You are confusing the words "force" and "convince". They are not the same

Nope, I am not confusing anything. Fucking your brain is not about convincing you. While it can look pretty natural from POV of one with fucked brain, for outsiders it looks even worse than the case where gun is in use (as you won't be going rounds telling everyone to see shit if someone forced you to do it with a gun, contrary to marketing and brainwashing).

@Thorn

As I tried to argue in the previous post, the "personal ownership" understanding of copyright law is not applicable in the real world -- the vast majority of copyrights you or I might hold will prove to be worthless. The major beneficiaries are drug companies and monopolies like Microsoft and, increasingly, bioengeering firms like Monsanto which, relying on intellectual property laws, and using their endless financial resources for litigation, force farmers into either buying their products or go out of business.

Why then invoke the personal sense of property, and outrage over "theft"? The more relevant example is a drug company which will withhold a cancer drug from you unless you or your insurance company is willing to pay tens of thousands a year for a product your tax payer money helped develop. Or a seed company which claims ownership to age-old resources, and then puts you out of business because their litigators are better than yours?

No offense intended - I'm just not going to get into a debate on topics such as Monsanto.

No offense taken, but you've made it clear you're not actually willing to debate intellectual property laws, where they matter. It's easy enough to claim that Joe College has no right to use the Justin Bieber's latest masterpiece for his frat-house videos. But that's an issue of no importance and which has no financial consequence to either the "thief" or the copyright holder.

And as a "creator" -- good, bad or indifferent -- I'd be happy to accept lesser copyright protections, in return for cheaper drugs and operating systems, and freedom from the likes of Monsanto. Except for Justin Bieber and his owners, that arrangement would be great bargain for most "artists". The money saved on drugs alone would amount to more than is spent annually on the arts, in the U.S. We're talking hundreds of billions.

@thorn

Sorry, but we're talking about Monsanto's intellectual property rights, as granted by the U.S. government (and enforced abroad, via trade sanctions), and their far reaching effects. Whether you approve (or don't) of Monsanto's products or GMO foods is irrelevant, even forgetting that Monsanto opposes labeling its GMO products (so much for consumer choice). In some cases, they even managed to make labeling a crime (the crime of "confusing" consumers).

And which only goes to support my original contention: insisting on intellectual property rights in cases where they are of little or no consequence -- somebody's going to steal my precious $585 GH4 movie! or my immortal garage band guitar solo! -- is a just a way to obscure the real issues and the true costs of these governmental-granted licenses.

The whole campaign recalls the "death tax" debate in the U.S.: the anti-tax forces managed to convince people who have no chance of ever earning enough money to be subject to such taxes that their "heirs" were going to be robbed blind by Uncle Sam.

I have always found it fascinating that someone with absolutely no concept of who most of the people say in the "death tax" issue are spouts farts so happily. I'm from the US northwest, grew up on a very small farm 6 acres) that was profitable enough for a family in the 1950s but not enough by the time I went to college in 1971. Around farmers and farm families. By actual data-sets, it's the neighbors of mine growing up ... and my wife, who also grew up on a farm ... who've been affected most by "death taxes". Not rich folks somewhere living off stocks & bond income, as those are "held" differently in a legal sense.

No, it's individual business owners ... mostly farms ... who've been hit with "death taxes" and which normally result in the family's business having to be parted out on forced-sale to pay the taxes. Which obviously some folks here are more than happy to have happen. I've known a fair number of family farm-businesses which came to an end this way, and I wasn't as thrilled about it as perhaps jrd.

The net result is much of the land of farms put out of business by taxes demanding a cash payment of (not unusually) 35% of the entire value of the land, barns, and expensive equipment within 60 days ... is the "person" buying the place out, or the pieces of it, are "corporate" farming operations. Who, by the nature of their business structure, are not subject to "death taxes".

I realize reality is a nasty pill for those with their obsessions, but ah well ... and the conflation in this thread of support for individuals to maintain ownership and full income potential from their intellectual works with supporting 200 year copyrights for Disney is a joke. A rather sick one, but again ... there it is.

No, it's individual business owners ... mostly farms ... who've been hit with "death taxes"....

For those convinced that the real "victims" of inheritance taxes are small business owners and family farmers, I can only suggest you research the field and try to find examples of businesses and farms which had to be liquidated to pay estate taxes, because the anti-estate tax fanatics in Congress have yet to supply them. Note that the threshold for Federal estate taxes is now $5.34 million, or effectively $10.68 million per married couple. An estate with a penny less doesn't pay a dime of tax. But you'll still find guys making $25/hr. railing against such taxes, under the impression that the government is going to rob their funeral.

