A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

almost Cycling News



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 23rd 19, 01:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default almost Cycling News

On 3/22/2019 4:28 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 8:21:46 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:34:58 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:39:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

https://www.si.com/edge/2019/03/19/p...t-150-million-
copyright-infringement-unlicensed-songs

As it turns out, stealing is wrong. This is news to some people
apparently

It wasn't "stealing" as nothing was taken from anyone. The failures
were in "licensing the performance" and in the taste of Peleton.

Which means the revenue due to the artists, composers, etc., was stolen
from them by Peloton. How is that not immediately understandable to
you? There are laws governing copyright, royalties, mechanical
licenses, etc.


Tim, if they simply turned a radio station on that plays that sort of
music no one could have a beef.


Radio stations pay license fees to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, some trickle of
which goes to the original artists (who are generally not the copyright
holders). But there are plenty of beefs to go around, for example
playing the radio for customer entertainment in a restaurant or other
business without additional licensing is a problem.

I do hesitate at the word "stealing". Copyright infringement may be
unlawful, wrong, dishonest &c, but it's not literaly stealing. If
someone steals your bicycle, you no longer have that bicycle. If
someone uses your copyrighted material without license, you may have
lost some potential income from it, but it's not obvious how much.


If you look into this, defendant is accused of producing and
selling videos (packaged with their product) using materials
they did not create and had not paid to use.

No different from hijacking a copy of software without
paying, sneaking into a theater without a ticket, etc.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Ads
  #12  
Old March 24th 19, 02:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default almost Cycling News

AMuzi writes:

On 3/22/2019 4:28 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 8:21:46 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:34:58 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:39:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

https://www.si.com/edge/2019/03/19/p...t-150-million-
copyright-infringement-unlicensed-songs

As it turns out, stealing is wrong. This is news to some people
apparently

It wasn't "stealing" as nothing was taken from anyone. The failures
were in "licensing the performance" and in the taste of Peleton.

Which means the revenue due to the artists, composers, etc., was stolen
from them by Peloton. How is that not immediately understandable to
you? There are laws governing copyright, royalties, mechanical
licenses, etc.

Tim, if they simply turned a radio station on that plays that sort of
music no one could have a beef.


Radio stations pay license fees to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, some trickle of
which goes to the original artists (who are generally not the copyright
holders). But there are plenty of beefs to go around, for example
playing the radio for customer entertainment in a restaurant or other
business without additional licensing is a problem.

I do hesitate at the word "stealing". Copyright infringement may be
unlawful, wrong, dishonest &c, but it's not literaly stealing. If
someone steals your bicycle, you no longer have that bicycle. If
someone uses your copyrighted material without license, you may have
lost some potential income from it, but it's not obvious how much.


If you look into this, defendant is accused of producing and selling
videos (packaged with their product) using materials they did not
create and had not paid to use.

No different from hijacking a copy of software without paying,
sneaking into a theater without a ticket, etc.


Both of those are good analogies, practices dishonest and not to be
countenanced. They're not exactly stealing, though.
  #13  
Old March 24th 19, 03:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default almost Cycling News

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 21:45:03 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

AMuzi writes:

On 3/22/2019 4:28 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 8:21:46 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:34:58 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:39:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

https://www.si.com/edge/2019/03/19/p...t-150-million-
copyright-infringement-unlicensed-songs

As it turns out, stealing is wrong. This is news to some people
apparently

It wasn't "stealing" as nothing was taken from anyone. The failures
were in "licensing the performance" and in the taste of Peleton.

Which means the revenue due to the artists, composers, etc., was stolen
from them by Peloton. How is that not immediately understandable to
you? There are laws governing copyright, royalties, mechanical
licenses, etc.

Tim, if they simply turned a radio station on that plays that sort of
music no one could have a beef.

Radio stations pay license fees to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, some trickle of
which goes to the original artists (who are generally not the copyright
holders). But there are plenty of beefs to go around, for example
playing the radio for customer entertainment in a restaurant or other
business without additional licensing is a problem.

I do hesitate at the word "stealing". Copyright infringement may be
unlawful, wrong, dishonest &c, but it's not literaly stealing. If
someone steals your bicycle, you no longer have that bicycle. If
someone uses your copyrighted material without license, you may have
lost some potential income from it, but it's not obvious how much.


