He pleads ignorance and is found GUILTY! [McCain]

[Kanastrous]

Since the artist has stated loudly, clearly and publicly that he does not support that political campaign, I doubt he has much to worry about, there.

And I'm not splitting hairs; I'm pointing out that while it's very clear that this is a copyright-infringement case, it's not clear whether or not the court is deciding upon anything at all when it comes to the artist's concern that the use of his song disagrees with his political views, or whether he's concerned that the use of the song in context will adversely affect future sales of his material.

[Kanastrous]

Just like someone who illicitly takes some music or a movie without paying for it, is gaining a tangible benefit: they now hold a copy of the media and have gained the enjoyment of owning and viewing it. The original creators' and owners' beliefs notwithstanding.

This is completely different, and you're a block-headed, self-righteous moron if you don't realize it. It's the difference between 'Hey, I got something I may or may not have bought' and 'Hey, I got something AND AM USING IT TO INCREASE MY MATERIAL WEALTH/POWER.'

In the former case the person taking the media illicitly *is* increasing their material wealth: they now own something that they did not own, before having illicitly taken it. The fact that the thing-of-value they have taken is a copy of a digital file does not alter the fact that after having taken it they have more than before they took it.

Seems that the illictly obtained file residing on a hard drive, CD, or other storage media qualifies as 'tangible,' even if the enjoyment of listening to it may not.

Sheesh, you're dense. OH NO. DATA MAY EXIST. We should outlaw unauthorized reproduction of magnetic fields of similar patterns! Having a song on your hard drive is not at all the same thing as using it in an advertisement.

Taking a copyrighted product illicitly and using it for gain is the same as taking a copyrighted product illicitly and using it for gain. Whether the gain consists of politicking or of enjoying something for free that you are supposed to pay for is irrelevant.

[Nephtys]

Since the artist has stated loudly, clearly and publicly that he does not support that political campaign, I doubt he has much to worry about, there.

Because things are okay, as long as you say something afterwards because someone else misused your stuff? Imagine an advertisement promoting something horrible such as child or drug abuse, using your song/images/name/face/whatever. Is that okay, since you can say 'Hey, I'm not cool with that!' afterwards? No!

And I'm not splitting hairs; I'm pointing out that while it's very clear that this is a copyright-infringement case, it's not clear whether or not the court is deciding upon anything at all when it comes to the artist's concern that the use of his song disagrees with his political views, or whether he's concerned that the use of the song in context will adversely affect future sales of his material.

We should presume guilt and have the record labels immediately sue John McCain for five times the world's GDP, for estimated damages. Every human being who is within auditory or viewing range of a television set could have listened to the unauthorized song reproduction instead of spending $20 to buy a CD.

[General Zod]

In the former case the person taking the media illicitly *is* increasing their material wealth: they now own something that they did not own, before having illicitly taken it. The fact that the thing-of-value they have taken is a copy of a digital file does not alter the fact that after having taken it they have more than before they took it.

Since the campaign actually paid for the song over iTunes, just not for more than private use, making this comparison is rather dishonest, and why they were attempting to argue from a fair use angle in the first place.

Taking a copyrighted product illicitly and using it for gain is the same as taking a copyrighted product illicitly and using it for gain. Whether the gain consists of politicking or of enjoying something for free that you are supposed to pay for is irrelevant.

Except he did pay for it. What he didn't do was ask permission to use it in a commercial ad. Until McCain apologizes for making the association it doesn't matter how many times the artist denies it.

[Nephtys]

Just like someone who illicitly takes some music or a movie without paying for it, is gaining a tangible benefit: they now hold a copy of the media and have gained the enjoyment of owning and viewing it. The original creators' and owners' beliefs notwithstanding.

This is completely different, and you're a block-headed, self-righteous moron if you don't realize it. It's the difference between 'Hey, I got something I may or may not have bought' and 'Hey, I got something AND AM USING IT TO INCREASE MY MATERIAL WEALTH/POWER.'

In the former case the person taking the media illicitly *is* increasing their material wealth: they now own something that they did not own, before having illicitly taken it. The fact that the thing-of-value they have taken is a copy of a digital file does not alter the fact that after having taken it they have more than before they took it.