As for the small business/family farm myth generally:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=2655

Myth 5: Many small, family-owned farms and businesses must be liquidated to pay estate taxes.

Reality: Only a handful of small, family-owned farms and businesses owe any estate tax at all, and virtually none would have to be liquidated to pay the tax.

TPC estimates that only 20 small business and farm estates nationwide will owe any estate tax in 2013.[10] (TPC’s analysis defined a small-business estate as one with more than half its value in a farm or business and with the farm or business assets valued at less than $5 million.) This figure represents only 0.00075 percent of all estates — that is, about one out of every 130,000 estates of people who die this year. Furthermore, these 20 estates will owe just 4.9 percent of their value in tax, on average.[11]

These findings are consistent with a 2005 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study that exploded the myth that many small businesses and farms have to be liquidated to pay the estate tax. CBO found that of the few farm and family business estates that would owe any estate tax under the rules scheduled to be in effect in 2009, the overwhelming majority would have sufficient liquid assets (such as bank accounts, stocks, bonds, and insurance) in the estate to pay the tax without having to touch the farm or business.[12] Because the current rules are even more generous than the policies CBO analyzed, even fewer estates today would be forced to sell farm or business assets.

Furthermore, for the few taxable estates that would face any liquidity constraints, there are special provisions written into the law for them — such as the option to spread estate tax payments over a 15-year period and at low interest rates — that would allow them to pay the tax without having to sell off any of the farm assets.

Of course, even fewer estates are now subject to tax, since the threshold for tax is a few million higher than it was when this study was conducted.

I realize reality is a nasty pill for those with their obsessions

A truer word was never spoken, but we likely disagree on who the obsessives are. However, you are certainly right that it was foolish of me to conflate the attitudes of "death tax" obsessives and copyright obsessives, analogous though they are.

@thebeatsuite

Just remember to note that you have financial interest here as you actually sell music rights. So for you it is very good news.

The Internet as we know it is dying

But for the gamers who produce much of the content, the idea that Google’s copyright cop, ContentID, might suddenly be patrolling their world is a nightmare. It is not uncommon for Twitch TV gamers to stream themselves playing a game while simultaneously listening to recorded music. If, after integrating with YouTube, rights holders start using ContentID to claim ownership over the intellectual property in over those videos, the advertising revenue generated by those videos would no longer end up in the hands of the creators of that revenue. Even scarier, to some, is that the possibility that years of previously produced streams might suddenly come under interdiction. And ContentID is by no means infallible: They make plenty of (costly) mistakes.

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/26/the_internet_as_we_know_it_is_dying/

I think that fair use should be extended to short quotes rights in regard of copyright music. I don't think it's fair that one writer can legally quote for instance another writer or movie dialogue without permission, while a movie maker cannot insert a short peace of copyright music without paying amounts of money to rights owners (most of the time big global firms for mainstream/classical music).

I don't know how it works in other countries, but there was an interesting case in France regarding this matter. While "quoting" a song is not specifically addressed in french law, previous usage of law (jurisprudence) was to systematically forbid usage of copyright music in other medias without permission.

In 2002, a mainstream radio station used a famous song in one of its jingle without the permission of the rights owners : they react and put the radio on trial. Interestingly, the attorneys of the radio chose the concept of "short quote right" ("droit de courte citation" in french) to build their defense. Concept that is usually limited to writing activities.

In result the judges accepted their defense, but finally decided that the 30s used without permission by the radio couldn't be considered a "quote" of a 3 minutes song (a 16% quoting rate). It is the first time in France that the right to quote music without permission has been recognized and I think we should continue moving in that direction.

Maybe a 5% quoting rate could be recognized in fair use of copyright music. No legislation has currently stated on this matter, but this french example will perhaps have more consequences in future cases like that. That is my hope anyway. Using 9 seconds of a 15 minutes track should not be affected by copyright restrictions and fees.

@thebeatsuite In many cases it is may not possible to hold, and therefore license the rights. At best, one can create a layer of insulation. For example, most musical editions are based on other editions or arrangements. Imagine trying to track down the origin of every riff.

Strange approach.... short term gain of reducing resources demand, but long term it will ruthlessly kill the user base!