If you look into this, defendant is accused of producing and selling
videos (packaged with their product) using materials they did not
create and had not paid to use.

No different from hijacking a copy of software without paying,
sneaking into a theater without a ticket, etc.


Both of those are good analogies, practices dishonest and not to be
countenanced. They're not exactly stealing, though.


"Steal" is a legal term, at least under British common law, and is
described as: "(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly
appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall
be construed accordingly.

So sneaking into a theaters is not "stealing" per se. Nor is illegally
using a copyright document, that is "copyright infringement".

However colloquial use is probably to call both stealing or maybe
piracy.

  #14  
Old March 24th 19, 10:24 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default almost Cycling News

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 10:58:48 PM UTC-4, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 21:45:03 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

AMuzi writes:

On 3/22/2019 4:28 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 8:21:46 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:34:58 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:39:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

https://www.si.com/edge/2019/03/19/p...t-150-million-
copyright-infringement-unlicensed-songs

As it turns out, stealing is wrong. This is news to some people
apparently

It wasn't "stealing" as nothing was taken from anyone. The failures
were in "licensing the performance" and in the taste of Peleton.

Which means the revenue due to the artists, composers, etc., was stolen
from them by Peloton. How is that not immediately understandable to
you? There are laws governing copyright, royalties, mechanical
licenses, etc.

Tim, if they simply turned a radio station on that plays that sort of
music no one could have a beef.

Radio stations pay license fees to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, some trickle of
which goes to the original artists (who are generally not the copyright
holders). But there are plenty of beefs to go around, for example
playing the radio for customer entertainment in a restaurant or other
business without additional licensing is a problem.

I do hesitate at the word "stealing". Copyright infringement may be
unlawful, wrong, dishonest &c, but it's not literaly stealing. If
someone steals your bicycle, you no longer have that bicycle. If
someone uses your copyrighted material without license, you may have
lost some potential income from it, but it's not obvious how much.


If you look into this, defendant is accused of producing and selling
videos (packaged with their product) using materials they did not
create and had not paid to use.

No different from hijacking a copy of software without paying,
sneaking into a theater without a ticket, etc.


Both of those are good analogies, practices dishonest and not to be
countenanced. They're not exactly stealing, though.


"Steal" is a legal term, at least under British common law, and is
described as: "(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly
appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall
be construed accordingly.

So sneaking into a theaters is not "stealing" per se. Nor is illegally
using a copyright document, that is "copyright infringement".

However colloquial use is probably to call both stealing or maybe
piracy.


When I was a little kid my dad told me that if I had something that I or another family member didn't buy and give to me it wasn't mine then it was stolen.

Thus according to him, taking songs or videos from the internet where either song or video was copyrighted was stealing.

Cheers
  #15  
Old March 25th 19, 02:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default almost Cycling News

Sir Ridesalot writes:

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 10:58:48 PM UTC-4, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 21:45:03 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

AMuzi writes:

On 3/22/2019 4:28 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 8:21:46 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:34:58 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:39:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

https://www.si.com/edge/2019/03/19/p...t-150-million-
copyright-infringement-unlicensed-songs

As it turns out, stealing is wrong. This is news to some people
apparently

It wasn't "stealing" as nothing was taken from anyone. The failures
were in "licensing the performance" and in the taste of Peleton.

Which means the revenue due to the artists, composers, etc., was stolen
from them by Peloton. How is that not immediately understandable to
you? There are laws governing copyright, royalties, mechanical
licenses, etc.

Tim, if they simply turned a radio station on that plays that sort of
music no one could have a beef.

Radio stations pay license fees to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, some trickle of
which goes to the original artists (who are generally not the copyright
holders). But there are plenty of beefs to go around, for example
playing the radio for customer entertainment in a restaurant or other
business without additional licensing is a problem.

I do hesitate at the word "stealing". Copyright infringement may be
unlawful, wrong, dishonest &c, but it's not literaly stealing. If
someone steals your bicycle, you no longer have that bicycle. If
someone uses your copyrighted material without license, you may have
lost some potential income from it, but it's not obvious how much.


