I'm a little too young to have been much affected by Michael Jackson's music. To my fourth grade ears, Weird Al's renditions of Fat and Eat It were immensely more entertaining than the source of their parody. Of course, for some reason I thought Madonna and Marilyn Monroe were the same person until I was twelve, so my childhood reflections upon popular culture are probably entirely lacking a relationship with reality. The main impact Michael Jackson had on me was a realization of the clusterfuck of American copyright law.
In 1985, Michael Jackson purchased for $48 million the rights to the ATV Music catalog, which included most of the Beatles songs written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney. McCartney hoped to win the rights to the catalog himself with a little help from his friend (Yoko, oh the irony), but was outbid by the King of Pop. The incident did not exactly have a beneficial impact on the friendship of the pair. The story is legendary at this point and is often retold with one of two underlying messages: look what a dick Michael Jackson was, or look how out of touch Michael Jackson is with reality that he'll drop fifty million dollars on a lark to fuck over a friend as a joke.
The conclusion I drew was far simpler: how can Paul McCartney not own the rights to his own songs? How is it rational that Paul McCartney owes Michael Jackson money every time he sings "Hey Jude" or "I am the Walrus"? Well you see, someone else owned the rights, and then sold those rights to someone else, who bundled them into an attractive package and sold all those rights to all those songs as a lump legal entity. It's quite simple if you can think like a lawyer instead of a human being.
Stop for a second and think about theft. There are two components to stealing: you take something and the person you took it from no longer has it. When you take a picture of someone, it is not stealing. You made a copy of them, but they still exist, nothing (well except their soul if you're of certain stone aged religions) is missing that was there before. Copying does not meet the common sense definition of theft. I cannot have stolen something from you, if you still have it after the supposed theft.
Consider copying a song instead of photographing a person. You copy the song onto your computer from a friend's iPod. Your friend still has the song, but now you also have it. Nothing has been stolen. Ah, but you see, you just cost the record company the value of that song, so you stole from them. Does the record company still have a copy of the song? Well, yes. Then how was anything stolen from them? Well it's not really the song that was stolen per se, it was the money. What money? The money you would have paid them for the song. So if I had no intent to purchase the song, then I didn't actually steal anything? Or put in another way, if Schrödinger's cat is simultaneously alive and dead in that box, then he owes $1.9 million to the RIAA.
Enough dancing straw men, they enflame my allergies anyway. The root of the problem with copyright logic is that it only makes sense within a certain framework of legal assumptions that do not exist outside the minds of attorneys. Any file on your computer is just a big long list of zeroes and ones that when read in the right way become a picture of breasts, or a pop song, or a shopping list, or this article that you're reading right now, or a picture of bigger breasts. Saying that it is illegal to copy a song is the technical equivalent of outlawing a number.
In any case the lesson is, every time you download a Beatles song without paying for it, you're stealing money. From Michael Jackson's children. And won't someone think of the children?
In 1985, Michael Jackson purchased for $48 million the rights to the ATV Music catalog, which included most of the Beatles songs written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney. McCartney hoped to win the rights to the catalog himself with a little help from his friend (Yoko, oh the irony), but was outbid by the King of Pop. The incident did not exactly have a beneficial impact on the friendship of the pair. The story is legendary at this point and is often retold with one of two underlying messages: look what a dick Michael Jackson was, or look how out of touch Michael Jackson is with reality that he'll drop fifty million dollars on a lark to fuck over a friend as a joke.
The conclusion I drew was far simpler: how can Paul McCartney not own the rights to his own songs? How is it rational that Paul McCartney owes Michael Jackson money every time he sings "Hey Jude" or "I am the Walrus"? Well you see, someone else owned the rights, and then sold those rights to someone else, who bundled them into an attractive package and sold all those rights to all those songs as a lump legal entity. It's quite simple if you can think like a lawyer instead of a human being.
Stop for a second and think about theft. There are two components to stealing: you take something and the person you took it from no longer has it. When you take a picture of someone, it is not stealing. You made a copy of them, but they still exist, nothing (well except their soul if you're of certain stone aged religions) is missing that was there before. Copying does not meet the common sense definition of theft. I cannot have stolen something from you, if you still have it after the supposed theft.
Consider copying a song instead of photographing a person. You copy the song onto your computer from a friend's iPod. Your friend still has the song, but now you also have it. Nothing has been stolen. Ah, but you see, you just cost the record company the value of that song, so you stole from them. Does the record company still have a copy of the song? Well, yes. Then how was anything stolen from them? Well it's not really the song that was stolen per se, it was the money. What money? The money you would have paid them for the song. So if I had no intent to purchase the song, then I didn't actually steal anything? Or put in another way, if Schrödinger's cat is simultaneously alive and dead in that box, then he owes $1.9 million to the RIAA.
