1,000 dollars in royalties (not necessarily any of that was ever paid to anyone, to my knowledge)?. Why do they want songs that they have never gotten anyone to recorded it in the 50 or so years they say they owned the songs?

The answer is simple: Peermusic badly want to win the case to save their reputation, since, if we prevail they may be ruined as a publisher. They now have to worry that they have become an intrinsic part of the history of Guillermo Venegas. Peermusic, i think, wants to rewrite the history or that history not be written. But the problem now is that that history will say everything about the music publishing business. Remember, Peermusic is the biggest publisher, they claim. A big blemish will ruin their reputation and that is not my concern as is not our purpose. We are just defending our rights.

If you have visited our site you should know that Peermusic claimed that we had no right to information so as to explain away why they never showed us the proof as to how they obtained the songs of my father before 1997 (when they asked that we assign them the rights to the songs). To me a publisher that says that the beneficial owners of the songs that they are supposed to manage for the benefit of the beneficial owner, have no right to information should not be allowed to be in the business, let alone be the legal owners of the songs we own as beneficial owners.

BTW, one thing I have found is that publishers never tell a songwriter that they are beneficial owners, as recognized by the Copyright Act or that beneficial owners can sue infringers as is also authorized by the Copyright Act. Why, the prestigious Peermusic lawyer said he never hear of the concept of beneficial owners.

I have mentioned the term “beneficial owner” and it’s concept to many composers. None had ever heard of the term.

I hope you get the picture.

“What about setting up a P2P network that sells advertising by drawing traffic to their site with the lure of free unlicensed digital copies of Copyrighted material… exactly like Grokster is doing? Leaving creators with NO market for their songs because they can’t compete with stolen merchandise.”

The p2p networks with advertising were set up because the lawmakers, as always, are behind the times and did not legislate for the new technology. As a solution I proposer that p2p sites be financed with either subscription or with public funds and that the money then be distributed among performers, orchestra directors, arrangers, songwriters and record producers (but not through record producers or publishers). Some of the money may be set aside for an artist retirement fund. This way the middlemen are eliminated, music will be less expensive and the money saves in distribution costs can be spent spent on other things, such as concerts, education, etc. and that will create new jobs and opportunities, including for musicians.

Maybe there are other alternate methods to use p2p to help the creators, but covering our eyes will not make p2p go away.

“Using Youth as Human Shields against lawsuits is EXACTLY what Grokster is doing! They argued in front of the 9th Circuit that the Record labels can’t sue THEM and must sue their users instead! Because of the decision in that case the RIAA had no choice but to sue the ‘Youth’ instead of the business that was cashing in on them…”

If Grokster said “must sue users” and the RIAA took their advise, they should both burn in hell.

“Tell that to the all the major record chains that have gone out of business or are in the process of going bankrupt. The numbers don’t lie, sales have plummeted as illegal downloading has surged…
Concert ticket sales are also down…”

Many industries have disappeared as new technologies emerged. If that happens to the record manufacturing industry so it be. Pretty soon we will be seeing DVDs with a capacity to store 15,000 mp3 songs. Potentially this new product could create havoc to record makers. Is the solution the prohibition of this new technology and of mp3 to protect some.

That sales have plummeted, I say again “show the numbers”. If they do drop as they may in the obsolete future of physical distribution at high prices, then let it be so.

“Just because some publishers may be stealing pennies but your solution is to have people steal the whole damned song! That’s just ridiculous. Copyright law is the foundation of creativity. Without remuneration there is no creation. We had a thousand of years without protection for creators, It was called “The Dark Ages”"

First let us get our history straight. Before and after “The Dark Ages”, a phenomena in a few European countries, there were periods of great European artistic achievement in the Mediterranean basin. Take for example, the Renaissance. Nothing of this had to do with laws that protected the rights of creators. It had mostly to do with the infighting and support or lack of support for art of the oligarchies that “owned” the various countries and duchy.

“I simply understand the fact that illegal file sharing on P2P networks is no friend to creators. How can stealing the music outright be better than the system we have now (with all its flaws)
which compensates the creators. I can tell you that after twenty seven years as a professional songwriter I have been paid basically what was owed me by my many publishers… But I have carefully and personally negotiated my contracts, and turned down offers that weren’t fair. I have fought for my rights (and all songwriters rights) on all occasions and in all ways. I’ve kept very good records and charted all sales and compared my statements to the sales figures, I have refused to sign contracts without strong auditing provisions. This is the basis of doing good business and the same thing you must do in ANY business or you will get SHAFTED.. No matter what work you do. That’s just life.”

Good for you. I only wish I could say the same for any of the many composers I have met, including some internationally famous ones. The concept that creativity, the good kind, is somehow a product of what the creator earns in a foolish concept. The desire to create comes from within and is the result of instinct. Einstein did not work for money. Neither Mozart nor Beethoven. Neither did my father.

Bill Gates became wealthy because he purchase an operating system from its creator for peanuts. The creator of that operating system never made any other successful program or enterprise, at leas one that has survived to this day. A good example of how the multi billion dollar industry that arose out of his labor did not help its creator to make new successful creations at all.