If you look into this, defendant is accused of producing and selling
videos (packaged with their product) using materials they did not
create and had not paid to use.

No different from hijacking a copy of software without paying,
sneaking into a theater without a ticket, etc.

Both of those are good analogies, practices dishonest and not to be
countenanced. They're not exactly stealing, though.


"Steal" is a legal term, at least under British common law, and is
described as: "(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly
appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall
be construed accordingly.

So sneaking into a theaters is not "stealing" per se. Nor is illegally
using a copyright document, that is "copyright infringement".

However colloquial use is probably to call both stealing or maybe
piracy.


When I was a little kid my dad told me that if I had something that I
or another family member didn't buy and give to me it wasn't mine then
it was stolen.

Thus according to him, taking songs or videos from the internet where
either song or video was copyrighted was stealing.


What about if the wait staff at your birthday venue sang "Happy
Birthday" to you -- stealing? It took years of litigation to establish
that the copyright to "Happy Birthday", aggressively enforced though it
was, was totally bogus.
  #16  
Old March 26th 19, 04:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default almost Cycling News

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 22:21:40 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:34:58 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:39:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

https://www.si.com/edge/2019/03/19/p...t-150-million-

copyright-infringement-unlicensed-songs

As it turns out, stealing is wrong. This is news to some people
apparently


It wasn't "stealing" as nothing was taken from anyone. The failures
were in "licensing the performance" and in the taste of Peleton.


Which means the revenue due to the artists, composers, etc., was stolen
from them by Peloton. How is that not immediately understandable to
you? There are laws governing copyright, royalties, mechanical
licenses, etc.


It wasn't "stolen". The artists, etc still have their material. Very
fundmental difference.

In reality, they would have probably only revieved a fraction of a cent
for its use anyway. Have you totally missed the complaints by artists etc
of all the kerfuffle over their royalties of the companies that do
distribute their "creations"?

  #17  
Old March 26th 19, 04:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default almost Cycling News

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 09:58:43 +0700, John B Slocomb wrote:


So sneaking into a theaters is not "stealing" per se. Nor is illegally
using a copyright document, that is "copyright infringement".

However colloquial use is probably to call both stealing or maybe
piracy.


It is part of the political program of that ancient "recording
distributin industry". Also a good test of the people you deal with in
life.

  #18  
Old March 26th 19, 04:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default almost Cycling News

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 02:24:09 -0700, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 10:58:48 PM UTC-4, John B Slocomb wrote:


However colloquial use is probably to call both stealing or maybe
piracy.


When I was a little kid my dad told me that if I had something that I or
another family member didn't buy and give to me it wasn't mine then it
was stolen.

Thus according to him, taking songs or videos from the internet where
either song or video was copyrighted was stealing.

Cheers


Lots of concepts are simplified to enable chidren to grasp basic ideas.
There is no excuse for an adult not to understand the difference.

  #19  
Old March 26th 19, 04:25 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default almost Cycling News

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 08:39:33 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/21/2019 10:21 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 22:34:58 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 15:39:51 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

https://www.si.com/edge/2019/03/19/p...t-150-million-
copyright-infringement-unlicensed-songs

As it turns out, stealing is wrong. This is news to some people
apparently

It wasn't "stealing" as nothing was taken from anyone. The failures
were in "licensing the performance" and in the taste of Peleton.


Which means the revenue due to the artists, composers, etc., was stolen
from them by Peloton. How is that not immediately understandable to
you? There are laws governing copyright, royalties, mechanical
licenses, etc.


Everyone here who has written and sold software understood it.


Yep, but the whoe concept gets dicey very quickly when the programmers,
et all, "re use" that software to sell to another company/buyer.

OTOH, linux and Free Software.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
cycling news AMuzi Techniques 5 May 7th 13 01:40 PM
What's up with Cycling News? ilan[_2_] Racing 1 February 10th 11 02:58 PM
Cycling News Sandy Racing 8 May 25th 07 06:05 PM
More cycling news Tim Hall UK 18 December 7th 06 01:28 PM
Cycling News RSS Ewoud Dronkert Racing 7 September 28th 06 09:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.