Enough dancing straw men, they enflame my allergies anyway. The root of the problem with copyright logic is that it only makes sense within a certain framework of legal assumptions that do not exist outside the minds of attorneys. Any file on your computer is just a big long list of zeroes and ones that when read in the right way become a picture of breasts, or a pop song, or a shopping list, or this article that you're reading right now, or a picture of bigger breasts. Saying that it is illegal to copy a song is the technical equivalent of outlawing a number.
In any case the lesson is, every time you download a Beatles song without paying for it, you're stealing money. From Michael Jackson's children. And won't someone think of the children?
I wonder then if the MJ camp profited from the creation of Rock Band: Beatles? Was the intellectual property that was used in that game owned by Micheal?
perfectjargon: That's an interesting point you bring up. It looks like most of the songs used were owned by ATV (and thus yes, Michael Jackson's estate gets paid for that). However, Apple Corp (the sort of holding company owned by McCartney, Lennon, etc.) played a huge role in the development of the game because it features the likenesses of the Beatles at length, which is not something that got sold along with the licensing rights to the music. So in short, MJ made some cash on that game, but the primary third party was still the Beatles themselves.
That is one of the worst assessments of copyright I've ever heard. This is almost Rush Limbaugh stupid.
The very existence of real arguments on either side of the "copyright debate" - the rights of artists and consumers - is how the protection of those rights develop (push and pull effect), so that, at any given time, neither side supposedly gains too much power.
You didn't even acknowledge any particular point. I am more stupid for having read the above garbage. Don't bother addressing an issue you know nothing about, redneck.
Peter G: By all means, please explain the real arguments defending what seems to many to be a completely incoherent approach to copyrights. But don't resort to name calling, it's just tacky.
ace read, I will come back
Your page looks good. What theme have you been using?
Oh gosh lovely nice you saved me a lot of time and frustration.thaaanks
Hi there people, all man's situations have their ups and downs. We feel those of the here and now but neither see or feel those of the future
I wanted to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely loved every little bit of it. I have you bookmarked your site to check out the latest stuff you post.
I found your site on google. I couldn't agree more. Weight loss isn't rocket science like some people would have you believe. It just takes some dedication and discipline. I will definately be back to check your site.
Hello, thanks for this wonderful article, a really great beginning to the 2010, keep up the excellent work, Rachel.
i really like your blogg, very good reading.
Have you ever considered adding more videos to your blog posts to keep the readers more entertained? I mean I just read through the entire article of yours and it was quite good but since I'm more of a visual learner,I found that to be more helpful well let me know how it turns out. This is good...thanks for sharing
Excellent work. You have gained a new subscriber. I hope you can keep up the good work and I await more of your excellent posts. can I use a link for this post in my website please?
Saw your blog bookmarked on Delicious. I love your site and marketing strategy. My Dancing Lessons Blog - http://theperfectpointreview.blogspot.com
Shoe lifts are wedge-shaped inserts that are placed in the heel part of a shoe, with the intention of adding elevation beneath one or both feet for therapeutic purposes. People who suffer foot pain when wearing shoes for an extended time. height insoles can reduce pain. Shoe inserts are also great for people who wish to increase their height.
I admit, I have not been on this webpage in a long time... however it was another joy to see It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. I thank you to help making people more aware of possible issues.
Shoe inserts are wedge-shaped inserts which are placed in the heel portion of a shoe, with the purpose of adding lift beneath one or both feet for therapeutic reasons. Those who suffer foot pain when wearing shoes for a long time. height insoles can relieve pain. Shoe inserts are also great for people who wish to increase their height.
Great site I’m happy I stumbled onto it through my friend’s blog. Going to need to add another blog to the morning routine
Shoe inserts are wedge-shaped blocks that slip in the heel part of a shoe, with the purpose of adding elevation under one or both feet for therapeutic reasons. Those who suffer foot pain when wearing shoes for an extended time. Shoe lifts can reduce suffering. Shoe inserts are also perfect for people who wish to increase their height.
Hi, fantastic blog, I thouroughly enjoyed reading it. the article gave me the kick to try my own post, please check my article by clicking my name at the top of this comment, thank you
Michael Jackson is completely the best performers of all time. I even now can't believe he's gone.
Awesome blog post, thanks for the info.
Hey, great blog...but I don’t understand how to add your site in my rss reader. Can you Help me, please :)
Where is your feed link? I like your posts and I'm trying to get them to show up in Google reader.
I like your site, and am trying to find your RSS link to add to google reader. I don't see the link anywhere!
I really like the fresh perpective you did on the matter. Really was not thinking that when I started out browsing. Your tips were easy to comprehend that I wondered how come I never considered it before. Pleased to know that there's an individual out there that basically understands what he's preaching about. Wonderful job!