“Two wrongs don’t make a right and stealing the music doesn’t right any wrongs done to songwriters and artists and musicians and eventually everybody will suffer as the music gets worse and worse and worse…”

The problem with the word “stealing” is that if everybody that copies a digital files and photocopies a magazine article or saves a news story to his hard disk is stealing, then everyone steals and stealing is like cholesterol, there is a good kind and there is a bad kind. Then i am a thief too, the good kind. So we have two choices, have two kinds of stealing or change the laws so that copying digital files and making photocopies are legal (if the copies are not sold).

“because it is being written and recorded by amateurs instead of professionals.”

At a music industry convention of about 5 years ago, on the subject of the lack of growth, a music industry consultant (I forget his name) told the audience that the problem with their industry was that industry was pushing mostly terrible music. He said that 95 percent of the music on radio was bad. I agree with, although it has gotten worse in the last five years. I for example have stopped listening popular music on radio stations. I also know that good music is also being composed and recorded. But the pipeline is controlled by the copyright cartel and is closed to the best records and music.

I disagree with you concept that there are “amateur” or “professional” creators. Just like there is good and bad music, there are bad and good creators. Money has nothing to do with the creation process. As said before, creation comes from within and from instinct. I think music creators should be paid for their work but I do not think that that will make the creator produce more good work than he/she will produce from an inner drive anyway. Of course with money, he/she may afford to publish more works, but while that is not a creation process, it is a good thing. Of course though digital file copying or p2p you can publish without money. That is why publishers are scared. That is why p2p is good for culture and artist recognition and for many artists, recognition is the driving force.

Don’t get me wrong. You have some valid personal concerns but the solution is for creators like you, artists, and the people to take over and discard the polluters, the cartel. You should read the ‘Wake up America !’ article on p2p.

BTW, one thing I have found is that publishers never tell a songwriter that they are beneficial owners, as recognized by the Copyright Act or that beneficial owners can sue infringers as is also authorized by the Copyright Act. Why, the prestigious Peermusic lawyer said he never hear of the concept of beneficial owners.

I have mentioned the term “beneficial owner” and it’s concept to many composers. Nne had ever heard of the term.

I hope you get the picture.

“What about setting up a P2P network that sells advertising by drawing traffic to their site with the lure of free unlicensed digital copies of Copyrighted material… exactly like Grokster is doing? Leaving creators with NO market for their songs because they can’t compete with stolen merchandise.”

The p2p networks with advertising were set up because the lawmakers, as always, are beind the times and did not legislate for the new technology. As a solution I ropose that p2p sites be financed with either subscription or with public funds and that the money then be distributed among performers, orchestra directors, arrangers, songwriters and reord producers (but not through record producers or publishers). Some of the money may be set aside for an artist retiremeent fund. This way the middlemen are eliminated, music will be less expensive and the money saves in distribution costs can be spent spent on other things, such as concerts, education, etc. and that will create new jobs and oppotunities, including for musicians.

Maybe there are other alternate methos to use p2p to help the creators, but covering our eyes will not make p2p go away.

“Using Youth as Human Shields against lawsuits is EXACTLY what Grokster is doing! They argued in front of the 9th Circuit that the Record labels can’t sue THEM and must sue their users instead!
Because of the decision in that case the RIAA had no choice but to sue the ‘Youth’ instead of the business that was cashing in on them…”

If Grokster said “must sue users” and the RIIA took their advise, they should both burn in hell.

“Tell that to the all the major record chains that have gone out of business or are in the process of going bankrupt. The numbers don’t lie, sales have plummeted as illegal downloading has surged…
Concert ticket sales are also down…”

Many industries have dissapeared as new technologies emerged. If that happens to the record manufacturing industry so it be. Pretty soon we will be seeing DVDs with a capacity to store 15,000 mp3 songs. Potentially this new product could create havoc to record makers. Is the solution the prohibition of this new technology and of mp3 to protect some.

That sales have plummetted, I say again “show the numbers”. If they do drop as they may in the obsolete future of physical distribution at high prices, then let it be so.

“Just because some publishers may be stealing pennies but your soultion is to have people steal the whole damned song! That’s just ridiculous. Copyright law is the foundation of creativity. Without remuneration there is no creation. We had a thousand of years without protection for creators, It was called “The Dark Ages”"

First let us get our history staigh. Before and after “The Dark Ages”, a phenomena in a few Europena countries, there were periods of great European artistic achivement in the Mediterranean basin. Take for example, the reinessance. Nothing of this had to do with laws that protected the rights of creators. It had mostly to do with the infigting and support or lack of support for art of the oligarchies that “owned” the various countries and duchys.

“I simply understand the fact that illegal file sharing on P2P networks is no friend to creators. How can stealing the music outright be better than the system we have now (with all its flaws)
which compensates the creators. I can tell you that after twenty seven years as a professional songwriter I have been paid basically what was owed me by my many publishers… But I have carefully and personally negotiated my contracts, and turned down offers that weren’t fair. I have fought for my rights (and all songwriters rights) on all occasions and in all ways. I’ve kept very good records and charted all sales and compared my statements to the sales figures, I have refused to sign contracts without strong auditing provisions. This is the basis of doing good business and the same thing you must do in ANY business or you will get SHAFTED.. No matter what work you do. That’s just life.”

Good for you. I only wish I could say the same for any of the many composers I have met, including some internationally famous ones. The concept that creativity, the good kind, is somehow a product of what the creator earns in a foolish concept. The desire to create comes from within and is the result of instinct. Eisntein did not work for money. Neither Mozard nor Beethoven. Neither did my father.

