Search options (Page 67 of 78)

an0va wrote:

Posted by a grumpy facebook friend of mine:

thoughts?

In a way I think this is Andy Baio's whole point. Creative actions (or really any actions) end up being governed not by what the laws dictate, but by one's ability to maintain a legal fight. The main question -- whether or not the referencing of the photo was in accordance with the law -- becomes totally immaterial, because the question never even reaches a courtroom.

I think what Andy Baio is saying is this: even if you act in accordance with the law, nothing prevents someone from suing you anyway, so nothing protects you from facing the awful choice of spending thousands in a court fight or spending thousands in a settlement. Once the threat of a lawsuit exists, the question is no longer about whether you were right or wrong originally, it's about affording the fight. Regardless of whether it's a fight you asked for, or whether you really "bought a ticket." 

The commenter's failing to understand that if you believe you're acting in accordance with the law, you have no reason to think you've "bought your ticket." We drive 50 in a 55 MPH zone; then a cop pulls us over & says we were doing 60. Was that a ticket we bought? We photocopy a chapter from a book for our 20-student class (almost universally seen as falling within the "fair use" exception to copyright laws governing reproduction). Did we buy a ticket there?

It's really up to a court of law to determine whether we did or didn't. But since getting into a court of law means financial ruin for most individuals, settling generally becomes the only viable option, and the party issuing the lawsuit gets their way.

In other words, costs of going to court mean that the mere threat of a lawsuit becomes just as effective a deterrent as the consequences of actually breaking the law, and this means that anyone with the ability to file a lawsuit stands to unduly influence what is and isn't done artistically.

So the guy is mad he got sued for copyright infringment for the creation of an unlicensed derivative work of the photo? Fair use is an "affirmative defense" which, saving you the legal mumbo-jumbo, means you buy-your-ticket-you-take-your-ride. Even if your fair use defense is a "winner," you have to spend lots of time and money litigating it. The guy clearly knew he could get a license (as he did to cover the songs), and shouldn't cry foul when he takes his calculated risk with the cover and loses...

just real quick any USB audio interface you get will be at least usb 2.0, Firewire is good but only if you have a computer with firewire, and not many do these days. that's something to keep in mind though when looking at computers because a lot of audio things do use firewire, but for the most part USB should be fine

an0va wrote:

Gah. "Do you think this would be a problem?"

Now read the post above yours.

I would just like to add that IAYD is no trent reznor

Not true. You cant release covers of songs for free or otherwise without permission.