Having a song is material wealth that equates to using a song in a multimillion dollar advertisement? So uh. By your logic, taking one cent left on the change jar at a store checkout is the exact same as robbing ten billion dollars?

Seems that the illictly obtained file residing on a hard drive, CD, or other storage media qualifies as 'tangible,' even if the enjoyment of listening to it may not.

Sheesh, you're dense. OH NO. DATA MAY EXIST. We should outlaw unauthorized reproduction of magnetic fields of similar patterns! Having a song on your hard drive is not at all the same thing as using it in an advertisement.

Taking a copyrighted product illicitly and using it for gain is the same as taking a copyrighted product illicitly and using it for gain. Whether the gain consists of politicking or of enjoying something for free that you are supposed to pay for is irrelevant.

So again, my 'tangible' benefit of having a song I don't want to listen to, and never will listen to, as a collection of magnetic patterns equates to the 'tangible' benefit of promoting my agenda to become the leader of the most economically and political entity on Earth?

[Kanastrous]

In the former case the person taking the media illicitly *is* increasing their material wealth: they now own something that they did not own, before having illicitly taken it. The fact that the thing-of-value they have taken is a copy of a digital file does not alter the fact that after having taken it they have more than before they took it.

Since the campaign actually paid for the song over iTunes, just not for more than private use, making this comparison is rather dishonest, and why they were attempting to argue from a fair use angle in the first place.

As you pointed out it is still a matter of violating the copyright holders' right to control and profit from the work, since the campaign did not purchase rights to utilize the song in the manner they did. Which impresses me as being as much a violation of copyright as if they had purchased no rights at all before using it, if they didn't clear it for the specific use to which it was actually put.

I'll ask the clearance-and-copyright folks here on the lot what they think.

[General Zod]

As you pointed out it is still a matter of violating the copyright holders' right to control and profit from the work, since the campaign did not purchase rights to utilize the song in the manner they did. Which impresses me as being as much a violation of copyright as if they had purchased no rights at all before using it, if they didn't clear it for the specific use to which it was actually put.

Nobody's denying that it's a copyright infringement lawsuit. But for some bizarre reason you seem to be insisting that it's the only issue that matters, as though damaging the artist's image by giving an impression of false endorsement isn't more serious. Especially when the RNC has a rather long history of doing shit like this.

[Kanastrous]

I don't regard the business of supposed damage to the artist's image as a serious claim, in this specific case.

Although if there is actually evidence supporting the claim, I guess that I would have to take it more seriously.

[General Zod]

I don't regard the business of supposed damage to the artist's image as a serious claim, in this specific case.

The judge apparently does, as he's allowing the lawsuit to continue since it's a substantial portion of the claim.

Although if there is actually evidence supporting the claim, I guess that I would have to take it more seriously.

What more evidence do you need? Artists who endorse a politician or cause generally let them use their song or movie or whatever as part of events. How does that not inadvertently give the impression of an endorsement, when they would normally have to get permission from the artist to use it in the first place?

[Nephtys]

I don't regard the business of supposed damage to the artist's image as a serious claim, in this specific case. Although if there is actually evidence supporting the claim, I guess that I would have to take it more seriously.

You seem to regard the business of supposed damage to record labels quite seriously. Also note, that this case isn't what 'you' regard. Most of reality is detached from what 'you' regard. Your claims that stealing a song is the same as using a song without permission in a multimillion dollar advertisement reflect this.

[Kanastrous]

I don't regard the business of supposed damage to the artist's image as a serious claim, in this specific case.

The judge apparently does, as he's allowing the lawsuit to continue since it's a substantial portion of the claim.

I have yet to read the available court documents. Which I guess I should track down.

Although if there is actually evidence supporting the claim, I guess that I would have to take it more seriously.

What more evidence do you need? Artists who endorse a politician or cause generally let them use their song or movie or whatever as part of events. How does that not inadvertently give the impression of an endorsement, when they would normally have to get permission from the artist to use it in the first place?

If the artist is claiming that his professional reputation or marketability has been harmed by the McCain campaign, I would expect that needs to be proved in a manner similar to proving harm from slander or libel, wouldn't it? Perhaps his attorneys are planning to present supporting evidence along those lines; I don't know.