Bill Gates became weathy because he purchase an operating system from its creator for peanuts. The creator of that operating system never made any other sucessful program or enterprise, at leas one that has survived to this day. A good example of how the multi billion dollar industry that arose out of his labor did not help its creator to make new sucessful creations at all.

“Two wrongs don’t make a right and stealing the music doesn’t right any wrongs done to songwriters and artists and musicians and eventually everybody will suffer as the music gets worse and worse and worse…”

The problem with the word “stealing” is that if everybody that copies a digital files and photocopies a magazine article or saves a news story to his hard disk is stealing, then everyone steals and stealing is like cloresterol, there is a good kind and there is a bad kind. Then i am a thief too, the good kind. So we have two choices, have two kinds of stealing or change the laws so that copying digital files and making photocopies are legal (if the copies are not sold).

“because it is being written and recorded by amateurs instead of professionals.”

At a music industry convention of about 5 years ago, on the subject of the lack of growth, a music industry consultant (I forget his name) told the audience that the problem with thei ndustry was that industry was pushing mostly terrible music. He said that 95 percent of the music on radio was bad. I agree with, although it has gotten worse in the last five years. I for example have stopped listening popular music on radio stations. I also know that good music is also being composed and recorded. But the pipeline is controlled by the copyright cartel and is closed to the best records and music.

I disagree with you concept that there are “amateur” or “professional” creators. Just like there is good and bad music, there are bad and good creators. Money has nothing to do with the creation process. As said before, creation comes from within and from instinct. I think music creators should be paid for their work but I do not think that that will make the creator produce more good work than he/she will produce from an inner drive anyway. Of course with money, he/she may afford to publish more works, but while that is not a creation process, it is a good thing. Of course though digital file copying or p2p you can publish without money. That is why publishers are scared. That is why p2p is good for culture and artist recognition and for many artists, recognition is the driving force.

Don’t get me wrong. You have some valid persobnal concerns but the solution is for creators like you, artists, and the people to take over and discard the poluters, the cartel. You should read the ‘Wake up America !’ article on p2p.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas

So glad you asked! At least somebody on this board wants to engage in a REAL discussion of the issues! (instead of attack me personally *LOL*)

The truth is that we USED to get paid when music was played over the radio in restaurants but that right was taken away from us by the Copyright Extension bill… (at least for the vast majority of restaurants)

In regards to what Irish songs it covers EVERY Irsih song still under copyright and being played in US restaurants… Including the famous “Hey! That’s my beer” which alone generates Billions every year…*grin*

The issue with Happy Birthday is just that, an issue. And yes it does seem crazy that it is STILL under copyright, but it is simply an exceptional case and nobody is forced to use it in a film (as you notice) so it’s hardly a cause to overturn copyright protection!
The original intent of the framers of the copyright law in the 2oth century (1909) was to grant copyright to the composers and their heirs up to the age of majority of their grandchildren… But at that time average life expectancy was 50 years so Irving Berlin’s songs were falling into public domain while he was still alive! (becasue he lived past 100) That’s originally how the copyright got extented. This latest time it was more about Disney and the restaurant association wanting the music for nothing.

So now if they take back the twenty year extention the writers will get screwed again! Because we got nothing else in return for losing our restaurant money….

You are absolutely correct that a ‘balance’ needs to be struck but that balance is a political process in this country and the political process is much like making sausage… you don’t REALLY want to know what went into the making of the thing!

HAHAHAHA…. such a clever Ad Hominem attack! Too bad you can’t use logic instead…. Your personal insults don’t strenghten you position, they simply bespeak the bankruptcy of your thought process and your lack of education and culture.(except for cartoon culture… Foghorn Leghorn is a hero of mine)

“The word is “infringement.”

Yes it is, and it is a Federal crime… punishable by jail time… you can dance around it all you like but break that law and you can go to jail…

“These words are indicative of the high temperature rhetoric and hysterical hyperbole that have been injected into the discussion by the highly paid lobbyists for the intellectual property industries called the RIAA, the MPAA, and the BSA.”

If you want to see a perfcect example of hysterical hyperbole look no farther than the above article where this infinitely hyperbolic statement was made… “What the RIAA would really like is for the Government to make any kind of software development illegal with obtaining some kind of Government issued permit, like a ham radio license.” And when I aasked for an original source for that statement none was offered so I asked for a retraction and once again, none was offered! So much for who is hysterical here.

“Mere copying alone does not infringement make.”

Of course not and I never claimed it was… (what ARE you reading!?!?!) I said that downloading a copy of a copyrighted song without permission of the composer is a crime and distributing a copy worldwide on a P2P network without a license is a crime…
That’s not me talking that is the LAW….

“the highly paid lobbyists for the intellectual property industries called the RIAA, the MPAA, and the BSA.”

Dude… have you ever looked at the salaries of the P2P United people? Have you ever seen the lobbying efforts of the tech community in Washington? Have you ever seen the MASSIVE press campaigns waged by multi-billionaires like Mark Cuban against copyright? Dollar for Dollar the RIAA and their ilk are massivley out-gunned on capitol hill. The fact that you think they aren’t merely indicates that you have been swayed by their press releases and Web Blogs… even MORE proof of my point… Just stop for a moment and consider ALL of the enemies of copyright… you have all the equpitment manufactures represented by the Consumer electronics Association. You have the ISP represented by the telecoms, YOu have the broadcasters who want the content for free, you even have the library association! I mena Geeeeeezzzz you think the Record labels have more influence than these guys!!! Wow… would that it were so! Remember that every congressional district in the country has broadcasters and usually some tech industry, but the record labels really only have three congressional districts they could conceiveably depend on (and even those are contested….)

In fact, your entire lack of REAL understanding of copyright issues is proof that the tech people are better funded and better organized than the music community. Otherwise you wouldn’t be so wrong on all the issues… UNLESS you were simply dissembling for your OWN greedy purposes… But I would NEVER assume that about you. (As you have about me) I just think you have been swayed by propaganda, and once you hear the truth it will set you free!

After all, you have enjoyed the fruits of creative labor, you have watched the wonderful Warner Brothers cartoons and even learned the name of one of the BEST characters!

Behaving contrary to what a law states is not always a ‘crime’. Copyright infringement is principally a matter handled in civil, not criminal courts, unless it crosses the line by virtue of being an organized enterprise and then it’s usually prosecuted under RICO and conspiracy to commit fraud statutes.

Depriving someone of some potential future income that it’s not at all certain they would even receive is not ’stealing’ from them like mugging them as they leave the ATM.

The RIAA, MPAA, and BSA all seem to think: One infringed work equals one lost sale at full retail price equals a ‘loss’ for the industry. You can not ‘lose’ something you don’t have in the first place.

Copying a song is not a ‘crime’. It may be infringement if how that copy is put to use does not constitute fair use. Mere copying alone does not infringement make.

Exactly what kind of Irish Songs are at issue here? I live in Boston, which has to be the capital of Irish folk music in the US, from the Gin Mills on the waterfront in Southie to the pub, taverns, taprooms, bars, dives, holes, etc strung from one end of Dot Ave to the other. Most of the live acts in these places have in their repetoire a collection of Folk Standards (Danny Boy, When Irish eyes are smiling, Tura-loora-loora, and Hey! That’s my beer!) Sorry, that last one is just something said quite often. And of course, since it’s Boston “Charlie and the MTA.” In addition they have some more contemporary pieces, and with some performers, some of it rather political. Or are we talking U2, Sinead O’Connor, etc?

There comes a point in time when it is just almost absurd when copyright is still a lingering issue in regards to songs that are ‘performed’ so often as to have become a ritual.

Has anyone ever noticed how rarely you ever hear the song “Happy Birthday” appear on TV or in the movies, even when a scene centers around a child’s birthday party? Or in a ‘family’ restaurant where there is a specific ‘procedure’ for birthdays whereby the staff gathers round the table of the birthday person to subject them to the traditional public embarrassment of birthdaydom. They NEVER sing Happy Birthday. It’s always something else. That’s because, even some 130 years after the song was first performed, it’s still under copyright, and I believe that Warner owns the copyright. It was not actually copyrighted until 40 years after it was created though. In patent law that would be laughably absurb. So if someone wants to use it, they have to get cleanance and pay royalties.

There needs to be a balance struck between the two ends of these whereby something SO commonplace enters the public domain simply because it no longer has commercial value because it’s hardly a novelty and others who might pay to use it shun it simply because of the hassle and those who perform transborder freeloading of contemporary works.

What you DON’T know was that buried in that same bill was an evil piece of business that deprived US songwriters of earning money when their songs are played in most restaurants (formerly a good source of revenue)

Then the Irish writers sued the US in the Wolrd Court for NOT paying their writers when their songs are played in restaurants (which violate international treaties) and the Irish WON and the court levied fines on the US that ALL taxpayers are having to pay… that’s right YOU are having to pay taxes for restaurants to play music in the US and US songwriters aren’t getting a dime because of the copyright extention bill…

So don’t think that Copyright extention was a windfall for creators… it was a kick in the teeth for songwriters.

Then we had to go to the Supreme court to fight to keep the damned 20 year extention since it was supposed to ‘balance’ the money we had taken from us by the restaurant association…

Now we have to listen to the Anti-Copyright crusaders get up on their high-horse about how the creators are trying to extend copyright indefinitely!!! Hell, we didn’t want the extention in the first place, we would have rather had the restaurant money that was taken from us in the same bill…. but once Disney waded in it was a done deal…

So don’t start raggin’ on me about ‘limiting’ the term of copyright… instead, start writing your congressman to overturn that wretched restaurant bill and then we can all stop paying the fines and US songwriters can get paid again.

M I C K E Y

M O U S E!!!

That’s right. The copyright was about to expire on Mickey Mouse and Michael Eisner was having just the most hysterical hissy fit about it. Having Mickey go ‘public domain’ would mean that Disney would no long be able absolutely control the use of Mickey’s name, image, etc and we know how those corporate types just can’t stand not having all of that control.

But perhaps this is not a bad thing. Perhaps by the next day of reckoning for Mickey’s copyright, medical science will have advanced far enough where they can go ahead and thaw Walt outl, treat his cancer, and he can start another empire.

As to your comments on P2P let me address a few of them quickly…

“d. The solution for the creators is to get their rights back and the elimination as much as possible of the middleman that distributes the music and that is no longer required.”

Why bother getting rights back, if as you say, you can’t stop people from stealing the songs wholesale and distribtuing them on P2P networks for free global distribution?

“e. Only the sale of unlicensed copies of digital copies should be prohibited. That will leave the sale market for the creators.”

What about setting up a P2P network that sells advertising by drawing traffic to their site with the lure of free unlicensed digital copies of Copyrighted material… exactly like Grokster is doing? Leaving creators with NO market for their songs because they can’t compete with stolen merchandise.

“f. Criminilizing youth is simply bad social policy and suing the potential customer is bad business policy and publicity. ”

Using Youth as Human Shields against lawsuits is EXACTLY what Grokster is doing! They argued in front of the 9th Circuit that the Record labels can’t sue THEM and must sue their users instead!
Because of the decision in that case the RIAA had no choice but to sue the ‘Youth’ instead of the business that was cashing in on them…

“f. Sales of recordings and live performances may actually increase as more p2p downloading is done.”

Tell that to the all the major record chains that have gone out of business or are in the process of going bankrupt. The numbers don’t lie, sales have plummeted as illegal downloading has surged…
Concert ticket sales are also down…

“The massive copyright theft is really done by the law, the legal system and the cartels, not the kids who download or copy digital files.”

Just because some publishers may be stealing pennies but your soultion is to have people steal the whole damned song! That’s just ridiculous. Copyright law is the foundation of creativity. Without remuneration there is no creation. We had a thousand of years without protection for creators, It was called “The Dark Ages”

“I cannot undesrand how you as a composer be so friendly to, and pro, copyright cartels. The cartel is probably shafting you or your friend too”

I simply understand the fact that illegal file sharing on P2P networks is no friend to creators. How can stealing the music outright be better than the system we have now (with all its flaws)
which compensates the creators. I can tell you that after twenty seven years as a professional songwriter I have been paid basically what was owed me by my many publishers… But I have carefully and personally negotiated my contracts, and turned down offers that weren’t fair. I have fought for my rights (and all songwriters rights) on all occasions and in all ways. I’ve kept very good records and charted all sales and compared my statements to the sales figures, I have refused to sign contracts without strong auditing provisions. This is the basis of doing good business and the same thing you must do in ANY business or you will get SHAFTED.. No matter what work you do. That’s just life.

Two wrongs don’t make a right and stealing the music doesn’t right any wrongs done to songwriters and artists and musicians and eventually everybody will suffer as the music gets worse and worse and worse because it is being written and recorded by amateurs instead of professionals.

The song I was talking about, “El Cumbanchero” was not composed by my father. The composer was Rafael Hernandez, a black composer from Puerto Rico who is today considered, along with Mexico’s Agustin Lara (of “Granada” fame) the most successful Latin American composer of popular music. A very good friend of my father.

“Moving to Canada isn’t nearly as easy as you might think… (sadly, or I would be there tomorrow! I tried and was rejected during the seventies because I was too poor)”

You see, you are an American composer and because of that you are too poor to leave the US. I have the same problem. Since no one pays us royalties after using my father’s songs I am too poor too!

“Songs after 1976 revert to the composer after 35 years no matter WHAT the song assignments say. ”

The problem is that my father never assigned any songs to Peermusic after 1976. He MAY have legally assigned two songs to Peermusic, but the assignments contracts had a clause that stated that Peermusic retained the renewal rights (for no compensation). While I think that this was illegal, the judge said otherwise (we have appealed this point). Neither of the two songs have ever generated any royalties and no licenses have ever been issued by Peermusic for a recording new recording. For one of the songs Peermusic has no score or recording and no one, including us, know how it sounds. All Peermusic has is a song name and an 1947 assignment contract. The song has never been copyrighted by anyone, or registered with any performance society or Harry Fox. This all goes to show how some publishers operate. Because the song has never been copyright registered the song now has an automatic copyright to 70 years after the death of my father, that is until 2063 which means that Peer has the ownership and copyright for 116 years and in that time the song could not have earned a cent because Peermusic threw away the music.

Just as the one song described above, each of the other 20 other songs claimed by Peermusic has problems: Royalties never paid, no recording ever made, many have no scores and no one knows how the song sounds, one was stolen from another composer, and 14 are named in the “without the author suspecting letter”. The judge said that all of these belong to Peermusic. That is being appealed.

“Songs before 1976 had to be terminated after the first 28 years but often the composers sold the right to termination to the publisher (as I am sure you know) Or lost their paperwork and let the termination date slip by.”

According to the contracts of Peermusic, the renewal rights which accrued at 28 years were given, not sold to Peermusic.

“Once you sign the song to a publisher they will never let it go until they have to, no matter whether they are pitching the song or not. This is usually because they advanced money to the composer and it is often the only guarantee they will recoup their investment…”

I would not call the advance payment that publishers maker as an investment. It is more akin to a loan, a trap, using monet made by the songwriters themselves.

“You can often buy back the rights to old unrecorded songs by paying back the advances, but this varies with each publisher. I don’t know Peer Music’s policy about this, but they are within their rights to hold the song for as long as the assignments are in force.”

I would not say that they are within their rights if the assignment contract is misleading, gives only rights to the publisher and guarantees nothing to the songwriter, as is always the case, at least in the many actually signed songwriter contracts I have seen, all f which were preceded with a “we will make your song a hit” sales pitch.

BTW, my father returned the advance payments to Peermusic in 1964 by Peermusic claimed the songs after that, until today.

Your father’s struggle to help set up a composer’s society mirrors what happened in the US the first two times the songwriters tried to organize, only during the Depression in 1931 did they finally succeed… Songwriters are so often their own worst enemies… never organizing and signing bad contracts!

Yes, the worst enemies of the slaves were the slaves themselves and the worst enemies of the exterminated Jewish people were themselves, because they never revolted. I do not agree with your logic of blaming the victims. For eaxmple, for slavery it may be better to blame Washington (wo had many slaves) and the jusrists of the sacred Supreme Court (who said that the constitutional rights wer not available to blacks because they were no humans), rather than blaming the slaves themselves.

“Actually I do know of audits that looked directly at source documentation of the royalties… but these audits were conducted on Songwriters Guild contracts which have excellent auditing provisions.”

Yes, but that is not what is needed, What is needed is a published audit made by a law mandated organization that will look after the interests of all the creators. Until then, the Copyright Act is only for the benefit of the copyright hogging cartels that have organized themselves to lobby for their interests. Again, there is no single organization that has an oversight function over royalty payments.

“This is because Songwriters are considered ’self employed’ and their is no Governmental regulatory agency that oversees royalty payments… we are supposed to negotiate contracts that allow us to audit on our own. That requires good lawyers and some leverage in the market place. (a few hits under your belt)”

Songwriters are not independently and de-facto self employed because they depend almost totally on the collaboration of others, be it publishers, record companies, performers, ASCAP, etc. Self employed is a programmer that only depends on his customers. If the programmer is a “self employed programmer” employed by a software company under contract, he is really an employee regardless of the legalities and denials. He just does not get the fringe benefits and is easier to let go. Anyway how can a songwriter be self employ if his earning are less than his songwriting related expenditures and must therefore need a regular job as a musician or postal clerk.

BTW, our most successful songwriter (Tite Curet Alonso, the called “the father of salsa”) in the past 20 years, who assigned his songs to Peermusic died broke last year, even though over 1,000 of his songs have been recorded. He was a career and retired postal worker. That is how he made a living. From his music he got little or nothing.

“Discussion about a ‘best practices’ standard for reporting royalties to songwriters from music publishers are currently under way and things may change in the near future (hopefully)”

Good news. Would like to know who is working on this. I hope it is no the publishers or the publisher association. You cannot have rabbits guarding the carrot patch.

If you have sufficient documentation of your ownership of these copyrights and Sony (or anyone else) has released recordings without a license then you should and will prevail in court.

We have all the proof, the copyright registrations. Sony has admitted the infringement and is depositing royalties in the court, but their lawyers have a magic spell over the case and the case is stuck in court since 2001 with no action being taken. We have a saying: Slow justice is no justice.

“If the songs are still owned by Peer Muisc they will probably enter the lawsuit with you since they stand to make half of the money…”

Peer has nothing to do with the songs infringed by Sony.

“but supporting P2P services that contribute to massive copyright theft seems an odd way to go about it!”

There are several reasons for this:

a. Technically there is no way to stop the copying of digital files. If you shut down all p2p activities the activity of copying files will simply switch to another method.

b. Copying music files is nothing new. As soon as magnetic tape recorder became popular in the 1950s, their main use was copying vinyl records and copying music from radio. Everyone who could afford a tape deck did it.

c. We must learn from the prohibition laws. Alcohol was made illegal and it went underground, to be controlled by the criminals (like marijuana now). Do we want that for with music? Strangely when alcohol was made legal again, publicity and promotion was not prohibited. The obvious was overlooked. The advertising and alcohol lobby made sure of that.

d. The solution for the creators is to get their rights back and the elimination as much as possible of the middleman that distributes the music and that is no longer required.

e. Only the sale of unlicensed copies of digital copies should be prohibited. That will leave the sale market for the creators.

f. Criminilizing youth is simply bad social policy and suing the potential customer is bad business policy and publicity. Why, it could even provoke a revolution whereby the electoral system or lobbying is eliminated and all copyrights are eliminated. While I think the Copyright Act is worthless, it must be replaced by a new one that works to protect the creators and the people. Forget about publishers.

BTW, does anyone know of a case where a kid that stole a llolypop from the candy store was sued for damages “up to 150,000 dollars?

g. And yes, the legal system. In our web page I show how a judge made over 200 errors in just one single case, so as to favor two music publishers. I hate to see anyone, a kid or a kids parent, get sued for downloading and then be thrown to a court system to get an undeserved trashing from a politically appointed federal judge who is a fried of many, if not most lawyers that practices in his/her court. Not everyone can afford the more friendly lawyers.

I once, while on jury duty, was a witness to a court case where a kid, a second year college student was accused of possessing marijuana. The marijuana was found in the pocket of his jacket, that was hanging in the wall of an apartment that he was visiting for a party. Apparently the party was too noisy, the neigbors called the Police (famous for its corruption) who raided the party. The kid was found guilty and sentenced to five years in jail by a people of heavy drinkers of alcohol (we are the rum capital of the world). When I think of p2p I always recall this case how the legal system works to criminilize youth.

f. Sales of recordings and live performances may actually increase as more p2p downloading is done. Those songwriters that permit their music to be downloaded will benefit the most. Admittedly this is my theory and I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I am playing the card on the side of p2p. As a habit, I do not gamble.

The massive copyright theft is really done by the law, the legal system and the cartels, not the kids who download or copy digital files.

I cannot undesrand how you as a composer be so friedly to, and pro, copyright cartels. The cartel is probably shafting you or your friend too.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

.

How will encouraging people to TAKE the music help you get what is due to you?

wow… I know the guy who wrote ‘Silver Bells’ and it has been recorded all over the world hundreds of times but it isn’t even CLOSE to as popular as your Dad’s song… (according to your figures)

Moving to Canada isn’t nearly as easy as you might think… (sadly, or I would be there tomorrow! I tried and was rejected during the seventies because I was too poor)

Songs after 1976 revert to the composer after 35 yeasr no matter WHAT the song assignments say. Songs before 1976 had to be terminated after the first 28 years but often the composers sold the right to termination to the publisher (as I am sure you know)
Or lost their paperwork and let the termination date slip by.

Once you sign the song to a publisher they will never let it go until they have to, no matter whether they are pitching the song or not. This is usually because they advanced money to the composer and it is often the only guarantee they will recoup their investment…
You can often buy back the rights to old unrecorded songs by paying back the advances, but this varies with each publisher. I don’t know Peer Music’s policy about this, but they are within their rights to hold the song for as long as the assignments are in force.

Your father’s struggle to help set up a composer’s society mirrors what happened in the US the first two times the songwriters tried to organize, only during the Depression in 1931 did they finally succeed… Songwriters are so often their own worst enemies… never organizing and signing bad contracts!

you said.” Do you know any composer or beneficial song owner (like me) who has ever seen an audit with the figure “percent of royalties paid to royaltiy incomes” ? I beleive that there is no such a figure published for any publisher and if they were they would not show anything like the 50 percent royalties songwrites are told they will get.

Actually I do know of audits that looked directly at source documentation of the royalties… but these audits were conducted on Songwriters Guild contracts which have excellent auditing provisions. These contracts are usually on songs that are Standards and were signed with publishers in their Second term once they were already hits… (the compsers then had the leverage to get the best contract available)

“There is no single organization that has an oversight function over royalty payments. ”
This is because Songwriters are considered ’self employed’ and their is no Governmental regulatory agency that oversees royalty payments… we are supposed to negotiate contracts that allow us to audit on our own. That requires good lawyers and some leverage in the market place. (a few hits under your belt)

Discussion about a ‘best practices’ standard for reporting royalties to songwriters from music publishers are currently under way and things may change in the near future (hopefully)

“As to the music we own that is included in about 75 records, 15 or more by Sony (millios of copies sold, without a license, we sued them in 2001, no judicial action yet), no one has paid a single cents, which only shows that American copyright laws protects the record companies but is ignored by the same record companies.”

If you have sufficient documentation of your ownership of these copyrights and Sony (or anyone else) has released recordings without a license then you should and will prevail in court.
If the songs are still owned by Peer Muisc they will probably enter the lawsuit with you since they stand to make half of the money…

I hope you are able to prevail in your struggles to secure the earnings from your father’s songs… but supporting P2P services that contribute to massive copyright theft seems an odd way to go about it! How will encouraging people to TAKE the music help you get what is due to you?

The comment that there are not 500,000 recording artists is wrong in context. The recording of El Cumbanchero have been made spread over about 70 years, througout every country in the world, by label professionals and independent amateur artists.

“You are entirely correct, and I would suggest joining whatever Puerto Rican separatist movement that may still exist…”

Instead I think I will move to Canada. There they seem to have more respect for culture and artists. Unfortnately American copyright cartels are trying to mess up Canada too. So I will wait and see if the cartel suceeds. But the weather is better here…

“The Songwriters Guild got the publishers to start working from a boiler plater contract that was agreed on by negotiation in 1931… It took twenty years to bring the publishers to the table but the American songwriters did it and you can too….”

I dont get it. American publishers still claim that song assignments last forever. That is what Peermusic claimed during our lawsuit even though the songs were not generting any income for us beneficial owners and the American court agreed with Peermusic (we are appealing that).

Peermusic said at the trial that they had never returned a song to any songwriter. This means that they take the songs, put them on the ASCAP/BMI and Harry Fox lists and that is it, No promotion at all.
Now, Peermusic is an American publisher. It would them seem to me that American songwriters have never negotated a beneficial agreement with the publisher so that songs can be managed by the publisher only as long as the publishers do their work and the song generates a reasonable income. It is mandated by plain decency. It makes one cry to see composers that get no royalties from their songs and cannot get the songs back because stubborn publishers need big song lists so as to get a bigger piece of the pie and income if by chance the song is recorded and big sales are made, accidentaly.

“It is up to the Puerto Rican composers to join together like the American composers did and fight for their rights.”

I wonder, how come composers from Puerto Rico. American citizens, do not benefit from the agreement that the Guild has made with the publishers?

Back in the 50’s a composer society was set up. My father was one of the founders. Most important local composers became members. What hapenned? Peermusic (a publisher) created a competing organization. Most important composers were under Peermusic contract based on time period contracts, where the composer promised to to give their future song production to the publisher. So the songwriters joined the Peermusic created composer association and guess what? The local organization was destroyed and the new composer organization disappeared. It is beyond me why a composer would join a “union” created by the company, the publisher.

“No it makes perfect sense… the writer gets MORE MONEY if s/he agrees not to go public with the information they learned in their own audit… and the Writers always agree! ”

Oh, you are talking about lawsuit related audits. But that audit is useless to songwriters that are not part of the lawsuit.

“Ther are indeed IRS audits of music publishers…” Do you know any composer or beneficial song owner (like me) who has ever seen an audit with the figure “percent of royalties paid to royaltiy incomes” ? I beleive that there is no such a figure published for any publisher and if they were they would not show anything like the 50 percent royalties songwrites are told they will get.

My basic point is: The accounting is dishonest. There is no single organization that has an oversight function over royalty payments. Every once in a while I get get information about the sale of specific records, only to lear that the composers of the songs got only a small fraction of the royalties.

As to the music we own that is included in about 75 records, 15 or more by Sony (millios of copies sold, without a license, we sued them in 2001, no judicial action yet), no one has paid a single cents, which only shows that American copyright laws protects the record companies but is ignored by the same record companies.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

And let me REPEAT… SHOW ME the language in the (now defunct) bill that states that the RIAA wants all software approved by them before release… because that is what this article claims!

Let me quote the article,

“What the RIAA would really like is for the Government to make any kind of software development illegal with obtaining some kind of Government issued permit, like a ham radio license.”

Since you can’t produce ANY statement from an ORIGINAL source that corroborates this claim then the article should be retracted and an apology should be printed!

SO how about it?

How about some Truth and Fairness?

Be a Man and admit you made it up!

The kids who complain the loudest about how crappy the music is are the very same ones downloading nearly a billion copyrighted songs every three weeks! If it’s so bad why don’t they go out and SUPPORT the good guys on the independent labels making great music instead of stealling the crappy stuff!?!?!

And let’s face it, the music has been bad ever since corporate America took over the music biz back in the 70’s but the songwriters survived anyway right up until Napster!!!! Then we started getting wiped out in record numbers… we were the biggest losers in income in the entire US economy in 2002-3… *yikes*

That was due MOSTLY to illegal downloading…

I know that when faced with the damage they have done people would rather deny responsibility than feel the shame… tha’s only human… but the facts are still the facts no matter how you spin them!

Illegal downloading is a crime and all crimes have their victims…

you sure it’s not due to the cartels releasing remakes, and the same old crap (sure the words are different but how many of todays songs really differ) over and over again.

The Induce Act, which you OBVIOUSLY haven’t read in the original,
says NOTHING about software being submitted to the RIAA for approval…

Just admit it… you can’t quote ANYTHING, ANYWHERE that is an ORIGINAL source document that coroborates your ridiculous claim.

Face it, You’re busted dude!

“once again a comparison of a physical theft to copyright infrigment… If I ’stole’ cd’s I’d be depriving the store owner of the cd’s. so yes it’s theft. Copyright infrigment is NOT theft.”

This is a distinction without a difference… the fact is you are depriving the store owner of a sale; the songwriter of a royalty, the artist of a royalty, the record label of a sale, the music publisher of a royalty… All of which adds up to a Federal Crime.
And that make you a criminal, though by your definition you are NOT a thief *HAHAHAHAHAHA*

Copyright is the exclusive right to COPY thus any unlicensed copying is a violation of my constitutional right to control the COPYING of my work…

“- no such thing as illegal p2p services. You want to talk illegal, how about racketeering and price setting. These are crimes, yes? Yet the cartels get away with them all the time.”

Oh Really? No such thiing as an illegal P2P network then read this…

“Elitetorrents now reads, This site has been permanently shut down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.The Elite Torrents network, had more than 133,000 members who collectively downloaded 2.1 million files, according to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Homeland Security Department.”

FBI shut ‘em down baby… cuz the were illegally swapping copyrighted files… Club Fed here they come!

“You want to talk illegal, how about racketeering and price setting. These are crimes, yes? Yet the cartels get away with them all the time.”

What does that have to do with songwriters? Of which I am one… you justify stealing billions of songs on P2P networks because the record labels were caught price fixing? Wow there’s some convoluted morality for ya’… dude, listen to yourself… you don’t honestly believe you are striking a ‘blow against the MAN’ by stealing songs from artists and songwriters do you? Didn’t your Mama ever tell ya’ two wrongs don’t make a right?

” I have never deprived an artist, songwriter, or even the cartels of their songs. Therefore I have stolen exactly none”

let me re-phrase so you can understand it… “How many copyrighted songs have you copied WITHOUT the permission of the writer and artist? Go ahead, you are anonymous here… admit your Federal crimes… How many thousands of dollars have you deprived people of who worked their entire lives to get one stupid break in the music biz only to have the money stolen from them by people like you who think you have a “right” to copy their work for free!
Geeeeeezzzz how ethically bankrupt do you have to be to steal from musicians?

It isn’t Walmart that has put over half of the songwrtiers in the country out of business in the last five years… Walmart has been around since the 70’s… Nope, it was illegal copyright infringement…

“I’m also not against artists who work for a living, you won’t find me real supportive of anyone who thinks they deserve millions for a short time of work. ”

Oh, like the guys who set up Grokster? Who are selling advertising using music they never created or licensed? How’s THAT for getting paid a lot of money for NO WORK AT ALL???

Have you got it now!?!?!